The Bloomsbury Handbook of the Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South 1350139246, 9781350139244

This Handbook covers a wide range of historical perspectives, realities, research and practice of internationalization o

308 56 11MB

English Pages 496 [663] Year 2021

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction: Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South: Setting the Scene • Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn C. Garwe, and Hans de Wit
Thematic Chapters
2 Internationalization in Higher Education: The Challenging Road from a Western Paradigm to a Global and Inclusive Concept • Hans de Wit
3 International Mapping of National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs) • Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, Daniela Crăciun, Georgiana Mihut, and Ayenachew Woldegiyorgis
Section I: Asia Pacific
4 Introduction to Asia Pacifi c Chapters • Futao Huang and Anthony R. Welch
5 Internationalization in China’s Higher Education: Trends, Achievements, and Challenges • Xiao Han and Wenqin Shen
6 Internationalization of Japan’s Higher Education • Futao Huang
7 Internationalization of Korean Higher Education (1945–2018): A Success Story • Sunwoong Kim
8 Internationalization as a Mechanism of Higher Education Modernization in Kazakhstan • Aliya Kuzhabekova
9 The Rhetoric and Reality of Malaysian Higher Education Internationalization Policy and Its Strategic Initiatives • Norzaini Azman and Chang Da Wan
10 Internationalization of Indian Higher Education: Aligning with the Mission of Knowledge Enhancement • Julie Vardhan
11 Conclusion: The Shift to the East, and the Changing Face of Internationalization • Anthony R. Welch
Section II: Latin America and the Caribbean
12 Introduction: Higher Education, Internationalization, and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean • Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila
13 Internationalization of Higher Education in Brazil • Renée Zicman
14 Internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean • Annette Insanally and Luz Inmaculada Madera
15 Internationalization of Chilean Higher Education: Research, Innovation, and Human Capital Formation in a Globalized Era • Javier González, Andrés Bernasconi, and Francisca Puyol
16 Colombian Higher Education Internationalization and Social Sustainable Development: From Meaning to Practice • Giovanni Anzola-Pardo
17 Internationalization of Higher Education in Mexico: An Unfinished Agenda • Francisco Marmolejo
18 Conclusion: Latin America and the Caribbean Internationalization Process: Main Achievements and Shortcomings • Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila
Section III: North Africa and the Middle East
19 Introduction to MENA Chapters • Wondwosen Tamrat
20 Internationalization of Higher Education in the GCC Region: Emerging Patterns and Challenges • Wondwosen Tamrat
21 Higher Education in Jordan: At the Confluence of Nationalization and Internationalization • Aref Al Attari
22 Internationalization and Globalization in Libyan Higher Education • Salem Melood Abodher
23 Internationalization of Higher Education in Morocco: Current Processes, Practices, and Challenges • Abdellah Benahnia
24 Internationalization of Higher Education in Egypt: Modalities and Policy Provisions • Teklu Abate Bekele and Bola Ibrahim
25 The Internationalization of Higher Education in Tunisia: Bridging Gaps and Cross-border Cooperation • Mohamed Salah Harzallah
26 Internationalization of Higher Education in Palestine • Kamel Mansi
27 Conclusion: Enhancing Outcomes through Internationalization: An Overview of the Higher Education Sector in the MENA Region • Julie Vardhan
Section IV: Sub-Saharan Africa
28 Introduction: Internationalization of Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa • Evelyn C. Garwe and Juliet Thondhlana
29 Internationalization of Higher Education in Ethiopia: From a Fragmented Dispensation to a Cohesive Path • Wondwosen Tamrat
30 Two Decades of Internationalizing Higher Education in South Africa • Chika T. Sehoole and Rakgadi Phatlane
31 Internationalization of Higher Education in Zimbabwe • Evelyn C. Garwe, Juliet Thondhlana, and Simon McGrath
32 Internationalizing Higher Education: An Exploratory Analysis of Policy Frameworks, Challenges, and Opportunities • Gifty Oforiwaa Gyamera
33 Accounting for Internationalization in Kenya’s Higher Education System • Ibrahim Ogachi Oanda
34 The Internationalization of Higher Education in Nigeria • Olusola Bandele Oyewole
35 Conclusion: The State of Internationalization of Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa • Hadiza Kere Abdulrahman, Evelyn C. Garwe, Juliet Thondhlana, and Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni
36 Salient Issues in the Internationalization of Higher Education in The Global South: Concluding Observations • Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn C. Garwe, and Hans de Wit
Notes on Contributors
Index
Recommend Papers

The Bloomsbury Handbook of the Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South
 1350139246, 9781350139244

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

THE BLOOMSBURY HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

i

Also available from Bloomsbury The Bloomsbury Handbook of Global Education and Learning Edited by Douglas Bourn The Bloomsbury Handbook of Theory in Comparative and International Education Edited by Tavis D. Jules, Robin Shields and Matthew A.M. Thomas The Bloomsbury Handbook of Religious Education in the Global South Edited by Yonah H. Matemba and Bruce Collet

ii

THE BLOOMSBURY HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

Edited by Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Hans de Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang, and Wondwosen Tamrat

iii

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2021 Copyright © Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Hans de Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang, Wondwosen Tamrat, and contributors, 2021 Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Hans de Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang, and Wondwosen Tamrat have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editors of this work. Cover design: Charlotte James Cover image © NiseriN / iStock All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Thondhlana, Juliet, editor. Title: The Bloomsbury handbook of the internationalization of higher education in the global South / edited by Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe, Hans de Wit, Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila, Futao Huang, and Wondwosen Tamrat. Other titles: Handbook of the internationalization of higher education in the global South Description: London ; New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020036918 (print) | LCCN 2020036919 (ebook) | ISBN 9781350139244 (hardback) | ISBN 9781350139251 (ebook) | ISBN 9781350139268 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Education, Higher–Developing countries. | Education and globalization–Developing countries. Classification: LCC LC2610 .B56 2021 (print) | LCC LC2610 (ebook) | DDC 378.009172/4—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020036918 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020036919 ISBN: HB: 978-1-3501-3924-4 ePDF: 978-1-3501-3925-1 eBook: 978-1-3501-3926-8 Series: Bloomsbury Handbooks Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters. iv

CONTENTS

L IST OF F IGURES

ix

L IST OF T ABLES

xii

1

Introduction: Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South: Setting the Scene Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn C. Garwe, and Hans de Wit

1

Thematic Chapters 2

3

Internationalization in Higher Education: The Challenging Road from a Western Paradigm to a Global and Inclusive Concept Hans de Wit International Mapping of National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs) Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, Daniela Cra˘ciun, Georgiana Mihut, and Ayenachew Woldegiyorgis

23

29

Section I: Asia Pacific 4

Introduction to Asia Pacific Chapters Futao Huang and Anthony R. Welch

5

Internationalization in China’s Higher Education: Trends, Achievements, and Challenges Xiao Han and Wenqin Shen

6

Internationalization of Japan’s Higher Education Futao Huang

7

Internationalization of Korean Higher Education (1945–2018): A Success Story Sunwoong Kim

8

Internationalization as a Mechanism of Higher Education Modernization in Kazakhstan Aliya Kuzhabekova

41

48

64

79

100

v

vi

9

CONTENTS

The Rhetoric and Reality of Malaysian Higher Education Internationalization Policy and Its Strategic Initiatives Norzaini Azman and Chang Da Wan

115

10 Internationalization of Indian Higher Education: Aligning with the Mission of Knowledge Enhancement Julie Vardhan

135

11 Conclusion: The Shift to the East, and the Changing Face of Internationalization Anthony R. Welch

148

Section II: Latin America and the Caribbean 12 Introduction: Higher Education, Internationalization, and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila

163

13 Internationalization of Higher Education in Brazil Renée Zicman

182

14 Internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean Annette Insanally and Luz Inmaculada Madera

197

15 Internationalization of Chilean Higher Education: Research, Innovation, and Human Capital Formation in a Globalized Era Javier González, Andrés Bernasconi, and Francisca Puyol

220

16 Colombian Higher Education Internationalization and Social Sustainable Development: From Meaning to Practice Giovanni Anzola-Pardo

244

17 Internationalization of Higher Education in Mexico: An Unfinished Agenda Francisco Marmolejo 18 Conclusion: Latin America and the Caribbean Internationalization Process: Main Achievements and Shortcomings Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila

264

279

Section III: North Africa and the Middle East 19 Introduction to MENA Chapters Wondwosen Tamrat 20 Internationalization of Higher Education in the GCC Region: Emerging Patterns and Challenges Wondwosen Tamrat

299

311

CONTENTS

21 Higher Education in Jordan: At the Confluence of Nationalization and Internationalization Aref Al Attari 22 Internationalization and Globalization in Libyan Higher Education Salem Melood Abodher

vii

327

346

23 Internationalization of Higher Education in Morocco: Current Processes, Practices, and Challenges Abdellah Benahnia

364

24 Internationalization of Higher Education in Egypt: Modalities and Policy Provisions Teklu Abate Bekele and Bola Ibrahim

382

25 The Internationalization of Higher Education in Tunisia: Bridging Gaps and Cross-border Cooperation Mohamed Salah Harzallah

403

26 Internationalization of Higher Education in Palestine Kamel Mansi 27 Conclusion: Enhancing Outcomes through Internationalization: An Overview of the Higher Education Sector in the MENA Region Julie Vardhan

424

443

Section IV: Sub-Saharan Africa 28 Introduction: Internationalization of Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa Evelyn C. Garwe and Juliet Thondhlana 29 Internationalization of Higher Education in Ethiopia: From a Fragmented Dispensation to a Cohesive Path Wondwosen Tamrat

461

470

30 Two Decades of Internationalizing Higher Education in South Africa Chika T. Sehoole and Rakgadi Phatlane

493

31 Internationalization of Higher Education in Zimbabwe Evelyn C. Garwe, Juliet Thondhlana, and Simon McGrath

510

32 Internationalizing Higher Education: An Exploratory Analysis of Policy Frameworks, Challenges, and Opportunities Gifty Oforiwaa Gyamera 33 Accounting for Internationalization in Kenya’s Higher Education System Ibrahim Ogachi Oanda

530

550

viii

34 The Internationalization of Higher Education in Nigeria Olusola Bandele Oyewole 35 Conclusion: The State of Internationalization of Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa Hadiza Kere Abdulrahman, Evelyn C. Garwe, Juliet Thondhlana, and Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni

CONTENTS

571

585

36 Salient Issues in the Internationalization of Higher Education in The Global South: Concluding Observations Juliet Thondhlana, Evelyn C. Garwe, and Hans de Wit

596

N OTES ON C ONTRIBUTORS

610

I NDEX

619

FIGURES

CHAPTER ONE 1.1

Top ten fastest growing economies in the world

13

CHAPTER FIVE 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Number of newly approved TNHE activities Institutional strategy for internationalization Percentage of teachers with an international PhD degree at universities in Projects 985 and 211 and in other HEIs Percentage of English-taught curricula at universities in Projects 985 and 211 and in other HEIs

51 54 55 56

CHAPTER SIX 6.1 6.2 6.3

Changes in the ranking of Japanese universities in 2004–2014 Trends in number of international students Changes in the proportion of full-time international faculty at Japanese universities

69 72 73

CHAPTER SEVEN 7.1

Higher education eco-system

82

CHAPTER NINE 9.1 9.2 9.3

Student enrollment in Malaysian higher education institutions International academic staff in Malaysian higher education institutions International student enrollment in public and private higher education institutions

116 116 119

CHAPTER TEN 10.1 Student enrolment in the higher education sector 10.2 Foreign student distribution by top ten countries in India

137 141

CHAPTER FIFTEEN 15.1 Student mobility in Chile: Inbound by country of origin 15.2 Student mobility in Chile: Outbound by country of destination

224 226 ix

x

LIST OF FIGURES

15.3 Expenditure in R & D as percentage of GDP (2017) 15.4 Investment in R & D when countries had the same GDP per capita (US$17,000) 15.5 Total researchers (FTE) per thousand total employees (2017). Countries with current similar GDP per capita 15.6 International collaboration in research (2018) 15.7 New international scholarships awarded per year

227 228 228 229 234

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN 17.1 Internationalization of higher education in Mexico. Stages of development

271

CHAPTER TWENTY 20.1 Educational participation at all levels in GCC

314

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO 22.1 Structure of the education system in Libya

349

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5

Number of inbound international students in select Arab countries in 2016 Number of international students in Egypt across years Sources of international students in Egypt in 2016 Number of outbound international students in the Arab states in 2017 Destinations of degree-seeking Egyptian students abroad in 2016

390 390 391 392 392

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE 25.1 Erasmus+ capacity building higher education projects 2015–2017

409

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX 26.1 Students in Palestinian universities, 1995–2016 26.2 Students graduated from the Palestinian universities, 1995–2010

428 429

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN 27.1 Gross enrollment ratio—MENA 27.2 Employment to population ratio (2019) 27.3 Number of trademarks and scientific and technical journal articles in MENA (2016) 27.4 International mobility of students from some MENA countries.

446 448 449 452

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT 28.1 Positioning of SSA in the African continent

462

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE 29.1 Foreign students in Ethiopian HEIs by field of studies (2015–16) 29.2 Foreign staff in Ethiopian HEIs (2002/03–2017/18)

477 479

CHAPTER THIRTY 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5

Students enrolled in South African universities from the rest of the world Enrollment of students from other African countries but not the SADC Students from the SADC region excluding South Africa Foreign students who did not specify their country of origin Comparative analysis of international students versus South African students 30.6 Comparative analysis of the origin of students in South African universities by numbers 30.7 Comparative analysis of the percentages of students’ origins in South African universities

500 502 503 504 505 506 506

CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE 31.1 IHE theory of change 31.2 Participants at the all-stakeholder workshop, inclusive of Minister and Permanent Secretary 31.3 Registrars at a taskforce meeting at the Chinhoyi University Hotel

521 523 524

TABLES

CHAPTER THREE 3.1

Mapping national internationalization strategies

34

CHAPTER SIX 6.1

Change in the number and proportion of international students in Japanese universities

72

CHAPTER SEVEN 7.1 7.2 7.3

Trends in GDP per capita (current USD) and enrollments (in thousands) Trend of degree-seeking foreign students (2000–2018) Number of foreign students by country and purpose (2018)

83 91 91

CHAPTER NINE 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

Relevant entry point project for education hub Top 10 sending countries (2016–2018) Summary of Malaysia’s Global Reach programmes Comparative review of employment opportunities among five countries

118 120 121 129

CHAPTER TEN 10.1 Major university types and number of universities

139

CHAPTER ELEVEN 11.1 Japan, origin of international students 11.2 Australia’s collaborative publications and citations 2000–2011, by country

151 154

CHAPTER FOURTEEN 14.1 Participants HEIs, country, and type

202

CHAPTER FIFTEEN 15.1 THE World international ranking—Latin America international outlook 15.2 Outbound and inbound students 15.3 CONICYT: Funding targeted to internationalization xii

223 225 231

LIST OF TABLES

15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.9

xiii

International cooperation: Quality assurance system Cross country comparison of program size Average BCP benefits THE ranking—International outlook for Chilean universities QS ranking—International research network Institutional internationalization strategies

232 233 236 239 239 240

CHAPTER SIXTEEN 16.1 The IHE: National ideological context and trends: an overview

251

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN 17.1 Main characteristics of the Mexican higher education system by subsystem

266

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6

LAC higher education access, 2018 LAC percentage of faculty with a doctoral degree, 2017 Outbound and inbound mobility ratios by regions, 2017 LAC international outbound and inbound mobility ratios, 2017 LAC knowledge production, 2018 LAC International collaboration in research

280 282 288 288 290 290

CHAPTER TWENTY 20.1 Outbound and inbound mobility in the GCC region

317

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4

Universities in Jordan 2019 Internationalization in the official literature of some Jordanian universities Higher education in Jordan: Number of universities, students, and staff Expatriate students by nationality

331 335 336 337

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6

Public universities in Libya (2019) Private universities in Libya (2019) Table of distinctions between globalization and internationalization Table of implications of globalization for internationalization Number of Libyan students studying abroad at the state’s expense (2009) Table of agreements between Libyan universities and European universities

349 350 350 351 358 359

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE 25.1 Research projects in Tunisia

416

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX 26.1 Projects funded by the European Commission in the West Bank and Gaza Strip 26.2 Leadership 26.3 Policy and strategy 26.4 People 26.5 Partnership and resources 26.6 Processes 26.7 People results

433 435 436 437 438 438 438

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT 28.1 Examples of the colonial origins of higher education in SSA

463

CHAPTER THIRTY 30.1 Origins of international staff in South African universities in 2000, 2005, 2010 30.2 Permanent academic staff in South African universities 30.3 Total enrollments of international students from continents other than Africa 30.4 Number of students from Africa, who are not from the SADC region 30.5 Enrollments in South African universities from the SADC region, excluding South Africa 30.6 Foreign students in South African universities who did not mention their countries of origin 30.7 Comparative analysis of the numbers of international students and South African students

499 499 500 501 502 504 505

CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE 31.1 Internationalization of higher education understandings, strategies, and rationales

517

CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE 33.1 Summary of internationalization vision and strategies of four large public universities in Kenya 33.2 Support from development partners to university education in Kenya, 2014 33.3 University of Nairobi; research, publication and production status 2007/08–2011/12 33.4 Important sources of innovation for Kenyan Firms, 2008–2011 33.5 Academic staff by qualification and university category

558 561 563 564 565

CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR 34.1 Outlook of tertiary institutions in Nigeria

572

CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX 36.1 Mapping national internationalization strategies for the Global South

600

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South: Setting the Scene JULIET THONDHLANA , EVELYN C. GARWE , AND HANS DE WIT

RATIONALE This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the chapters to follow. This edited handbook, compiled by a unique team of established and emerging experts, gives a comprehensive account of internationalization of higher education (IHE) in the Global South, including some virgin contexts not commonly found in the literature. It responds to the urgent and emerging call for solutions on sustainable internationalization of higher education (IHE) that go beyond the traditional Western models (e.g., de Wit, Gacel-Ávila, Jones, and Jooste, 2017; Proctor and Rumbley, 2018). Internationalization per se is not a completely new concept, but as a strategic dimension (De Wit, 1995, 2015; Delgado-Márquez, Hurtado-Torres, and Bondar, 2011; Vavrus and Pekol, 2015) it has taken the higher education fraternity by storm while gaining recognition as a critical tool for fostering sustainable national and international development through producing quality globally competent human capital (Hunter et al., 2006). Internationalization has varying socio-economic, cultural, and technological impacts depending on context (Maringe, Foskett, and Woodfield, 2013), as well as political, economic, social-cultural, and academic rationales (de Wit, 2002). This way it has effectively transformed its conceptual framework, scope, magnitude, and significance, and redefined international relationships (Alemu, 2014). Accordingly, the ability of a higher education institution (HEI) to internationalize its campuses, curriculum, and activities has become a key measure of the institution’s success and competitiveness locally and globally (Green and Schoenberg, 2006). Within the context of the Global South, it can be said that this supposedly “new” IHE concept is in actual fact as old as its dominant higher education systems. “International” characteristics have always been evident in higher education since the Middle Ages (de Wit, 2002; Zeleza, 2005) in terms of intellectual mobility and its local genesis, and one of the key characteristics has been the export of higher education systems from the North to the colonies in the South. As a result, the tension or duality between local and international is even more evident in nations that have a history of colonialism, some of which are subjects of study in the handbook. In response to this tension, De Wit (2013) argues that while it is true that universities have always been international, operating within a broader 1

2

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

international community of HEIs, academics, and research, the realities of the twentyfirst century have brought internationalization to the fore, in the Global North but increasingly also in the Global South context. This handbook therefore sheds more light on IHE developments and trends from multiple perspectives focusing on a wider range of contexts from the four Global South regions, namely: Asia Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); North Africa and the Middle East; and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In addition to focusing on the understandings, puzzles, policies, agendas, challenges, strategies, specific activities, processes, and outcomes of IHE, the authors also critically explore the broader historical and socio-political contexts, methodological developments, and forces shaping internationalization in the context of theoretical as well as regional and international IHE developments and frameworks. This is premised on the fact that such contexts influence the opportunities available for students’ and faculties’ participation in international programs and the development of internationalization strategies and policies (Vavrus and Pekol, 2015). It will make it possible to draw informative comparisons across regions and nations as well as the Global North in a way that enables a more holistic understanding of the complexities driving as well as generated by internationalization. It will also provide a roadmap for future direction in this context.

A BRIEF UNPACKING OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Internationalization refers to the symbiotic inter-relationships that exist amongst nations towards the achievement of quality in higher education. There is generally no consensus on the definition of internationalization with different people, describing it in differing ways depending on their contexts (e.g., van der Wende, 2001). The various definitions are based on activity, competency, ethos, and process perspectives. Knight (2004) used five lenses to define IHE, namely: programs, rationales, ad hoc, policies, and strategy approaches. Most IHE literature uses this definition by Knight (2004: 11), which sees internationalization occurring abroad or at home as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into the purpose, functions (teaching, research and service) and the delivery of higher education.” Internationalization involves cross-border physical and virtual interactions between academics, students, academic programs and providers; partnerships and collaborative ventures for teaching, learning, and research in the following domains: 1. Outbound and inbound student mobility 2. Academic staff mobility 3. International collaborative research, conferences, and journals 4. Institutional linkages 5. International presence/Cross border education/International branch campus 6. Internationalization at home and of the curriculum 7. Regional and local connectivity 8. Ranking 9. National policies for internationalization 10. Curriculum/educational program.

INTRODUCTION

3

Internationalization is also viewed as a transformative phenomenon which is moving key stakeholders including academic institutions and policymakers to adjust their frames of references and policies in response to the demands of the phenomenon. This is evidenced in the preoccupation with incorporating internationalization elements into policy and strategic documents at various levels including institutional, national, and regional (Rumbley, Altbach, and Reisberg, 2012). The motivations behind IHE for institutions and nations also vary widely (de Wit, 2002; Knight, 2004) and have been reported to change with the passage of time (LuijtenLub, 2007) but largely fall into interconnected variations of academic, socio-economic, political, and cultural intentions (de Wit, 2002; Knight, 2004). Existing literature, largely from the Global North, mentions rationales relating to inter alia: international academic standards of research and teaching, institutional and national human resource development, strategic alliances, technical assistance, resource mobilization, socioeconomic growth, and competitiveness (Knight, 2008). Studies have noted, though, that these understandings are not always put into practice. While internationalization may now highly feature as a priority on strategies of HEIs that may also have elaborate internationalization strategies and structures in place, these may not always translate into practice (Warwick and Moogan, 2013). There is, however, a clear acknowledgement that internationalization extends beyond mere student recruitment; it is a complex and continuous process, which includes curriculum development, staff capacitation, teaching and learning, teaching and research collaborations, staff–student exchanges, support services, and much more. The focus in some contexts of the Global North, for example, seems to continue to be very much on student recruitment (Warwick and Moogan, 2013). In their study of UK institutions, Warwick and Moogan (2013) observed that few universities have attempted to internationalize their curricula to match discourses of international experiences and student mobility. While some universities may sell internationalization on their websites and with other marketing tools, their staff may have no idea about their institutional strategy and what their responsibilities and obligations will be in the implementation of the strategy. In addition, institutions themselves may lack the necessary resources to develop their staff for the purpose, and the funding to provide appropriate support for the increasing international student numbers (e.g., language support). Internationalization of the curriculum expert, Betty Leask (2015), has argued that what is needed is not a globalized curriculum (which privileges dominant knowledges and groups), but one that would enable the development in all students (both foreign and home), of the critical attitudes, knowledge, and skills needed to empower them to effectively make a living as well as contribute to development in a fast changing and increasingly complex and interconnected global community. This buttresses Knight’s (2008) claim that how this is achieved will differ depending on particular features of diverse contexts including disciplinary, institutional, regional, national, and other contexts in which students may find themselves (Leask, 2015). These considerations show that internationalization is fraught with challenges and complexities that require particular understandings, appropriate strategic approaches, and commitment at all relevant levels. In this handbook our understanding of internationalization of higher education, including its definition, genesis, and evolution as a concept is aptly discussed by Hans de Wit in Chapter 2 and will thus not be explored in much detail here. In that thematic chapter, de Wit importantly observes that more countries across the globe are increasingly

4

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

engaging in internationalizing their academic practices, leading to the emergence of new voices and perspectives of the concept as new players come onto the scene. He calls for the revisiting of internationalization as a concept to accommodate emerging and new understandings of the concept and suggests that a more inclusive updated definition might be: The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff and to make a meaningful contribution to society. —de Wit, Hunter, Howard, and Egron Polak, 2015: 29 In Chapter 3, de Wit et al. highlight the critical need to go beyond seeing internationalization as a by-product of globalization but rather as a planned activity requiring national involvement in steering the process. This is more aptly demonstrated in the findings of Cr˘aciun’s (2018) National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Policies (NTEISPs) survey, presented by de Wit et al. As shown, the typology of NTEISPs is drawn from case studies and can form the basis of harmonization at various levels including institutional, national, regional, and global. Not surprisingly the issue of national policy is an important subject for some of the chapters in this handbook. However a more inclusive typology requires the study and inclusion of diverse case types. The NTEISPs typology presented by de Wit et al. presents a good starting point that future studies can continue to build on. What clearly emerges is that the need for a more global understanding of internationalization including the nature of South–South and North–South collaborations cannot be emphasized enough. Internationalization of higher education literature reveals that, although there exists great variation with respect to the drivers, mix of activities, and extent of engagement across institutions globally, the impact of internationalization is increasingly becoming more noticeable at the local level. Internationalization activities are dominated by international mobility of students, staff, and programs, but internationalization at home also continues to gain momentum as a key aspect of practice. Research highlights the diversity in internationalization understandings, motives, strategies, activities mix, and level of engagement across higher education institutions and its strategic positioning within nations, resulting from the different contextual complexities faced by different nations and higher education institutions (Caruana, 2010; Cr˘aciun, 2018). In this regard, internationalization literature (e.g., Chapman, Pekol, and Wilson, 2014; Vavrus and Pekol, 2015) has begun to look at ways in which institutions in the Global North and Global South are differentially positioned within the global political economy. It is argued that this understanding is underpinned by the view that “individuals and institutions in the Global South experience internationalization differently, and sometimes only marginally” (Vavrus and Pekol, 2015: 7). The dominant Anglocentric, “Western” conceptualizations and theorizations of internationalization are now being challenged and revisited to make them more applicable to “non-Western” contexts (Trahar, Green, de Wit, and Whitsed, 2015; Trahar and Hylund, 2011). For example, there are reportedly concerted moves to dispense with Anglo-American framed internationalization to domesticize internationalization of higher education in order to meet local needs. Trahar et al. (2015: 31) give examples of Asian contexts (e.g., Japan and Malaysia) where internationalization is “conceptualised as a way of promoting the context to the international community and inculcating a sense of

INTRODUCTION

5

nationalism” with internationalization being used to develop a sense of national pride and graduates being positioned as ambassadors for their contexts. Inward student mobility, for example, may be used to raise the status of the institution internationally. However in countries where the impact of hegemonic colonial practices may still strongly linger (e.g., some African countries) there may be skepticism over the meaning of internationalization, especially in the context of debates around the unequal distribution of knowledge production between developed and developing countries. In this regard, the contextual challenges and imperatives may demand the development of creative and flexible approaches to internationalization. Writing on the South African context, Cross, Mhlanga, and Ojo (2011: 82) ask: “How can South African universities be asked to incorporate an international dimension in their business when most of it has already been “international” and had very little local?” However, the literature that highlights South–South collaborations is showing how some developing countries are becoming sources of knowledge and manpower developers for other developing countries, thereby effectively taking over this role from the developed world (Cross, Sehoole, Mhlanga, Byars-Ameguide, Inglis, and Koen, 2011). In Cross et al.’s (2011: 82–86) study, their subjects conceptualized internationalization as “relocalisation” (“think locally first so as to gain internationality”), “Africanisation” (“engagement with Africa” in terms of knowledge production, privileging indigenous knowledges in teaching and learning and representation of African students), and “diversification of academic staff and students” (“global engagement”). Some studies (e.g., Whitsed and Green, 2013) have resultantly supported the contestations around definitions of the internationalization construct as this reflects its fluidity over time and context. Responding to these complexities, there are calls to look at internationalization in Global South contexts not only focusing on the understandings, specific activities, processes, and outcomes of IHE but also critically exploring the broader historical and socio-political contexts, dimensions, and forces shaping internationalization in specific contexts. Such issues help to understand the ability of HEIs in diverse contexts to exercise agency in initiating and managing varied forms of internationalization as well as in their interactions with institutions in other regions (both North and South). This is premised on the fact that such contexts influence the opportunities available for students and faculties to participate in international programs and the development of internationalization strategies and policies (Vavrus and Pekol, 2015). While considerable work has been done on IHE in the United States and Europe (e.g., de Wit, 2002; de Wit et al., 2015; Teichler, 2009), not much is known about IHE in Global South contexts. Certainly, no cohesive study of similar magnitude has been conducted that provides an overview of internationalization activity in the regions, which reveals the complexities noted above, given the diversities in the political economies within these contexts and in comparison with Global North contexts. Literature is however emerging (as noted by de Wit et al. in Chapter 3) that seeks to explore alternative internationalization perspectives, looking at internationalization activity in contexts not commonly found in the literature such as those in the Global South (e.g., de Wit et al., 2017; Proctor and Rumbley, 2018). As observed by Leask (2015), mentioned earlier, these new developments will extend our understanding of the complexities of internationalization practice while also gaining insight into its many continually evolving benefits and challenges. As argued by Trahar et al. (2015: 36), this constant and rapid change means that our understandings of internationalization of higher education will continue to be “emergent, contingent and necessarily situated.”

6

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

PROFILING THE GLOBAL SOUTH The “Global South” is a term favoured by scholars and development agencies, for example the World Bank, to classify countries that are poorer or less advanced in terms of stage of development, wealth, politics, technology, and demography, most of which are located either in the tropics or in the Southern Hemisphere. Todaro and Smith (2006) describe Global South economies as less developed, poorer, less democratic, technology receptors (less innovative), sometimes characterized by conflict, war, anarchy, tyranny, and rapid population growth when compared with the Global North. The Global South, also referred to as the “Third World” or “Developing World,” comprises those regions outside Europe and North America, inclusive of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean as well as some countries in the Middle East (Dados and Connell, 2012). Authors such as Mahler (2017) have debated the appropriateness, meaning, use, applicability, and analytical value of the term Global South, arguing that it reflects the existence of geopolitical relations of power. Several scholars (e.g., Hollington, Salverda, Schwarz, and Tappe, 2015; Mahler, 2018) have drawn attention to the widening gaps in wealth and power within countries, noting that “there are Souths in the geographic North and Norths in the geographic South” (Mahler, 2018: 32). Cases in point are those regarding the increasing competitiveness of emerging economies, for example Brazil, China, and India, over the longstanding industrialized powers of the Global North. Therefore it should be clearly spelt out that, in using this term, the editors and contributors of this handbook are cognizant of the fact that it lumps together very diverse socio-economic, cultural, and political experiences, perceptions, and perspectives. This edited handbook will add to this emerging focus and provide a comprehensive overview of Global South IHE trends from multiple perspectives, solely focusing on a wider range of contexts from four Global South regions: Asia Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean; North Africa and the Middle East; and Sub-Saharan Africa. Each of these regions will be represented by specific cases, characteristic of each region, but reflecting specific and unique focus. Although each case has a unique structure and focus, they follow a common outline inclusive of a description of the higher education sector in terms of its genesis, structure, and developments to set the tone for exploring the understandings, agendas, challenges, strategies, theoretical and methodological developments, processes as well as policy developments at national and institutional levels. At the end of each region, a cross-cutting concluding chapter provides a regional analysis from the specific cases as well as from literature on other countries in the region in order to highlight the emerging trends and areas of focus. To enhance comparability across institutions, countries, and regions, the handbook will explore the functional aspects of internationalization, type, stage, and process of internationalization activities, and the level of aggregation e.g., institutional, national, and regional. The handbook differs from other books on the same topic in that it is the first comprehensive account of IHE focusing on the four regions of the Global South. The handbook also presents a wealth of experience and expertise from the Global South by bringing together established and emerging scholars in the four regions. It will therefore be invaluable as a recommended and reference text for students, academics, practitioners, and policymakers, not only within these regions but beyond.

INTRODUCTION

7

THE REGIONS Asia Pacific Section I documents how the Asia-Pacific region has responded to the opportunities brought about by the surge in demand for higher education in the context of transnational education, business, research, and technology by promoting IHE. The six country cases (China, Japan, Korea, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, and India) help to provide comparative perspectives on the status of IHE in each, inclusive of creating regional education hubs, student and staff mobility, and entrepreneurship that have been critical in transforming their higher education sector and enhancing their national competitiveness. The Asia-Pacific region is spread across forty countries and accounts for half of the world’s population. The region is characterized by enormous cultural, economic, geographical, and linguistic variations. Higher education in the region has been shaped by geography, history, politics, religion, language, economy, and regional linkages. Each chapter begins with a historical overview of the higher education sector in order to put the IHE development issues and trends in context. The chapters from the Asia-Pacific region reveal that IHE originated in the nineteenth century, when contemporary higher education systems where established. The strategy then was either to send students and academics abroad (mainly to Western countries, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as Australia) for advanced studies or research, or to invite foreign academics and professionals from different fields to introduce their modern knowledge and technology and work for the national governments. This resulted in the modeling of local higher education systems, even for those countries that had not been colonized (e.g., China and Japan) along foreign lines, particularly those of Western origin: All of the higher education systems considered here have Western roots and use basically Western models. In Asia, as in the rest of the world, the contemporary university is a basically Western institution, tracing their roots to the medieval European universities and shaped by the particular Western power that was the colonial ruler. In the case of Japan, China and Thailand, foreign influences were chosen with independence, but the models were foreign nonetheless. —Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989: xii As was further expounded by Altbach and Selvaratnam (1989), the colonial legacy for those countries that were colonized, for example Malaysia, manifests in critical issues, notably the language of instruction, the lack of attention to science, and the importance of expatriate academics in HEIs. Another case in point is that of Hong Kong, whose internal and external reviews on quality assurance rely heavily on criteria from the West (Mok and Cheung, 2011). The dominant characteristics of IHE in the region are those of international benchmarking as a way of competing for the best-performing students and staff from a global pool of candidates (Hazelkorn, 2011) and countries are thus keen to improve their global ranking in order to attract these candidates. What is clear in the Asia-Pacific context, akin to that of SSA, are the potential pitfalls of internationalization, including the threat to local knowledge, traditions, and national interests as well as the looming danger of recolonization if the curriculum continues to borrow from the West with little or no focus on local needs. The need for all higher

8

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

education stakeholders to redefine the mandate of HEIs in the internationalization process becomes critical wherein issues of indigenous knowledge, democracy, cultural value, social-economic priorities, and international tolerance are embedded. As Han and Shen note, in Chapter 5: Transplanting and modulating Western styles to cater to the needs of China, especially in the new era when the central government exhibits great enthusiasm in establishing tight connections to the external world, has gradually become a severe problem encountered by both researchers and university administrators. It remains an issue for further exploration of the practical strategies in internationalizing Chinese higher education (HE) and guiding its development work for the benefit of the nation and its citizens. The dominant IHE activities in the region have moved from mere student and staff mobility, as was the case in the 1990s, to also include internationalization of the university curriculum, promotion of cross-border higher education activities, adaptation of international standards for evaluating some educational programs, construction of “Centres of Excellence,” and establishment of bi-lateral cooperation between universities at both regional and international levels. In Chapter 7, Kim illustrates how with very few natural resources Korea leveraged IHE to achieve phenomenal success in building a globally competitive higher education system in such a short time. Korea now effectively competes with Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore for attracting Chinese and Southeast Asian out-bound students studying abroad. Korea’s HE market is much bigger than that of Hong Kong and Singapore so it has a capacity to absorb large Chinese demand. In this respect, Korea’s development is reminiscent of Say’s law in human resources, which propounds that the supply of human resource through education creates its own demand for it later. In the case of Korea, the rapid expansion of the primary school sector during the 1950s and 1960s provided abundant human resources for the rapid industrialization in the 1960s and 1970s, while the study abroad program and brain drain during the 1960s and 1970s provided an abundant pool of professional expatriates, who were educated and trained in developed nations. These became a valuable resource when Korea’s demand for highly skilled human resources later increased (Green, Ashton, James, and Sung, 1999). As is clearly stated by Kuzhabekova in Chapter 8 on Kazakhstan, notwithstanding the critical role of IHE in modernization of higher education in the region, the process of internationalization in most of the countries (with the exception of Malaysia for example), has never been planned as a separate item on the national education reform agenda. The Kazakhstani government has yet to adopt a separate internationalization strategy and, in fact, needs to clearly define the concept of internationalization (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016).

Latin America and the Caribbean Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is a vibrant region of thirty-three sovereign countries and fifteen dependencies whose rich diverse political, socio-economic, historical and geographic dynamics are driving internationalization of higher education (IHE) in unique ways. Section II consists of six chapters and a conclusion. Two of the chapters give us an extensive overview of the region and its two main sub-regions; four provide case examples of the specific experiences of individual countries. These include: emerging

INTRODUCTION

9

international giant and BRICS member, Brazil; Chile, which in 2018 ranked 45th globally and 4th within the LAC region in terms of research publications; Colombia, which is in an emerging state; and Mexico, where there is increased awareness of the value of IHE but still limited activity. Finally, a cross-cutting concluding chapter summarizes key findings and trends in and characteristics of the internationalization process of the region as presented through the preceding chapters. The introductory chapter, Higher Education, Internationalization and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean, by Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila (Chapter 12) and Annette Insanally and Luz Inmaculada Madera’s Caribbean chapter, Internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean (Chapter 14) together provide a comprehensive overview of IHE activity in the LAC region. It is however important to note that there is a paucity of IHE studies on the region particularly those focusing on specific contexts that would give us an in-depth look at the specific experiences of individual countries. The chapters in this handbook therefore add to the growing research interest in this important field in this region. The introductory chapter provides an extensive background to internationalization of higher education in the LAC region (albeit with a stronger focus on Latin America) looking at the relevant socio-economic and historical dynamics that account for the internationalization imperatives for the region. It also provides a good synopsis of some of the related higher education key works and internationalization studies in the region and importantly also draws some comparisons within the region and across other Global South as well as some Global North contexts thereby providing some helpful foundational work to an understanding of the region as a whole and the specific contexts covered in the handbook. The chapter shares highlights of internationalization trends in the different LAC countries as presented in a number of national reports with the important ones being: a publication commissioned by the World Bank (WB) (de Wit, Jaramillo, Knight, and Gacel-Ávila, 2005); some editions of the Global Survey on Internationalization Trends of the International Association of Universities (IAU) (e.g., Knight, 2006; Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014); and the recent Regional Survey on Internationalization Trends in LAC conducted by the UNESCO Observatory on Internationalization and Networks (OBIRET) (Gacel-Ávila and Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2017). The OBIRET survey is unique in having focused on the region as a whole and captured diverse patterns of the internationalization process in the region in the ten-year period following the WB study, and is also valuable in providing a comparison with the IAU Global Survey. Chapter 15 focuses on internationalization in the Caribbean. Considered one of the most diverse, pluri-racial and multi-cultural areas, the Caribbean integrates thirteen sovereign states and nineteen overseas departments and dependencies (including French Overseas Departments, the Dutch Antilles, British and American dependencies). Historically fragmented by colonial cultures, internationalization mobilization and harmonization through intraregional collaborations and networking are seen as facilitating regional integration and strengthening the sub-region’s global standing, particularly in pursuit of achieving goals of the 2030 Agenda through higher education (United Nations, 2015). Given that many of the countries are very small, this overview chapter is important in that it provides a close up of IHE activity across the region while exploring some of the critical issues for some individual countries. It is our hope that this important contribution will help generate interest among scholars to study IHE developments and patterns in each of the individual countries.

10

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Most of the Caribbean states (except Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic) are presented as having a different dynamic with respect to their peculiar geographical and linguistic characteristics due to their close ties to the United States, which make them attractive destinations internationally compared with the rest of LAC. The reported limited IHE activity may be due to education systems not strongly encouraging student mobility both within the region and abroad (IESALC, 2019). Further, the diversities also require mutual recognition of common accreditation systems and qualifications as well as language programs to facilitate student mobility and employability across the multilingual contexts. Put together, the overview and the individual country chapters present a rich array of topics on the internationalization of higher education at various levels including institutional, national, and regional, which are characterized by the “political, economic, socio-cultural and academic rationales” that drive IHE in its diverse forms within and across the nations. These include: ●

Opportunities, benefits, risks and challenges



Plans and strategies of IHE; structures







Regional and sub-regional integration and collaborations; bilateral cooperation programs; qualifications and common accreditation systems; research; teaching South–South and North–South collaborations Long-term exchange programs such as the Brazilian Exchange Program for Undergraduate Students (PEC-G) created in 1965



Student mobility including exchange programs; inbound and outbound mobility



Internationalization at home and internationalization of the curriculum



Internationalization abroad; liaison offices and campuses abroad



Internationalization of higher education national and institutional policies



IHE financial resourcing



Language programs



Global university rankings



Internationalization and social development.

Chapter 18, the concluding chapter, provides a helpful synopsis of key findings from all regional chapters noting commonalities and differences across the given contexts. Importantly, it notes some of the key barriers to effective internationalization with the lack of support at the national level in terms of national policies and funding to help facilitate the operationalization of strategies being common major limitations.

North Africa and the Middle East Section III provides explorations of IHE in a selection of MENA countries, including the Gulf (GCC) region, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Palestine and Egypt. It also includes an introduction and a cross-cutting chapter, which provides an overview of some of the key internationalization themes from the region. MENA is an acronym for the Middle East and North Africa region which consists of about 19–21 countries. This small region (6 percent of the world’s population) is known

INTRODUCTION

11

for its rich oil reserves (60 percent of the world’s oil reserves; 14 Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations are within the MENA region) and natural gas reserves (45 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves), which make it an important source of global economic stability. The region’s geopolitical importance has increased following the Arab Spring anti-government uprisings and armed rebellions in the early 2010s, which saw the fall of some dictatorships. The more recent civil unrests in, for example, Libya and Syria have continued to draw international attention to the region. One of the outcomes of the Arab Spring is the demand by young people in MENA for more and better opportunities in terms of education, employment, international mobility, knowledge production, and entrepreneurship. “Higher education, migration, and labour mobility are key policy areas as MENA nations address the need for a strong skills base to underpin the economic and social development of the region’s disparate economies” (Jaramillo, Ruby, Henard, and Zaafrane, 2011: 1). The World Bank report (Jaramillo et al., 2011) notes that the MENA economies share an interest in the supply of and demand for higher education and are differentially involved in a range of internationalizationrelated activities, including: investing in higher education infrastructure to raise it to international standards and competitiveness; encouraging study abroad; and attracting international students. The report further notes the critical need for a systematic policy discussion on the internationalization of higher education to help MENA in terms of the formation of required skills and competencies, the acquisition of qualifications, and the application of the skills and competencies. The development of quality education, the recognition of qualifications in different countries, the role of international partners, and the incentives to study and work within the region and elsewhere are all important considerations for internationalization initiatives. Country level research is therefore critical to advance policy conversations at national and regional levels. The economic status of the region and its potential growth as well as its very strategic location in relation to Africa, Europe, and Asia as well as other parts of the world positions it well for boosting its internationalization of higher education efforts and global impact. Internationalization in the Arab world is regarded to be as old as the genesis of higher education (eighteenth and nineteenth centuries), as a tool for advancing national agendas, and as contributing to nation building (De Wit and Merkx, 2012). In its early years it took the form of outbound student mobility with students flocking to European destinations. In addition, local universities were built following Western models (Abyad, 2012). Recent massification of higher education has however led to the introduction of new forms of higher education including private universities, virtual learning, open universities, decentralized campuses, parallel education, franchised programs, and International Branch Campuses (IBCs) (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019; Al Attari, 2015). This has however been hampered by limited resources, which has had a negative impact on the quality of the education. Internationalization of higher education is therefore seen as helping to provide academic and cultural experiences that can generate quality education through innovation and best practices in learning and teaching, which in turn can enhance graduate employability in the international job marketplace. Internationalization is also seen as helping to structure existing internationalization practices (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). Across the region IHE Internationalization is understood as occurring at the national, regional, and international levels; hence, terms such as nationalization, regionalization, and internationalization interact in official documents with the broader aims being “strengthening national loyalty” and “promoting the national heritage and international

12

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

culture.” Regionalization in higher education relates to the Arab national identity and is evidenced by use of the Arabic language as the medium of instruction and publication and adherence to Islamic values while “maintaining the democratic approach and academic freedom” (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). These practices, as well as mastering a foreign language and using English as a supporting language in the process of internationalization, are significant as they enhance relations with regional and international countries. Such a vision is aptly captured in the Jordanian national strategic plan of 2007–2012 as: “Having a high quality higher education system, capable of preparing highly-qualified human resources that are able to meet the current and future needs of society and compete at the Arab and international levels,” and “Improving and modernizing study plans and academic programs in line with the requirements of national and pan-Arab development, taking into account the scientific and technological developments at the global level.” Using diverse documentations (including commissioned reports, institutional and national documents) and empirical data, the chapters in this section explore indicators of the internationalization of higher education, looking at various topics including: ●



Motivations, drivers, processes, opportunities, challenges, and strategies Academic Mobility: inbound and student mobility (regional and international); exchange programs e.g., Tempus and Erasmus+ ❍

mostly regional with a minority international students); not much focus on outbound student mobility in the literature highlighting the commercialization of student mobility; inbound and outbound staff mobility



Intercultural competence



Language programs; linguistic and cultural diversity



Collaborations: regional and international



Foreign campuses; international universities



Research and publications



Collaborations and partnerships



Internationalization at home; internationalization of the curriculum



Internationalization and the role of technology



Quality assurance and IHE. Challenges include: ❍

absence of national IHE policy



management and financial resources



paucity of research



attitudes towards internationalization due to cultural tensions, for example



the impact of increasing globalization advances in global communication.

Sub-Saharan Africa Section IV commences with an introduction to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as a region that is still lagging behind other regions with respect to gross national product (GNP) growth, human development indicators, and higher education (Goujon, Haller, and Kmet, 2017; UNECA, 2014). However, it is encouraging to note that in 2018, according to the World

INTRODUCTION

13

FIGURE 1.1: Top ten fastest growing economies in the world (World Bank, 2018).

Bank, six of the world’s ten fastest growing economies were in SSA (see Figure 1.1). The section looks at two of these (Ghana and Ethiopia) as well as the two alternating giants of Africa (South Africa and Nigeria). The other two cases are Zimbabwe (representing countries whose once vibrant economies have taken a dip in recent years) and Kenya (a favourite with international development agencies). Although the focus of Section IV is on internationalization in higher education, all chapters begin by describing the higher education context of the countries in question in terms of the historical perspectives, higher education institutions (HEIs), policies, as well as in achievements and challenges. In some SSA countries, higher education is as old as the Timbuktu Kingdom of Mali and is described as, in the case of Ethiopia, as ancient as the obelisks. However, for most SSA countries, contemporary higher education is shaped by the colonial history and the stage of economic development. Most of the first HEIs started as constituent colleges of European universities wherein the parent university provided quality assurance in terms of curricula, staff appointments, student assessment and qualification award (Altbach and Kelly, 1978). Teferra (2007) avers that colonialism in SSA is immortalized in the continued domination of colonial languages (e.g., English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese), in administrative structures in academia, business, and government. This should therefore put SSA in an advantageous position considering the rise of English as the dominant language of teaching and learning as well as scientific communication using the affordances of ICT. Sadly, these changes have had the effect of concentrating ownership of publishers, databases, and other key resources in the hands of institutions in the Global North. Furthermore, teaching in English has been equated to internationalization with the unintended result of reducing the quality of education since English will not be the native language. The section on internationalization of higher education in SSA is a compilation of the developments, experiences, and challenges peculiar to the region as well as those that are comparable to other regions. The aim of the section is to contribute to the IHE debate by

14

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

providing information for benchmarking, comparative analysis, guidance and decision making to HEIs, academics, governments, quality assurance agencies, researchers, students curriculum developers, and international personnel. This section interrogates historical perspectives of higher education and the extent to which IHE has (or has not) metamorphosed in Sub-Saharan countries. While the section does not take the encyclopaedic approach of including a chapter on every country, the six anglophone country chapters included are representative enough to identify commonalities and particular directions. The selection of the countries included was based on geographical location, level of global engagement (as judged by publicly available contributions to IHE conversations), type of colonial history as well as the availability of reputable scholars willing and able to contribute a country chapter on IHE. The section is divided into eight chapters: an introduction to IHE in Sub-Saharan Africa, six country chapters, and a concluding cross-cutting chapter. The country chapters focusing on the different contexts of Ethiopia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria engage with IHE aspects of critical importance also incorporating empirical evidence on certain aspects of IHE within the countries in question. This exposé of country-specific scenarios creates fertile ground for the concluding chapter to highlight and interrogate commonalities and peculiarities within the region. These patterns and trends form the basis of the comparative analysis that constitutes the concluding chapter of this handbook of IHE in the Global South. A thematic approach is adopted wherein each chapter, although having a focus unique to the peculiarities of the country, is crafted around a set of identified cross-cutting themes. For example, providing an overview of the higher education system of each country was considered critical in putting the IHE debate into context critical when making comparative analyses. For instance, countries that have either suffered a colonial past tended to have similar post-colonial challenges. Each chapter explores some or all of the following issues regarding IHE: ●

Overview of higher education system



Institutional and national IHE policies



Approaches to IHE



IHE Research



IHE and technology



Future aspirations and directions on IHE.

The SSA section critically analyses IHE from a decolonial epistemic perspective, arguing that for internationalization to succeed in its intended purpose, the attainment of a deimperialized, decolonized and deracialized world system and global order is critical (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018). In SSA, internationalization is always entangled with regionalization, “Africanization,” as well as nationalization as part of core objectives of the Association of African Universities (AAU). Coloniality here addresses epistemological questions of how colonial modernity has interfered with other ways of knowing, social meaning-making, imagining and seeing; it also concerns the exertion of hegemonic power and oppression, resulting in the current asymmetrical global power structure that centers around countries in the Global North (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013). Coloniality works as a crucial structuring process within global imperial designs, sustaining the superiority of the Global North. Part of the purpose here

INTRODUCTION

15

therefore is an attempt to unmask coloniality as a possible underside of internationalization while still recognizing what positive aspects of it there may be. Decoloniality is about confronting coloniality in all domains of power, being, and knowledge and is therefore an unfinished business. It is more than just moving from one fundamentalism to another, rather it is about moving from one ecology of knowledge to multiple ecologies in service of the world. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) states that decolonization is not about revenge, it is important to keep what is useful while seeking to decolonize various things through: examining normative foundations of theory; re-provincializing Europe rather than the over-representation which exists and de-provincializing Africa; undertaking a decolonial critique of dominant knowledges and unmasking what is concealed; rethinking thinking itself, through the recovery of subaltern/other knowledges; and learning to unlearn in order to relearn. So really a paradigmatic shift from what was meant for colonization to what is meant for liberation and freedom. The SSA section reveals a wide range of internationalization processes and approaches with a key focus on student and staff mobility; and knowledge exchange and collaboration with mainly countries in the Global North—what can be termed a “vertical approach” to internationalization, which places at the very center of this kind of internationalization the “Look North” approach. What is also common is a lack of strategic and wellarticulated internationalization policy, with much of it happening in an accidental and incremental nature, often with varying degrees of success. Many of the contexts have awoken to the intricacies of internationalization, with some paying attention to how best to maximize its potentials while watching out for its pitfalls; Zimbabwe is one such country, along with Kenya and Ghana. It appears that for many in these contexts, internationalization is actually favored for what is seen as its transformational capabilities, regarded as a beneficial tool for economic and political policies with its contribution. Maringe et al. (2013) related some other anticipated benefits of internationalization to four broad areas of value creation, including: strategic and symbolic value; knowledge creation value; cultural integration value; and global market value. They observed that some of the associated risks of internationalization were “brain drain,” the dominance of Western hegemony, commodification of HE and perceived erosion of quality. Many of the afore mentioned were noticeable in the contexts explored and really emphasize the complexity of internationalization as double edged. Chapter 33 on Kenya looks at the positive returns of IHE on partnerships in research and publications and support to doctoral programs. Some SSA chapters, for example the Zimbabwean case, highlight the importance of internationalization in improving the ranking of HEIs. This is premised on the fact that, in addition to research output and teaching, the Times Higher Education (2016) ranks HEIs on the basis of its international outlook. The international outlook considers the HEI’s capacity to attract international students, staff, and collaborative research. Although most countries in SSA show that they have embraced IHE, most are doing it on an ad hoc basis without a strategic direction as enunciated in national IHE policies. For example, Oyewole in Chapter 34 argues that: The Higher Education system in Nigeria is one of the largest in Africa with over 800 HEIs. Nigeria has nearly four times more universities than Egypt and over six times more than South Africa, and boasts of the largest private university system in the continent. Nigeria is therefore expected to be a model of internationalization in the

16

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

continent. Unfortunately, the level of internationalization in Nigeria’s institutions is rather low with no national strategic focus. Chapter 33 on Kenya also emphasizes the lack of a coherent national government policy to moderate institutional practices as a problem in a situation where the commercial and political imperatives of internationalization would be the overriding motivation from external partners. Furthermore, Ogachi argues that the institutional internationalization strategies encourage a one-way traffic wherein institutions look at internationalization as a means of getting support from external partners with little consideration of what they would give to leverage the relationships. This approach, Ogachi explains, “leads to a sense of patronage from the side of the external partners, undermines the mutuality implied in the ethics of internationalization and brings back the ‘imperial echoes’ of how universities in Africa were established.”

REFERENCES Abyad, M. (2012). Education in the Arab World. Syria: Ministry of Culture. Al-Agtash, S., and Khadra, L. (2019). Internationalization context of Arabia Higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(2): 68–81. Al Attari, A. (2015). Privatization of Arab higher education with special reference to Jordan. In Hatouri, M. and Hashim, R. (eds), Reforms in Islamic Higher Education. Kuala Lumpur: IIUM Press. Alemu, S. (2014). An appraisal of the internationalization of higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. CEPS , 4(2): 71–90. Altbach, P.G., and Kelly, G. (eds) (1978). Education and Colonialism. New York: Longman. Altbach, P.G., and Selvaratnam, V. (eds) (1989). From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Caruana, V. (2010). The relevance of the internationalised curriculum to graduate capability: The role of new lecturers’ attitudes in shaping the “student voice.” In Jones, E. (ed.), Internationalization and the Student Voice: Higher Education Perspectives. London: Routledge. Chapman, D.W., Pekol, A., and Wilson, E. (2014). Cross-border university networks as a development strategy: Lessons from three university networks focused on emerging pandemic threats. International Review of Education, 60(5): 619–637. Cr˘aciun D. (2018). National policies for higher education internationalization: A global comparative perspective. In Curaj, A., Deca, L., and Pricopie, M. (eds), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 95–106. Cross, M., Mhlanga, E., and Ojo, E., (2011). Emerging concept of internationalization in South African higher education: Conversations on local and global exposure at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(1): 75–92. Dados, N., and Connell, R. (2012). The Global South. Contexts, 11(1): 12–13. De Wit, H. (ed.) (1995). Strategies for Internationalization of Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

INTRODUCTION

17

De Wit, H. (2013). Reconsidering the concept of internationalization. International Higher Education, 70: 5–7. De Wit, H. (2015). March. Quality assurance and internationalization: Trends, challenges and opportunities. INQAAHE conference (vol. 30). De Wit, H., and Merkx, G. (2012). The history of internationalization of higher education. In Deardorff, D.K., de Wit, H., Heyl, J.D., and Adams, T. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, pp. 43–60. De Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Jones, E. and Jooste, N. (eds) (2017). The Globalization of Internationalization: Emerging Voices and Perspectives. London and New York: Taylor and Francis. De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard L., and Egron Polak, E. (eds) (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies. De Wit, H., Jaramillo, I.C., Knight, J., and Gacel-Ávila, J. (eds) (2005). Higher Education in Latin America: The International Dimension. Washington, DC : The World Bank. Delgado-Márquez, B.L., Hurtado-Torres, N.E., and Bondar, Y., 2011. Internationalization of higher education: Theoretical and empirical investigation of its influence on university institution rankings. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 8(2): 265–284. Egron-Polak, E. and Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing Expectations, Fundamental Values. Paris: International Association of Universities. Gacel-Ávila, J. and Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2017). I Encuesta Regional sobre Tendencias de Internacionalización en Educación Terciaria. OBIRET . Guadalajara: UNESCO-IESALC . Goujon, A., Haller, M., and Kmet, B.M. (eds) (2017). Higher Education in Africa: Challenges for Development, Mobility and Cooperation. Cambridge: Scholars Publishing. Green, M.F., and Shoenberg, R.E. (2006). Where Faculty Live: Internationalizing the Disciplines (vol. 2). American Council on Education. Green, W., and Whitsed, C. (2013). Reflections on an alternative approach to continuing professional learning for internationalization of the curriculum across disciplines. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17: 148–164. Green, F., Ashton, D. James, D., and Sung, J. (1999). The role of the state in skill formation: Evidence from the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15(1): 82–96. Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for WorldClass Excellence. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Hollington, A., Salverda, T., Schwarz, T., and Tappe, O. (2015). Concepts of the Global South. Cologne, Germany: Global South Studies Centre Cologne, Germany. IESALC (2019). Regional Convention for the Recognition of Higher Education Studies, Degrees and Diplomas in Latin America, Buenos Aires OBIRET. Guadalajara: UNESCOIESALC . Jaramillo, A., Ruby, A., Henard, F., and Zaafrane, H. (2011). Internationalization of Higher Education in MENA: Policy issues associated with skills formation and mobility. Washington, DC : World Bank. Jumakulov, Z., and Ashirbekov, A. (2016). Higher education internationalization: Insights from Kazakhstan. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 6: 35–55. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, rationales and approaches. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Knight, J. (2006). Internationalization of higher education: New directions, new challenges. The 2005 IAU global survey report. Paris: International Association of Universities.

18

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Knight, J. (2008). Higher Education in Turmoil, The Changing World of Internationalization. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Leask, B. (2015). Internationalization of the Curriculum. London: Routledge. Luijten-Lub, A. (2007). Choices in internationalization: How higher education institutions respond to internationalization, Europeanisation, and globalisation. Enschede, The Netherlands: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente. Mahler, Anne Garland (2017). Global South. In O’Brien, E. (ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in Literary and Critical Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Mahler, Anne Garland (2018). From the Tricontinental to the Global South: Race, Radicalism, and Transnational Solidarity. Durham: Duke University Press. Maringe, F., Foskett, N., and Woodfield, S. (2013). Emerging internationalization models in an uneven global terrain: Findings from a global survey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1): 9–36. Mok, K.H., and Cheung, A.B.L. (2011). Global aspirations and strategizing for world-class status: New form of politics in higher education governance in Hong Kong. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(3): 231–251. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2013). Why decoloniality in the 21st century? The Thinker, 48, 10–15. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. (2018). Epistemic Freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and Decolonization. London and New York: Routledge. Proctor D., and Rumbley, L. (2018). The Future Agenda for Internationalization in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge. Rumbley, L.E., Altbach, P.G., and Reisberg, L. (2012). Internationalization within the higher education context. In Deardoff, D., de Wit, H., Heyl, J., and Adams, T. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage, pp. 3–26. Teferra, D. (2007). Higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Forest, J.J.F., and Altbach, P.G. (eds), International Handbook of Higher Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol. 18. Dordrecht: Springer. Teichler, U. (2009). Internationalization of higher education: European experiences. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10: 93–106. Times Higher Education (2016). World University Rankings 2015–2016. Available at: https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/world-ranking#!/page/0/ length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats Todaro, M.P. and Smith, S.C. (2006). Economic Development, 8th edn. Reading: AddisonWesley. Trahar, S., and Hyland, F. (2011). Experiences and perceptions of internationalization in higher education in the UK . Higher Education Research and Development, 30(5): 623–633. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.598452 Trahar, S., Green, W., de Wit, H., and Whitsed, C. (2015). The internationalization of higher education. In Case, J.M. and Huisman, J. (eds), Researching Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 23–41. United Nations (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. General Assembly 70 session. United Nations Commission Economic for Africa (UNECA) (2014). Economic Report on Africa, 2014. Van der Wende, M.C. (2001). The international dimension in national higher education policies: What has changed in Europe in the last five years? European Journal of Education, 36(4): 431–441.

INTRODUCTION

19

Vavrus, F., and Pekol, A. (2015). Critical internationalization: Moving from theory to practice. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 2(2), Article 2. Retrieved from http:// preserve.lehigh.edu/;re/vol2/iss2/2 Warwick, P. and Moogan, Y.J. (2013). A comparative study of perceptions of internationalization strategies in UK universities. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1): 102–123. World Bank (2018). The World Bank Annual Report 2018 (English). Washington, DC : World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/630671538158537244/TheWorld-Bank-Annual-Report-2018 Zeleza, P.T. (2005). Transnational education and African universities. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 3(1): 1–28.

20

Thematic Chapters

21

22

CHAPTER TWO

Internationalization in Higher Education The Challenging Road from a Western Paradigm to a Global and Inclusive Concept1 HANS DE WIT

INTRODUCTION Internationalization of higher education is still mainly considered in terms of a Westernized, largely Anglo-Saxon, and predominantly English-speaking paradigm (Jones and de Wit, 2012). Over the past decades, most scholarly and public attention with respect to internationalization in higher education has focused on the Western world. Majee and Ress (2018: 4) state that: “very little research has aimed to understand and conceptualise internationalization efforts in the context of the historical particularities of the postcolonial condition.” It is important “to learn from other non-western national and cultural contexts—to understand the full extent of internationalization as a phenomenon and what we can learn from each other in order to benefit students, employers and nations.” What now is called “internationalization of higher education” as a concept and strategy is a recent phenomenon that has emerged over the last thirty years, driven by a dynamic combination of political, economic, socio-cultural, and academic rationales and stakeholders. How do we understand the evolution of internationalization as a concept? Is a more diverse and inclusive internationalization replacing the Western paradigm? Is there a shift in paradigm from cooperation to competition, as Van der Wende (2001) observed? Do we see an ongoing dominance of the internationalization abroad component at the cost of internationalization at home, or a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to internationalization? And is internationalization a key change agent towards innovation and global social responsibility of higher education? With an increasing number of countries and types of institutions around the world engaging in the process of internationalization, new perspectives from those whose

This chapter is a revised and updated version of de Wit (2019a).

1

23

24

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

voices do not normally have a strong presence in the discourse are important. We “need to learn from other non-western national and cultural contexts—to understand the full extent of internationalization as a phenomenon and what we can learn from each other in order to benefit students, employers and nations” (Jones and de Wit, 2012: 50). Many changes in international higher education are happening, which have only increased in range and complexity over the past decade. As mentioned by Jones and de Wit (forthcoming): global competition for talent, growing complexity in cross-border activity, branch campuses and the creation of global professionals and citizens are issues that are becoming essential parts of the language of university leaders in all parts of the world. Notions of importing and exporting countries are being turned upside down as students choose study destinations in countries that were once seen as merely sending students to the “west” to study. Global mobility flows are increasingly complex, offering new opportunities for those able and willing to access them. Non-western countries are emerging as key players and beginning to challenge the dominance of western discourse on internationalization. There are increasing expectations of employers for cross-culturally capable graduates, ideally with international experience, to meet these demands. Time for a critical reflection on the current and future state of internationalization in higher education, in particular in the current nationalist, populist, and anti-global political climate!

IMPACT OF MASSIFICATION AND THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY Internationalization must be seen in the context of the changing role and position of higher education in the world. Rapid changes are taking place in international higher education, which have only increased in range and complexity over the past decade. In particular its massification, the global knowledge economy, and the emphasis on reputation and rankings. These three key factors in higher education globally have had an important impact on its internationalization. The emphasis on internationalization has traditionally been on exchange and cooperation, and there continues to be a rhetoric around the need to understand different cultures and their languages. Nevertheless, a gradual but increasingly visible shift has been apparent since the second half of the 1990s towards a more competitive internationalization. Van der Wende (2001) calls this a shift in paradigm from cooperation to competition. Competition for students, for scholars, for talents for the knowledge economy, for funding of complex research, for access to the top 500 in global rankings, and for access to high impact publications. Recruitment, excellence in research, and reputation are driving the internationalization agenda of institutions and national governments, at the cost of the large majority of tertiary education institutions and their students and staff. According to de Wit, Hunter, Howard, and Egron-Polak (2015), internationalization needs to evolve into a more comprehensive, more intentional, and less elitist (for all students and staff) process, less focused on mobility and less economically driven, with the goal to enhance the quality of education and research and make a meaningful

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

25

contribution to society. How successful are we in changing the direction to the more competitive approach described above?

INTERNATIONALIZATION, AN EVOLVING CONCEPT Internationalization in higher education has evolved over the past thirty years from a rather ad hoc, marginal, and fragmented phenomenon to a more central and comprehensive component of higher education policy—although still more in rhetoric than in concrete action. In general terms one can say that internationalization has seen the following key characteristics: ●















More focused on internationalization abroad than on internationalization at home. More ad hoc, fragmented, and marginal than strategic, comprehensive, and central in policies. More in the interest of a small, elite subset of students and faculty than focused on global and intercultural outcomes for all. Directed by a constantly shifting range of political, economic, social/cultural, and educational rationales, with increasing focus on economic motivations. Increasingly driven by national, regional, and global rankings. Little alignment between the international dimensions of the three core functions of higher education: education, research, and service to society. Primarily a strategic choice and focus of institutions of higher education, and less a priority of national governments. Less important in emerging and developing economies, and more of a particular strategic concern among developed economies.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CURRICULUM AT HOME In the past decade, however, one can observe a reaction to these trends. While mobility is still the most dominant factor in internationalization policies worldwide, there is increasing attention being paid to internationalization of the curriculum at home. There is also a stronger call for comprehensive internationalization, which addresses all aspects of education in an integrated way. Although economic rationales and rankings still drive the agenda of internationalization, there is more emphasis now being placed on other motivations for internationalization. For example, attention is being paid to integrating international dimensions into tertiary education quality assurance mechanisms, institutional policies related to student learning outcomes, and the work of national and discipline-specific accreditation agencies. Leask, Jones, and de Wit (2018) state that the implementation of “internationalization of the curriculum at home” appears to be struggling to move beyond good intentions and isolated examples of good practice. According to them we are still far from any form of internationalization that is inclusive and accessible rather than elitist and exclusive. As a result, at the very least, they call for urgent attention to be paid to the following:

26

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

1. We must, as scholars and practitioners, not only continue but also escalate our efforts at working together across disciplines, professional areas and national boundaries as well as within universities. 2. We must engage more with stakeholder groups beyond the academy, striving towards the common goal of creating a better, more equal and fairer world. 3. We must integrate internationalization with other agendas—disciplinary, professional, institutional, national, and regional—which are also focused on improving the quality of education and research for all students. Internationalization of the curriculum, teaching, learning, and service should not operate in a vacuum. 4. We must place emphasis on enhancing the quality of education and research for all students and staff in all parts of the world. This requires integrated policy and strategy as well as cooperation and partnership within and between institutions across the globe. De Wit and Leask (2019) call for new ways of becoming and being international, and Brandenburg, de Wit, Jones, and Leask (2019) call for an internationalization of higher education for society, more directed to the role of higher education in solving global problems, the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. According to them, working towards inclusive international and intercultural learning for all means that we become more respectful of diverse contexts, agendas, and perspectives on a global scale. As internationalization has moved from the margins of higher education research, policy, and practice, it has become clear that the previously disjointed approaches that characterized its earliest years have given way to an understanding that sophisticated synergies are required to realize its full potential.

INTERNATIONALIZATION RECONSIDERED As internationalization and global engagement become entrenched around the world as mainstream components of quality in higher education, the need to ensure high-quality professional preparation of those responsible for the internationalization agenda in their respective institutions or systems of higher education becomes more widespread and sustained. An updated definition of internationalization has emerged, reflecting these broader understandings of its nature and purpose: “The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff and to make a meaningful contribution to society” (de Wit et al., 2015). According to the most recent survey results from the 5th Global Survey on Internationalization by the International Association of Universities (IAU), two thirds of university leaders around the world do consider internationalization to be an important agenda issue, although Marinoni and de Wit (2019) observe that there is an increasing divide between institutions that consider internationalization as of high importance and those that do not. They observe that “the reasons for such a divide between HEIs that consider internationalization extremely important and those who do not is worth a reflection and deserves to be studied more in depth, especially if one considers internationalization to be an essential part of all HEIs’ mission and a sign of quality” (Marinoni and de Wit, 2019: 1).

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

27

As described above, the challenges that institutions encounter in their internationalization strategy are diverse. There are the pressures of revenue generation, competition for talents, and branding and reputation (rankings). There is also pressure to focus on international research and publication, on recruitment of international students and scholars, and on the use of English as language of research and instruction. These challenges conflict with a more inclusive and less elitist approach to internationalization, building on the needs and opportunities of institutions’ own students and staff. In other words, there are tensions between a short-term neoliberal approach to internationalization, focusing primarily on mobility and research, and a long-term comprehensive quality approach—global learning for all. One of the main risks is that internationalization continues to be perceived as strengthening the dominance of the existing powers in international higher education: regions, nations, and institutions. Jones and de Wit (forthcoming) ask: Will new regional alliances become an alternative for the European Union and the United States, and will the creation of new post-cold war blocks of political and economic influence provide a new focus to higher education institutions and national higher education systems? Will institutions from Asia, Latin America and Africa be able to compete as world class universities in ranking and branding? Will successful forms of South–South cooperation emerge as an alternative to current unequal North–South partnerships? The main misconception about internationalization is that we consider it too much as a goal in itself, instead of as a means to an end. Internationalization is no more than a way to enhance the quality of education and research, and of service to society. This quality, and the related internationalization, as defined by de Wit et al. (2015), is under pressure, and the current global political climate (Altbach and de Wit, 2017) is not supportive in reversing the trend. On the contrary, de Wit and Leask (2019: 1) argue that: Aligning the practice of internationalization with human values and the common global good, requires that we first challenge some of our long held views about what it is to “be international” as a university, a teacher, a student, a human being. This requires pushing the boundaries of our own and others’ thinking, focusing on people and ensuring that they develop and demonstrate the institution’s espoused human values. A more inclusive approach to internationalization, as described above by de Wit et al. (2015) in their definition, and by the urgent actions called for by de Wit and Leask (2019) and by Brandenburg et al. (2019), is needed now more than ever. As de Wit (2019b: 1) note in a reflection on the Conference of the Americas on International Education (CAIE 2019) in Bogota: “The world is changing as also the world of international education, with increasing collaboration South–South and strengthening of ties from Latin America with Europe, Canada, China and other countries in Asia Pacific, leaving the US aside. American international education has to be careful that it does not isolate itself, does not create its own wall.” Is internationalization in these countries more coerced than intentional, as Teferra (2019) argues? And do we not see an increase in forced internationalization, with the flood of refugees asking for access to higher education outside of their own countries, as Ergin, de Wit, and Leask (2019) observe? At the same time, does internationalization in the developing world have to avoid simply mimicking the priorities of Anglo-Western

28

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

forms of internationalization, and develop distinctive forms of the concept which better reflect local needs and priorities? A recent study on national tertiary education policies and strategies in mid- and low-income countries seems to point to the former (de Wit, Rumbley, Cr˘aciun, Mihut, and Woldegiyorgis, 2019), but there are also more positive signs, reflected in this publication as well as in others.

REFERENCES Altbach, P.G. and de Wit, H. (2017). The new nationalism and internationalization of HE . University World News, 474, September 15, 2017. Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E. and Leask, B. (2019). Internationalization in higher education for society. University World News, 548, April 20, 2019. De Wit, H. (2019a). Internationalization in higher education: A critical review. SFU Educational Review, 12(3): 9–17. De Wit, H. (2019b). Is U.S. international education building a wall? The world view. Inside Higher Education, October 30, 2019. De Wit, H. and Leask, B. (2019). Towards new ways of becoming and being international. University World News, 561, July 28, 2019. De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard L., and Egron Polak, E. (eds) (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Brussels. De Wit, H., Rumbley, L.E., Cr˘aciun, D., Mihut, G., and Woldegiyorgis, A. (2019). International mapping of national tertiary education internationalization strategies and plans (NTEISPs). CIHE Perspectives, 12, Boston: Centre for International Higher Education. Ergin, H, de Wit, H., and Leask, B. (2019). Forced internationalization: An emerging phenomenon. International Higher Education, 97: 9–10. Jones, E., and de Wit, H. (2012). Globalization of internationalization: Thematic and regional reflections on a traditional concept. AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3: 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1353/aud.2012.0012 Jones, E. and de Wit, H. (forthcoming). The globalization of Internationalization? In Cohn, D. and Khan H.E. (eds), International Education at the Crossroads. Indiana: Indiana University Press. Leask, B., Jones, E. and de Wit, H. (2018). Towards inclusive intercultural learning for all. University World News, December 7, issue no. 532. Majee, U.S., and Ress, S.B. (2018). Colonial legacies in internationalization of higher education: racial justice and geopolitical redress in South Africa and Brazil. Compare: a Journal of Comparative and International Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1521264 Marinoni, G. and de Wit, H. (2019). Internationalization and inequality, first results from the 5th Global Survey of IAU . University World News, 534, January 2019. Teferra, D. (2019). Defining internationalization—intention versus coercion. University World News, August 23, 2019. Van der Wende, M. (2001). Internationalization policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14: 249–259.

CHAPTER THREE

International Mapping of National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs)1 ˘ CIUN , HANS DE WIT, LAURA E. RUMBLEY, DANIELA CRA GEORGIANA MIHUT, AND AYENACHEW WOLDEGIYORGIS

Over the past thirty years, internationalization in higher education has become a key point of strategy for international entities such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank, and the European Commission, as well as for national governments, and for institutions of higher education and their associations. Some of its main trends in those thirty years have been: ● ●





● ●



More focused on internationalization abroad than on internationalization at home. More ad hoc, fragmented and marginal than strategic, comprehensive, and central in policies. More in the interest of a small, elite subset of students and faculty than focused on global and intercultural outcomes for all. Directed by a constantly shifting range of political, economic, social/cultural, and educational rationales, with increasing focus on economic motivations. Increasingly driven by national, regional, and global rankings. Little alignment between the international dimensions of the three core functions of higher education: education, research, and service to society. Primarily a strategic choice and focus of institutions of higher education, and less a priority of national governments.

This chapter is a summarized version of de Wit, Rumbley, Cr˘aciun, Mihut, and Woldegiyorgis (2019).

1

29

30

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION ●

Less important in emerging and developing economies, and more of a particular strategic concern among developed economies.

In the past decade, however, one can observe a reaction to these trends. While mobility is still the most dominant factor in internationalization policies worldwide, there is increasing attention being paid to internationalization of the curriculum at home. There is also a stronger call for comprehensive internationalization, which addresses all aspects of education in an integrated way. Although economic rationales and rankings still drive the agenda of internationalization, there is more emphasis now being placed on other motivations for internationalization. For example, attention is being paid to integrating international dimensions into tertiary education quality assurance mechanisms, institutional policies related to student learning outcomes, and the work of national and discipline-specific accreditation agencies. This is reflected in the updated definition of internationalization (which purposefully built on a definition for the phenomenon articulated by Jane Knight, 2004) that was put forward in a study for the European Parliament: “The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff and to make a meaningful contribution to society” (de Wit, Hunter, Egron-Polak, and Howard, 2015: 29). And internationalization, as described by Jones and de Wit (2014), has become more globalized, and both regional, national, and institutional initiatives are developed in the emerging and developing world: “In the current global-knowledge society, the concept of internationalization of higher education has itself become globalized, demanding further consideration of its impact on policy and practice as more countries and types of institution around the world engage in the process. Internationalization should no longer be considered in terms of a westernized, largely Anglo-Saxon, and predominantly Englishspeaking paradigm” (Jones and de Wit, 2014: 28).

LITERATURE REVIEW OF NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION STRATEGIES AND POLICIES More attention has recently been paid to internationalization in the agendas of national governments such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Over the past five years, several studies by the British Council (2016; 2017), the British Council and DAAD (2014), Helms et al. (2015), the European Parliament (de Wit et al., 2015), Cr˘aciun (2018a), and Perna et al. (2014) have looked into NTEISPs, and have generated a series of analyses, overviews, rankings, and recommendations on them. So far, no comprehensive analysis and typology has been provided, and less attention has been given to low- and middle-income countries with respect to NTEISPs. In recent years, internationalization has shaped education at all levels across the world at an accelerated pace. In light of increased student and staff mobility, the increased presence of branch campuses and international providers, and increased competition for international talent, tertiary education institutions and national governments are mobilizing to both leverage and steer internationalization. National tertiary education internationalization strategies and plans represent the most tangible and direct attempts by governments to play an active and decisive role in relation internationalization, but there are substantive differences in their approaches, rationales, and priorities.

INTERNATIONAL MAPPING OF NTEISPS

31

Meanwhile, new definitions and understandings of internationalization have given way to a new research agenda. Since the definition of higher education internationalization has been reworked to include the specification that internationalization is a planned activity, and not something that “just happens” to higher education systems or institutions, there has been a trend towards examining national involvement in steering the process (Cr˘aciun, 2018c). A survey of NTEISPs provides important lessons about the systemlevel arrangements meant to advance internationalization and go beyond seeing the process as a by-product of globalization. These lessons become crucial in a policy-making environment striving to learn from best practices and develop evidence-based policies (Cr˘aciun, 2018c). A worldwide census of explicit NTEISPs carried out by Cr˘aciun (2018a) reveals that only 11 percent of countries have an official strategy for internationalization, most having been adopted in the last decade. Such strategies have been developed predominantly by developed countries—three in four NTEISPs come from members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). European countries have taken the lead in promoting strategic thinking about internationalization at the national level— two in three NTEISPs come from this world region (Cr˘aciun, 2018a), and programs such as Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 have led to further regional harmonization of higher education systems (British Council, 2017). This is not to say that other countries have not taken measures to promote internationalization. In fact, to support internationalization processes, many countries have taken both direct measures (e.g., re-evaluating their visa policies to give preferential treatment to international students and scholars, establishing bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements through memoranda of understanding, and promoting transnational education through free-trade deals) and indirect measures (e.g., supporting internationalization in political discourses and giving universities autonomy to pursue internationalization activities). Nevertheless, explicit NTEISPs ensure consistency between direct and indirect policy measures and provide a clear signalling of government commitment to internationalization. In other words, NTEISPs move higher education internationalization “from the periphery to centre stage” (Cr˘aciun, 2018b: 8). More in-depth, large-scale research on the focus—in terms of rationales and priorities—of NTEISPs is needed to get a better understanding of what is actually done to promote internationalization and the effectiveness of the measures taken (Cr˘aciun, 2018c). As evidenced by a systematic literature review of rigorous research from the last twentyfive years on transnational cooperation in higher education, there are significant economic and non-economic benefits for societies, institutions, and individuals arising from internationalization (Cr˘aciun and Orosz, 2018). Benefits for which there is solid evidence include more and better research publications and patents, better foreign language proficiency and employment prospects for internationally mobile students, positive attitudes towards open borders and democracy, strengthened research and teaching capacity, and increased attractiveness of collaborating universities to foreign academics (Cr˘aciun and Orosz, 2018). However, it is unclear how effective explicit NTEISPs are in bringing about these benefits. Because many of these national strategies have come about recently, little research has been carried out to gauge their results. Nevertheless, research on policy texts of NTEISPs has consistently singled out international student mobility as a priority for a majority of governments (British Council, 2017; Cr˘aciun, 2018c; Perna et al., 2014) and data show that almost half of international students worldwide in 2013 were hosted by countries that have explicit NTEISPs (Cr˘aciun, 2018a).

32

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Literature, as well as surveys, makes clear that the main focus in internationalization strategies and plans is still at the institutional level. Indeed, institutions operate in many cases without a national plan in place. Where national plans do exist, institutions may operate in conflict or in alignment with the national agenda. An NTEISP can serve as a catalyst or a drag on internationalization processes but is mostly seen as a highly positive element for the advancement of internationalization. Specifically, NTEISPs set internationalization priorities, allocate important resources to meet internationalization goals, and can ensure continuity of efforts between successive governments (Cr˘aciun, 2018b). They align internationalization with other key national priorities, such as economic growth and national security. They incentivize institutions and individuals to assist in meeting national strategic goals through internationalization. In short, national internationalization strategies and plans offer not only a good overview of the manifestations of internationalization, but also shape key action. However, it would be a misconception to assume that NTEISPs have common rationales and approaches to internationalization. Differences exist between and among high-income, low-income, and middle-income countries with respect to their policies and practices. Also, there are differences in explicit and implicit policies and practices, with some countries having well documented plans and others have no plans but well-defined activities. In addition, different stakeholders can be identified in the operationalization of NTEISPs. A typology of NTEISPs can improve transparency between and within higher education systems (Cr˘aciun, 2015), promote synergies through coordination, and ultimately increase the impact of these efforts (Helms et al., 2015). Developing a typology of NTEISPs requires identifying rationales, stakeholders, and organizational, programmatic, and geographic priorities. The case studies in this report provide input for the development of such a typology, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries which have become active actors in the field of higher education internationalization in recent years (European Parliament, de Wit et al., 2015). Overall, the literature points to several key indicators that can be used to guide more systematic thinking about national internationalization policies: ●







Involvement: Government involvement can be direct (i.e., through explicit policy documents to advance internationalization and by earmarking funds to be invested in pursuing this objective) or indirect (i.e., by supporting internationalization at a discursive level and allowing universities to pursue internationalization, but at their own expense). Stakeholders: Stakeholders may come from a wide ecosystem of actors related to tertiary education, including ministries (such as education or foreign affairs), other national agencies, the private sector, international organizations, regional bodies and institutions, etc. History: While there is a long tradition of indirect government support for internationalization, more direct and strategic actions, policies and plans have only appeared more recently (Cr˘aciun, 2018a). Geographic focus: In general, there is an evolving regionalization of internationalization in which European policies are taken as a best practice example (de Wit et al., 2015). Moreover, when looking at a global picture, national internationalization strategies are prevalent in Europe, but not so much in other world regions (Cr˘aciun, 2018a).

INTERNATIONAL MAPPING OF NTEISPS ●



33

Tactical focus: Some strategies are rather generic and others that have specific focal points or action lines that frame the scope of activity or interest (for instance inbound or outbound mobility). Effectiveness: In terms of effectiveness of national policies, little is known. This can be explained by the fact that the most policies are quite recent so there are few, if any, studies assessing the effectiveness of such instruments. Thus, the evidence is usually anecdotal or reliant on quantitative measures related to internationalization abroad (i.e. international student mobility).

LOW- AND MID-INCOME COUNTRY STRATEGIES AND POLICIES Recent publications have given more attention to emerging voices and perspectives (de Wit, Gacel-Ávila, Jones, and Jooste, 2017) and next generation insights (Proctor and Rumbley, 2018). As Fanta Aw, in her foreword to de Wit et al. (2017) states, “It is important for internationalization efforts to remain contextualized and rooted in culture, place, time and manner” (Aw, 2017: xxii). That is why it is important to study the way not only institutions, but also national governments, in low- and middle-income countries are responding to the need for internationalization. A mapping exercise of ten of these countries reveals the following (Table 3.1). Some key findings from the mapping exercise can be identified as follow: ●









There is a divide between countries with explicit and implicit NTEISPs but, with the exception of Ethiopia and UAE, all countries have some form of explicit policy on internationalization in higher education, while in all countries one can also find implicit references to internationalization in their education and/or foreign relations policies. There is a divide between countries with policies directly focused on internationalization and those in which it is one element of a broader policy and plan, but surprisingly seven out of the twelve countries have a specific stand-alone policy for internationalization, and five out of these seven even have a strong policy orientation. All countries have embedded internationalization in their overall national education and/or foreign relations policies, although in many cases in rather generic terms with little action. An exception is Colombia, where the ministry of education directly, and through the national accreditation agency, sets targets and indicators. National governments are leading actors for internationalization in all countries, and in four cases (Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Malaysia) national governments are quite strong actors. South Africa offers an example of a national policy that is defined by the national government but with institutions of higher education explicitly named as the key actors. Overall, one can describe the process for operationalizing NTEISPs as rather top-down. In some countries there is a lack of clear national plans, and institutions are left to provide direction (as in Ethiopia and Egypt); in others, it is primarily the Ministry of Education, or other ministries, or a combination of ministries, that are

x x x x x

xx

x

xx

xx

xx

xx x

x

xx x

x x

xx xx

x x x x

xx

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x x xx x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

*Note: An “xx” designation denotes that this specific policy characteristic is especially “strong” or evident in the particular NTEISP or national context. ** Note: South Africa’s internationalization policy is currently under review.

United Arab Emirates

xx

South Africa**

xx x

Singapore

x

Malaysia

x x x

x

Kazakhstan

xx

xx

India

x xx

x

Ethiopia

xx x

Estonia

xx

Ecuador

xx

Egypt

Approaches to policy articulation • Implicit focus on internationalization • Explicit focus on internationalization Approaches to policy formulation • Stand-alone policy for internationalization • Internationalization policy embedded in a broader policy Key actors • National governments/ministries • Non- or quasi-governmental actors • Higher education institutions • Foreign governments • International organizations Geographic priorities • Explicit geographic focal points

Case countries

Colombia

Policy characteristics

Brazil

34

TABLE 3.1 Mapping national internationalization strategies

x

x x

35

Priority action lines • Incoming student mobility • Outgoing student mobility • Incoming academic staff/faculty mobility • Outgoing academic staff/faculty mobility • Visa and immigration processes • International student/faculty services • Program and/or institutional mobility (includes cross-border and transnational education, educational hubs, international branch campuses, joint and dual degrees, online delivery) • Research and publications collaboration • Joint doctoral supervision • Partnerships, networks, and consortia • Internationalization of the curriculum (includes approaches to teaching and learning) • Internationalization at home • Requiring or encouraging teaching in non-local languages • Requiring or encouraging foreign language study or proficiency • Leveraging diaspora and/or internationally educated returnees • Facilitating employment for international students and international graduates • Enhancing quality and/or aspiring to international quality standards • Aiming to develop world-class universities

Brazil x

x xx

Colombia x

x

x x

x

x

x x x x

Ecuador x

x

x

x

Egypt x

x

x

x x x

x

x x x x

Estonia x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x x

x x x x

x

x x x x

Ethiopia

Case countries

x

xx

India

Policy characteristics Kazakhstan x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x x x x

Malaysia x

x

x

x

x

x x x xx

xx xx

Singapore x

x

xx

x x x

South Africa** x

x

x

x

x x x x

xx x x x x x x

x

x x

x

x

x

x x x

United Arab Emirates

36

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

involved. These actions may also be characterized by a combination of initiatives of national and institutional stakeholders (as in Colombia, for instance). ●









Most countries provide explicit geographical focus points and, in most cases, these are high-income countries in the developed world, i.e., South–North oriented. But a South–South trend can also be observed, from low-income to middle-income countries—for instance in the cases of India, Malaysia, and South Africa, and a focus on neighboring countries in Africa. There is a divide between countries focusing on incoming mobility (India, for instance), on outgoing mobility (Brazil, for instance), and two-way mobility. Most strategies focus on student mobility, and to a lesser extent on scholar mobility and transnational education (TNE) programs. Estonia is the only country with a more comprehensive approach, supported by European programs. Research and publications collaboration; partnerships, networks and consortia; and enhancing quality and aspiring to international quality standards, are quite common in national policies. Internationalization at home and of the curriculum, as well as national and foreign language policy, are rather marginal focal points in national policies. There is very little evidence that NTEISPs are designed with the goal of advancing social justice, inclusion, and equity objectives. Leveraging internationalization to meet the needs of historically marginalized and/or underrepresented populations does not appear to be a priority in any of the cases examined for this study.

What can we conclude from these findings? We can observe that low- and middle-income countries are becoming more active in defining national policies for internationalization, and on South–South cooperation, breaking in this way the “westernized, largely AngloSaxon, and predominantly English-speaking paradigm,” as mentioned by Jones and de Wit (2012). But serious caution has to be expressed about this trend. There is much copying of the Western paradigm in the strong focus on mobility, on reputation and branding, and on South–North relations. There is also little continuity in their national policies, due to political and economic factors, for instance in Brazil. The NTEISPs of low- and middle-income countries appear to sustain through their scholarship schemes and terms, their geographic focus and partnerships in research and education, and the dominance of high-income countries. More attention to regional cooperation, as is emerging for instance among ASEAN countries, more South–South networking and partnerships, and a stronger focus on internationalization of the curriculum at home are needed to break the high-income paradigm in internationalization, and to develop policies and actions that build on the local, national, and regional context and culture of each country.

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the report on National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs), the following recommendations are given: ●

NTEISPs should not be developed and implemented in isolation from broader strategies for tertiary education and socio-economic development; rather, their

INTERNATIONAL MAPPING OF NTEISPS

37

rationales should be driven by, and firmly embedded in, the socio-economic and tertiary education context of the country. ●















NTEISPs, ideally, should not be single-issue focused (such as recruitment of international students, outbound mobility of students, or increasing performance in rankings); rather, they should have a broader comprehensive approach, with integrated action lines that address aspects of both internationalization abroad and internationalization at home, as well as the interaction between these two dimensions. NTEISPs should take into account the international dimensions of all three core functions of tertiary education—research, education, and service to society—and consider how each of these dimensions can contribute to the strengthening of the other two. NTEISPs should address not only the potential benefits of internationalization, but also potential obstacles and risks associated with this process, and incorporate actions aimed at minimizing obstacles and mitigating risks. NTEISPs should clearly address the matter of how to strengthen the professional, academic, and “soft” skills of students. Attention should be paid to enhancing both intercultural and international competences to support students’ employability and citizenship development. NTEISPs should pay careful attention to national policies related to language and culture associated with tertiary education. These are important concerns in a globalized knowledge society and economy, where English is the dominant language of communication in research, but also increasingly in education. NTEISPs should attend thoughtfully to matters of social justice and equity. For example, when framing geographic priorities, national policies and plans should not only focus on South–North relations and partnerships but should also strengthen South–South collaboration. The needs of historically marginalized and underrepresented domestic populations should also be carefully considered in the design and implementation of NTEISPs. NTEISPs should look at the regional context of their internationalization policies, as regional policies for harmonization of tertiary structures and related support mechanisms offer important ways to enhance the quality of tertiary education in the national context (the European Higher Education Area and ASEAN provide important examples here). NTEISPs need to be based, both in their creation and implementation, on the active involvement of a wide range of stakeholders: a range of national ministries, tertiary education institutions and their associations, student and staff organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector.

REFERENCES Aw, F. (2017). Foreword. In de Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Jones E., and Jooste, N., The Globalization of Internationalization, Emerging Voices and Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp. xxi–xxiii.

38

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

British Coucil (2016). The Shape of Global Higher Education: National Policies Framework for International Engagement. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org/education/IHE British Council (2017). The Shape of Global Higher Education: International Mobility of Students, Research and Education Provision. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org/ education/IHE British Council and DAAD (2014). The Rationale for Sponsoring Students to Undertake International Study. An Assessment of National Student Mobility Scholarship Programs. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/e002_outward_mobility_ study_final_v2_web.pdf Cr˘aciun, D. (2015). Systematizing internationalization policy in higher education: Towards a typology. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 15(1): 49–56. Cr˘aciun, D. (2018a). National policies for higher education internationalization: A global comparative perspective. In Curaj, A., Deca, L., and Pricopie, M. (eds), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 95–106. Cr˘aciun, D. (2018b). Navigating national internationalization policies: Moving internationalization from the periphery to centre stage. Forum. Amserdam: European Association for International Education. Cr˘aciun, D. (2018c). Topic modeling: A novel method for the systematic study of higher education internationalization policy. In Rumbley, L. and Proctor, D. (eds), The Future Agenda for Internaitonalization in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 102–113. Cr˘aciun, D. and Orosz, K. (2018). Benefits and Costs of Transnational Collaborative Partnerships in Higher Education. European Expert Network on Economics of Education. Retreived from: http://www.eenee.de/eeneeHome/EENEE/Analytical-Reports.html De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Egron-Polak, E., and Howard, L. (eds) (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels: A Study for the European Parliament. De Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J, Jones E., and Jooste, N. (2017). The Globalization of Internationalization, Emerging Voices and Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. De Wit, H., Rumbley, L.E., Cr˘aciun, D., Mihut, G., and Woldegiyorgis, A. (2019). International Mapping of National Tertiary Education Internationalization Strategies and Plans (NTEISPs). CIHE Perspectives no. 12. Boston College Centre for International Higher Education, and World Bank. Helms, R. M., Rumbley, L.E., Brajkovic, L., and Mihut, G. (2015). Internationalizing Higher Education Worldwide: National Policies and Programs. CIGT Insights. doi: 10.13140/ RG.2.2.12513.51044 Jones, E., and de Wit, H. (2012). Globalization of internationalization: Thematic and regional reflections on a traditional concept. AUDEM: The International Journal of Higher Education and Democracy, 3: 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1353/aud.2012.0012 Jones, E. and de Wit, H. (2014). Globalized internationalization: Implications for policy and practice. IIEnetworker, Spring, 28–29. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, rationales and approaches. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Perna, L.W., Orosz, K., Gopaul, B., Jumakulov, Z., Ashirbekov, A., and Kishkentayeva, M. (2014). Promoting human capital development: A typology of international scholarship programs in higher education. Educational Researcher, 20(10): 1–11. Proctor, D. and Rumbley, L.E. (2018). The Future Agenda for Internationalization in Higher Education, Next Generation Insights into Research, Policy, and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.

SECTION I

Asia Pacific

39

40

CHAPTER FOUR

Introduction to Asia Pacific Chapters FUTAO HUANG AND ANTHONY R. WELCH

INTRODUCTION Like many other regions, internationalization of Asia and the Pacific is a dynamic process. And it is by no means new: academic and cultural exchange activities were carried out within Asian countries in ancient times, and the influence of China on other Asian countries, in both current East and Southeast Asia, was profound and palpable (Welch 2010, 2011, 2019). There is little doubt that several Asian countries like Japan and China established their modern universities or higher education systems in the nineteenth century by basically modeling them on prevailing Western ideas and standards, especially those of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As a series of British colonies, it is no surprise that the formation of modern Australian universities was also significantly impacted by UK institutional and ideological patterns at the time (Pietsch 2013, Welch 2020). International activities such as dispatching domestic students and researchers to these Western countries, introducing Western academic norms, standards, textbooks, and curriculums, and inviting faculty members from Western countries to the Asian countries played a decisive role in the process of modernization of higher education in the region, as Meiji Japan most strikingly illustrated from around 1868. In a major sense, the one-way internationalization of higher education or Westernization could be considered as illustrating the onset of the internationalization of higher education in most Asian countries and Australia. The two World Wars, and especially the Cold War, largely shaped the fundamental characteristics of internationalization of higher education in Asian countries. For example, internationalization of higher education in the region can in practice be divided into at least three types. The first type includes those countries like Japan and Korea, which were more impacted by US ideas and institutional forms. The second type refers to countries that had been colonies of the UK, such as Australia, India, and Malaysia. The third type includes China and Kazakhstan, which were substantially affected, at various times, by the former Soviet model (Hayhoe and Orleans 1987). By the late 1970s, international activities were more undertaken within each group separately: almost no academic and cultural exchange activities were carried out or emphasized between different country groupings. In other words, internationalization of higher education was characterized by a more vertical form, rather than a horizontal one at regional level. Clear examples are the Americanization of higher education in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan since the late 1940s and the introduction of almost all aspects of higher education from the former Soviet Union 41

42

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

to China in the early 1950s. The most important reason for this was that the internationalization of higher education in the region during the Cold War period was primarily dominated and stimulated by various ideological and political factors. Affected by both global and domestic factors, substantial changes have occurred in internationalization of higher education, in many countries, since the 1990s. The major Asian countries and Australia are no exception. It is generally acknowledged that key drivers affecting internationalization of higher education at a global level include massification of higher education, marketization of higher education, and enhancing the global competitiveness of national higher education systems. However, domestic factors vary considerably, according to different national and social contexts in the region. For example, compared with other Asian countries, in both Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK), the demographic decline in the number of 18-year-olds has become one of the most critical factors affecting their internationalization of higher education. Because private universities account for nearly 80 percent of the total, in both student and institution numbers, and the operation of these private universities largely depends upon tuition and fees charged to students, they are often the first to be affected (Levy 2010). In Kazakhstan, the building of a new higher education system and formation of a renewed national identity after its independence from the former Soviet Union appears to have greatly influenced its approaches to internationalization, notwithstanding a significant legacy that is more evident among the older generation of academics. From a comparative perspective, some similarities and differences can be clearly identified in the internationalization of higher education between China, Japan, India, Kazakhstan, Korea, and the countries of ASEAN in recent years. Points in common include, first, internationalization of higher education has played an increasingly important role in improving the quality of teaching, learning, and research activities, spreading the international status of national higher education, and building world-class universities, especially since the emergence of several global university ranking tables in the early 2000s. Indeed, it is no surprise that the first of these emanated from China—the highly regarded Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), developed by colleagues at Shanghai Jiaotong University, with the aim, at least in part, of benchmarking Chinese universities’ performance against their international peers (ARWU n.d.). In other words, internationalization of higher education has been widely used to be one effective means to enhance the academic excellence and competitiveness of national higher education systems, and leading universities, in the region. Second, it seems that much closer and more direct collaborations and partnerships have been built up between government and higher education institutions or academia in facilitating internationalization of higher education in these countries. While national governments still maintain a strong leadership and impose various regulations on higher education institutions, individual universities are delegated with more authority and autonomy to create institutional strategies of internationalization, and be engaged in, international activities based on their missions and goals. As ever, this is not the proverbial level playing field—in Japan, key national universities were selected by the government as flagships for internationalization, while in China the top-tier, world-class universities have major advantages in attracting international students and staff, relative to lessrenowned institutions. Of two such elite institutions, for example, Peking University enrolled over 6,700 international students in 2018, while Zhejiang University had more than 7,000 international students, the majority of whom were in degree programs (largely in STEM).

INTRODUCTION TO ASIA PACIFIC CHAPTERS

43

Third, compared with any previous phases, a far wider variety of activities of internationalization of higher education have been implemented in the selected countries. They include not only the traditional activities of cross-border movement of students, faculty members, researchers, scientists, and educational curriculum, but also newly emerged transnational higher education activities like jointly operated academic programs and campuses, and distance teaching and learning via the internet, in collaboration with other countries or universities abroad. Fourth, despite more collaborations, there has also been an increased competitiveness of national higher education in the region in terms of attracting inbound international students, researchers, educational programs, and off-shore campuses, and raising the global presence and reputation of national higher education institutions (Huang, 2003a). Fifth, the dimensions of internationalization of higher education in the case countries have been considerably expanded geographically, culturally, and ideologically. While international exchange and collaboration between all case countries have been greatly strengthened at a regional level, more cooperative efforts have been made by China, Japan, and Korea to develop a new form of internationalization of higher education especially in the exchange of students and recognition of academic credits, certificates, and degrees, exemplified in the Campus Asia program, instituted in 2011 (Campus Asia, n.d). Further, while the traditional academic and cultural links between Australia, Europe, the UK, and the United States; India and the UK; Japan and the United States; and Korea and the United States are still in place, stronger links and new partnership between China and its neighbors, in both Central Asia and Southeast Asia, have been built, based on the New Silk Road initiative, especially since 2013. Sixth has been the extension of English as a major factor in the internationalization platform across the region. In an effort to become more competitive, and to attract a wider range of students, private universities in Malaysia, for example, have begun offering a range of programs in English (something that their public competitors are largely prevented from doing). Another example is the Ministry of Education in China mandating in 2001 that 10 percent of university subjects should be taught in a foreign language (usually English). In practice, the top-tier universities were more able to comply and offered salary incentives to academics who were able to teach in English (Huang, 2003b, 2006). Finally, while the six case countries attach importance to collaborating with the UK and the United States and generally accept influences from their academic ideas and practices, almost all of them have formulated national policies or strategies to build world-class universities and are making strides in establishing regional hubs or centers of excellence. In short, all the case countries have been trying to move from the peripheral parts of the center of excellence to become at least the regional center of excellence. It can be said that East and Southeast Asia represent the most dynamic new region for the development of internationalization, worldwide, with the growth of major new competitors such as China, Singapore, and Malaysia in the last decade or so. There are at least two major differences in the internationalization of higher education between the case countries that are both obvious and considerable, however. First, the approaches to internationalization of higher education vary according to the case countries. For example, in China, despite a rapid increase in the numbers of nongovernment sectors or private universities (minban and duli xueyan in Chinese) and their growing importance in the national higher education system, more support and concentration has been provided to and placed on the internationalization of public universities, especially those leading national universities founded and administered by

44

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

the Ministry of Education and other national ministries and departments. These national universities enjoy more favorable policies and generous funding from the central government and local authorities to undertake international activities of accepting inbound international students, conducting internationally collaborative research projects, jointly running transnational academic programs, and even exporting educational services to other countries by partnering with foreign universities in developing Confucius institutes, and developing branch campuses abroad, such as Xiamen University, Malaysia (XMUM n.d.). In contrast, in both Japan and Korea, despite quite limited numbers, private universities with a long history and high social and academic prestige (such as the universities of Waseda and Keio in Japan and the universities of Korea and Yonsei in Korea) are also supported and intensively funded by central governments. Therefore, distinctive approaches to internationalization can be identified among the selected countries. China provides a typical approach to internationalization of higher education by primarily implementing and strengthening international activities in its public universities; whereas in Japan and Korea, the central governments also take into consideration the approaches to internationalization of higher education made by private universities and their contributions to the overall internationalization of national higher education. With respect to approaches to internationalization of higher education, while national universities are more concerned with internationalization of research and doctoral education and training, private universities generally place a greater focus on internationalization of teaching and learning. Second, the focus or main activities of internationalization of higher education seems to vary, depending on the country. Compared with other case countries, China has devoted more efforts to improve the quality of its research and build world-class universities through internationalization, due to the fact that its higher education institutions were traditionally merely concerned with producing manpower for national economic development and socialist construction, and did not undertake any research activities. In Australia, attracting inbound international students has become one of the most important means of generating university revenues. In Kazakhstan, internationalization of higher education through collaborating with both the Western countries and China has played a vital role in building a new and competitive national higher education system. In both Japan and Korea, while attracting sufficient inbound international students has largely determined the healthy operation of their private universities and colleagues, it is also used to contribute to the formation of centers of excellence and world-class universities. In Korea, recently, more efforts have been made to attract foreign faculty members as well as students, in order to become more competitive in the competitive global higher education system. Similarly, in Malaysia, recruitment of international students is seen as a mark of the maturing of their higher education system although, in practice, it is the private sector which is far more dynamic and entrepreneurial in recruiting international students (Huang, 2007). This Section is mainly concerned with the internationalization of higher education in Central, East, South, and Southeast Asia (China, Japan, India, Korea, and Kazakhstan) with some reference to regional relations with Australia, the only major English language system in the region, and at best a “significant other” in Asia (Welch 2020). As mentioned below, despite differences in degree, the Section addresses the contexts in which internationalization of higher education in each country has occurred in recent years, important factors affecting it, the evolution of internationalization, its key characteristics,

INTRODUCTION TO ASIA PACIFIC CHAPTERS

45

the roles it has played in national higher education systems, and the challenges faced while efforts are made to both internationalize each country’s higher education systems or universities, while at the same time retaining core elements of cultural patrimony. The following chapters, which focus on East and Southeast Asia, illustrate and argue new activities and forms, as well as dimensions, of internationalization of higher education based on the five case countries from East and Southeast Asia. They also include developing relations with Australia, the only major English language system in the South Pacific, with a history of close links to the countries of ASEAN, and to China. Also, the chapters present challenges and pressures that the Asian case countries face while moving towards a further level of internationalization of higher education. Chapter 5, on China, is mainly concerned with how both government and individual universities have made major efforts to facilitate the internationalization progress of Chinese higher education institutions at home and abroad. Based on government policies, national surveys, national statistics, and earlier research, this chapter focuses on student mobility, transnational education and research cooperation, faculty recruitment, the promotion of English-teaching curriculum, and publications in international peerreviewed journals. Further, the chapter argues that there are specific challenges China faces in its internationalization of higher education. Chapter 6, on Japan, focuses on analyzing changes which have occurred in the internationalization of Japanese higher education, rationales for recent policies and strategies, as well as outcomes of internationalization of Japanese higher education, and the main challenges it faces. The main findings are as follows: first, as more diverse and complex factors have affected the internationalization of Japanese higher education in the past decades, the recent internationalization of Japanese higher education differs essentially from those in the previous phases. Second, it has made huge contributions to the formation of modern Japanese higher education, its quantitative growth, qualitative improvement, as well as international competitiveness. Third, government, individual universities, and other stakeholders like industry and business, have been trying to facilitate a further internationalization of higher education. Finally, it is evident that Japan also faces many challenges in its internationalization of higher education. Chapter 7, on Korea, critically evaluates the process of internationalization of the Korean higher education system from a dynamic and systemic viewpoint. The socioeconomic environment changes over time, and the changes happening in Korea over the last few decades have been very substantial. These include the demographic decline alluded to earlier and shared with Japan and Taiwan. In this dynamic environment, policy initiatives by the government and actions by market participants swiftly produce a new socio-economic environment. Consequently, the government policy initiatives and market participant behavior need to, and do, change over time as well. This chapter adopts a more-or-less historical analysis. But it is not merely a report of the history per se. Rather, the emphasis is on understanding the historical trajectory based on major stakeholders’ objectives, incentives, and constraints. Chapter 8 provides an overview of the process of internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan during the three decades of the country’s independence. Beginning with a short description of the higher education system in the country, it then provides an account of the historical development of the process of internationalization, including the description of the main players, rationales for internationalization initiatives, mechanisms, activities, policy documents, funding, outputs and outcomes, and challenges. Future directions are identified at the end of the chapter. In summary, internationalization

46

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

in Kazakhstan has been an important mechanism underlying the process of modernization of higher education. It holds the promise to contribute even more to reforms, if the government of Kazakhstan begins to consider it more strategically, if it starts to track previous successes and failures, and gathers systematic information on lessons learned. In addition, while playing a goal-setting role, the government should ensure greater engagement and initiative in internationalization from universities. At the same time, a greater coordination effort, as well as support for internationalization research is also necessary. Finally, while exploiting the developmental potential of internationalization, the government of Kazakhstan, as well as its higher education institutions, may also benefit from assuming a more critical perspective, recognizing that internationalization is a double-edged sword, that can at times lead to more bad effects than good, in that it may threaten local knowledge, traditions, and national interests. Chapter 9 on Malaysia examines the implementation of policies and strategies of internationalizing higher education in Malaysia in the recent two decades, marked by global and national higher education liberalization as well as various reforms in higher education. The chapter begins by analyzing Malaysia’s higher education system and its policy directions for internationalization within the macro-political and socio-economic context. It then explores the strategies initiated and, in turn, how the programs or initiatives have been implemented and promoted and shaped the discourse of achievement. A critical analysis, based partly on a limited number of empirical studies on the internationalization of Malaysian higher education, is provided to uncover the reality behind the policy rhetoric. The analysis also explores and explains the success and challenges of internationalization affecting the policy implementation. Finally, the chapter concludes with suggestions on measures to address the issues facing Malaysian higher education and ways to re-orientate the Malaysian internationalization agenda from a neoliberal economic framework to a more balanced rationale. Chapter 10, on India, develops a detailed analysis of the relationship between the academic capitalism brought through internationalization and the ideology of the Indian education system. Knowledge, according to the ancient Indian system, consists of two important principles—first, it is limitless, and second, it leads to the holistic development of the self. The chapter also explores these two principles through a review of existing studies and current transformations in the higher education sector in India. The chapter intends to bring about a better insight into the transformations that have affected the internationalization process and suggests strategies to align higher education institutions to their mission. Internationalization in the highly dynamic and diverse Asia-Pacific region is helping to break down the traditional core-periphery model of the West and the Rest. Major new centers in China, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore are attracting bright scholars and students from both the region and beyond, as well as forging important new relations within the region, and helping to develop world-class institutions of higher learning. This “shift to the East” is only likely to continue, and presages the ongoing rise of the Asian century, including in higher education.

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities. (ARWU) n.d. www.shanghairanking.com Campus Asia (n.d.) What is Campus Asia? https://www.grips.ac.jp/campusasia/en/ about/#:~:text=CAMPUS%20Asia%20(Collective%20Action%20for,in%20extending%20 their%20global%20reach

INTRODUCTION TO ASIA PACIFIC CHAPTERS

47

Hayhoe, R. and Orleans, L. (1987) Soviet Influence on China’s Higher Education, Hayhoe, R. and Bastid, M. (Eds.) China’s Education and the Industrialised World. Studies in Cultural Transfer. London, Routledge. Huang, F. (2003a). “Transnational Higher Education: A Perspective from China”, Higher Education Research and Development 22 (2):193–203. Huang, F. (2003b). “Policy and Practice of Internationalization of Higher Education in China”. Journal of Studies in International Education 7 (3): 225–240. Huang, F. (2006). “Internationalization of Curricula in Higher Education Institutions in Comparative Perspectives: Case Studies of China, Japan and the Netherlands”. Higher Education 51: 521–539. Huang, F. (2007). “Internationalization of Higher Education in the Developing and Emerging Countries: A Focus on Transnational Higher Education in Asia”, Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3/4): 421–432. Levy, D. (2010b) The Decline of Private Higher Education. PROPHE Working Paper #16. Pietsch, T. (2013) Empire of Scholars. Universities, Networks and the British Academic World. Manchester Manchester University Press. Welch, A. (2010) The Internationalisation of Vietnamese Higher Education. Welch, A. (2011) Higher Education in Southeast Asia. Blurring Borders, Changing Balance. London, Routledge. Welch, A., (2019) Higher Education in Asia, Rury, J., and Tamura E. (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of the History of Education. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Welch A. (2020) International Academics in Australian Higher Education., Huang, F. and Welch, A. (Eds.) [2020] International Faculty in Asia, Europe and North America. Dordrecht, Springer. Xiamen University, Malaysia (XMUM). www.xmu.edu.my

CHAPTER FIVE

Internationalization in China’s Higher Education Trends, Achievements, and Challenges XIAO HAN AND WENQIN SHEN

BACKGROUND: HIGHER EDUCATION IN CHINA (1949 TO PRESENT) After the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the central government treated education as a political tool to indoctrinate its people and to ensure their political loyalty to the ruling regime under the rule of Mao Zedong. Working under this purpose, the Chinese government strictly regulated higher education (HE) and implemented a centralized educational system. At the time, higher education institutions had no autonomy over the administration, syllabi, curricula, textbooks, enrollment, and allocation of slots in schools and universities (Hao, 1998; Ngok, 2007). Instead, the central government assumed the role of formulating educational policies, distributing educational resources, exerting administrative control, recruiting teaching staff, and deciding curricula and textbooks (Ngok, 2007; Yang, Vidovich, and Currie, 2007). In short, the state “monopolized the provision, financing, and governance of education” (Ngok, 2007: 143). The rigid and inflexible regulations inevitably resulted in the insufficient supply and low quality of tertiary education, which consequently set considerable obstacles for the sustainable growth of the Chinese economy. The HE enrollment rate in China was only at 1.7 percent, much lower than the world average of 12.3 percent in 1980 (UNESCO, 1985). The Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 revealed the importance of HE to the government in post-Mao China. With full awareness of education’s contribution to both economic development and social progress (Ngok, 2007) and the serious shortage of educated labor, the central government issued a series of policies to release its rigid control over HE and to protect “the initiatives and enthusiasm of educational institutions” (Mok and Chan, 2012: 114; see also Hawkins, 2006). The 1980s could be considered “a turning point in government–university relationships in China” (Yang et al., 2007: 579). As Zhu Kaixuan, the Minister of Education in the 1990s, stated: “Education is no longer dissociated from the economy . . . Education is closely linked with the economy and has become an organic component and key content of the plans for economic and social development” (Rosen, 1997: 259). Within this background, the CCP Central Committee released the Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party of China 48

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

49

on the Reform of the Educational System (hereafter the 1985 Decision) in 1985 during the National Education Conference, representing the first critical step towards restructuring Chinese tertiary education. In the 1985 Decision, the central government admitted that strict control over educational institutions had resulted in inefficiency and rigidity of the Chinese HE system. Ten years later, the central government issued the first official law to regulate Chinese HE, the Education Law of the People’s Republic of China, re-emphasizing the pivotal role of HE in the process of Chinese modernization: “Education is the basis of socialist modernization and the State shall ensure priority to the development of educational undertakings. The whole society should be concerned with and support the development of educational undertakings” (National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), 19851). As Zhong (2011) indicated, the policies issued in the 1980s demonstrated the changing ideology perceived by the central government on education, from “an instrument merely to serve proletarian politics” to “a wider conception” (p. 118), which is best expressed by the Report to the 16th Convention of the CCP: Education is the basis for developing science and technology and preparing talents, playing a leading and comprehensive role in modernization. It must be placed in a strategic position and given priority in development . . . Education must adhere to serving the construction of socialist modernization and the people, combined with productive labour and social practice, and prepare socialist builders and successors who have developed morally, intellectually, physically, and aesthetically. —Zhong, 2011: 118 In short, the 1985 Decision clarified that the most important aspect of the HE reforms was “to change the central government’s tight control over institutions, to improve institutional autonomy under the national principles and plans, so that institutions can build up their closer links to industry and other sectors, and foster their initiatives and capacity to meet economic and social needs” (Guo, 1995: 69). As the 1985 Decision claimed, “government control of schools was too rigid and management inefficient; authority should be devolved to lower levels; multiple methods of financing should be sought; the central level would continue to monitor the process and provide basic guidelines” while “subordinate units” could have more power and bear financial costs (Central Committee of the CCP, 1985). Knight (2004) pointed out that internationalization occurs at both national and institutional levels. Universities were accorded more discretion and the national government demonstrated its interest in searching Western models (Huang, 2003), through these efforts in internationalizing its HE system, China’s endeavors have borne fruitful rewards. The remaining part of this chapter discusses the national policies issued from 1978 to 2019 that aimed to facilitate the internationalization of HE. This discussion is then followed by an analysis of institutional internationalization and the efforts exerted by the home campus and global exploration.

For more information, please refer to http://www.gov.cn/banshi/2005-05/25/content_918.htm

1

50

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

NATIONAL PLANS IN CHINESE HE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROGRESS Huang (2003) has divided the development of national policy on the issue of internationalizing the HE system into two phases: 1978 to 1992; and 1993 to 2002. In the first phase, the Chinese government’s emphasis was mainly on sending students and faculty members abroad to seek advanced knowledge, inviting foreign experts to visit and give lectures in China, and encouraging foreign language teaching and learning, especially English, which reflected “the urgent demand for professionals and experts with a good mastery of advanced knowledge and technology from overseas and a desire for learning from English-speaking countries” (Huang, 2003: 226). In the second phase, the focus was on attracting Chinese students and scholars overseas to work domestically with full awareness of the increasing brain drain, and on addressing the requirements of transnational education and internationalization of the university curricula with the aim of cultivating talents within the Chinese territory. With reference to the Brain Drain Index,2 China’s scores fluctuated from 2.93 to 4.07 between 2005 and 2015; with 0 indicating severe brain drain and 10 indicating the absence of a problem. China’s scores mean that its brain drain situation is worse than its Asian counterparts, such as Indonesia (5.93), Singapore (5.73), Thailand (4.88), India (4.87), and Japan (4.49) (World Competitiveness Centre, Institute for Management Development, 2015). Thus, the Chinese government has endeavored to support transnational cooperation, offer scholarships to foreign students, and design policies to attract overseas talents. Since the promulgation of The Advice on Introducing Overseas Talent (MoE, 2007), the phenomenon of talent loss has been relatively reversed. In 2018, the number of students studying abroad was 0.6621 million while, in the same year, the number of returnees reached 0.5194 million. From 1978 to 2018, 3.6514 million out of 5.5710 million Chinese international students chose to return to China (MoE, 2019a,b). The alleviation of the brain drain benefited from the national efforts in actively promoting talent introduction and facilitating the settlement of returnees by offering housing, medical care, social security, and start-up funding services both in universities and enterprises. After China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, two new policies on transnational cooperation were issued by the Chinese government: the “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools” (hereafter the 2003 Regulation; State Council, 2003); and the “Implementation Measures of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools” (hereafter the 2004 Implementation; MoE, 2004a). These policies represent the remarkable progress in the transnational higher education (TNHE) regulations. Through these regulations, the government openly recognized the changing nature of HE (from public good to private or semiprivate commodity), thereby legalizing TNHE as a profitable product and promoting transnational cooperation into thriving development. However, the Chinese government also moved its emphasis from quantity to quality simultaneously, illustrating its ambition in cultivating a high-quality workforce to improve national economic development by importing world-class educational resources. Recognizing the problems, such as repeated introduction of low-quality educational resources and similar cooperation programs 2 Calculated by the International Institute of Management Development (IMD), with the aim of measuring, comparing, and reporting “brain drain” problems in different countries.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

51

concentrating only on certain disciplines (predominantly business, economics, and accounting) over the previous two decades (MoE, 2007), the Ministry of Education released a series of documents during the period of 2004–2007 to re-examine and standardize TNHE, marked by the release of the “Notice on Reviewing Transnational Cooperation Programs and Institutions” issued in 2004 (hereafter the 2004 Notice; MoE, 2004b). The central government redefined the collaborating partners as the overseas and Chinese education institutions and specified the criteria for regulating TNHE. Hence, cooperation activities registered before the promulgation of the 2003 Regulation needed to be reapplied and re-examined for approval certificates, thereby ensuring that their quality could meet the revised demands; otherwise, they would be dissolved. However, this increasingly rigid control cannot be considered as a sign that the Chinese government had withdrawn its support for TNHE. As Huang (2007: 430) stated, “although these programs are strictly regulated by [the] government, their rapid and steady expansion is directly related to the supportive policy of the central government, and this is incorporated as a component of internationalization of China’s higher education.” With the aim of strengthening international communication and cooperation, the “Outline of National Medium and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Planning” issued in 2010 reemphasized the importance of improving the domestic education systems and cultivating students to be competent in managing international business and competitions (MoE, 2010). All these measures highlight the Chinese government’s ambition to transform “the country from an economically strong nation to a country with strong human capital” (Mok and Yu, 2011: 237). Indeed, after the standardization period, TNHE maintained its drastic expansion trend and the numbers of newly approved transnational cooperation programs or institutions underwent another fast increase: 82 in 2011, 164 in 2012, and 220 in 2013 (Figure 5.1). If all levels of transnational cooperation activities (including programs and Sino–foreign cooperation institutions and universities having the status of legal persons or corporate bodies (duli faren)) are included, the number of students enrolled in transnational education programs/institutions was around 0.55 million. Among them, around 0.45 million were in TNHE, representing 1.4 percent of the total students in Chinese HEIs in 2013. By the end of 2016, more than 1.6 million students had graduated from TNHE (Chinese News, 2016). The amount of transnational cooperation has also increased annually, as shown in Figure 5.1.

FIGURE 5.1: Number of newly approved TNHE activities. Source: MoE, 2016, calculated by the authors (2018).

52

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

According to Knight (2004), the national level affects the internationalization process through policy, funding, programs, and regulations while the institutional level assumes the role of the real locality for internationalization. At the national level, a range of strategies is being utilized in various regions worldwide with the aim of increasing the competitiveness of their own HE systems, including creating more open-door policies for educational migrants, branding and re-branding nations as places of opportunity for educational advancement, increasing financial support for foreign students, and commercializing student recruitment (Foskett and Maringe, 2010). One of the Chinese government’s endeavors in internationalizing its HE system is to offer financial support to attract foreign students. For instance, the China Scholarship Council (CSC) has offered various programs, such as the Bilateral Program, with full or partial scholarships, according to the educational exchange agreements or consensus between the Chinese government and governments of other countries, institutions, universities, or international organizations. These support undergraduate and graduate students, as well as visiting scholars. The Chinese University Program provides full scholarship for certain Chinese universities and provincial education offices to recruit excellent international students. Other types of scholarships, such as Great Wall Program, the EU Program, and the ASEAN University Network (AUN) Program, target different student cohorts and permit outstanding international students to study in China without the heavy financial burden.3 The “Advice on Opening Education Sector in New Era” (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and State Council, 2016) went further in reaffirming the government’s goal of promoting collaboration with countries involved in The One Belt and One Road Initiative in talent cultivation through the establishment of the “Silk Road” scholarship and by encouraging Chinese universities to set branch campuses abroad, which led to researchers turning their attention to institutional level internationalization.

INSTITUTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION AND INNOVATION Efforts to internationalize HE can also be observed at the institutional level. A number of universities worldwide have devoted attention to improving their international profiles with the hope of increasing overseas student recruitment and cultivating globally competitive graduates (Foskett and Maringe, 2010). According to Maringe and Gibbs (2009: 85), the highly internationalized universities usually have the following features: ●

An explicit internationalization strategic intent with clearly defined purposes and strategies.



An expanding and diversified staff and student international exchange program.



A strong presence in the international student recruitment market.







A robust drive for exporting educational services beyond the campus boundaries especially to foreign and overseas destinations. A curriculum development focus that seeks to integrate and international dimension into course programs, in teaching content and pedagogical purposes. Joint research and development activities with international and global organizations.

For more information, please refer to http://www.campuschina.org/content/details3_74776.html

3

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

53

Although nearly all universities have realized the importance of internationalization in this globalized world, the strategies they have adopted differ. Maringe (2010) conducted a study on thirty-seven UK universities and concluded that newly established HEIs were more likely to increase their overseas student recruitment and promote their international teaching programs and curriculum design, while the older ones placed more emphasis on their student and staff mobility and endeavored to cooperate with international partners in research and enterprise. The rationale behind this situation is self-evident; the older universities are more concerned with research whereas new HEIs place more emphasis on teaching. More specifically, the methods that HEIs adopt to improve their internationalization level could be divided into two categories: internationalization at the home campus and internationalization abroad (Knight, 2004). Internationalization at home presents the strategies adopted by individuals or organizations to infuse an international dimension into the internal campus experience, such as redesigning the curriculum with regard to global perspectives and attracting or recruiting more international students and faculty. As the most active units in HE, universities have employed various strategies within their campuses to accomplish their target of high internationalization and consequently improve their reputation in the world. These strategies include the following: ●







Redevelopment of the curriculum to ensure international coverage and focus and relevance for international students as well as “home students” Internationalizing teaching and learning by recognizing different cultural perspectives on learning styles and employing a diverse international staff Providing student services that meet the practical and cultural needs of international students as well as “home” universities Benchmarking educational provision not just against national comparator institutions, but against comparators in other countries (Foskett, 2010: 40).

Meanwhile, internationalization abroad, with regard to the exposure of education institutions to the external world, includes engaging in international partnerships, sending students overseas, and establishing branch or portal campuses in other countries (Knight, 2004). Specifically, internationalization abroad includes the following: ●









International field study opportunities Increasing student and staff mobility between universities in different countries, encouraging students to spend time in overseas universities as part of their programs, and encouraging faculty to spend research time working with partner institutions abroad The formal inclusion of an “overseas” element to projects, programs, and research, for example by including establishment of joint teaching programs with overseas institutions. This may include, for example, articulation agreements, joint degree programs or split-site PhD programs Setting up overseas branch campuses, often in partnership with other private or public sector organizations Building research partnerships with overseas universities (Foskett, 2010: 41).

The Ministry of Education has entrusted the China Education Association for International Exchange to conduct an annual survey on the development of the Chinese

54

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

HE system since 2015. The first “Report of Internationalization of Higher Education in China” was issued in the same year. In total, 1,205 HEIs participated in the survey, 556 effective responses were collected, and the respondent ratio was 46.1 percent. The captioned report includes nine first-tier indicators, including: institutional strategy for internationalization, organization, and management, the teaching component, teachers’ and students’ mobility, and component, curriculum and teaching design, science and research capacity, the development of joint-running programs and schools, the enshrinement of Confucius institutes overseas, and international cooperation and exchanges. Of all the items presented in Figure 5.2, nearly 90 percent of the universities’ responses were positive. The attention given to internationalization within the institutions was well demonstrated by their strategic plans at the institutional level, especially in target setting and evaluation criteria development. For the organization and structure perspective, 86.5 percent of the participant universities (556) responded that they had established special offices to facilitate the introduction and application of high-quality educational resources, while 96.4 percent of the HEIs planned to conduct regular revisions of their international development strategies. Project 985 and Project 211 were the most important policy initiatives issued by the central government to promote Chinese universities’ competitiveness. Specifically, Project 211 was launched in 1995 with the aim of enhancing the teaching, research, and management quality through the cooperation of the central government, local governments, and HEIs. From 1995 to 2005, the total investment amounted to 36.83 billion RMB. Realizing the low international rankings of Chinese universities, the central government also initiated Project 985 in 1998, hoping to establish world-class universities and prestigious research-oriented HEIs. This project only includes thirty-nine universities, representing less than 3 percent of nearly 2,000 full-time state universities in China but hosts over 50 percent of doctor candidates, national key disciplines, and state key laboratories. More than half of the academicians of science and technology graduate from these universities. Investments in these institutions have reached 90.476 billion RMB (55.4 billion from the central government

FIGURE 5.2: Institutional strategy for internationalization. Source: China Education Association for International Exchange, 2015, the Report on the Internationalization of Higher Education in China, retrieved from http://www.ceaie.edu.cn/uploads/201604/13/G413381033619098.pdf

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

55

and 35.076 billion from the local authorities) (Ying, 2011; see also MoE, 2012). These two projects were replaced by the current “Double First-Class” Initiative in China. The ratio of international staff and teachers has proved to be an essential aspect of Chinese universities’ efforts in the promotion of internationalization. The ratio of international teachers in the responding HEIs was relatively low, accounting for 1.8 percent of all faculty staff. The inequality can also be observed among different tiers of Chinese universities: while the ratio in Project 985 was 2.9, and 2.3 in Project 211, the data drops to 1.7 percent in other institutions. Although the international faculty does not make up a high proportion of staff in Chinese universities, the government’s attempt to attract overseas talent to return and work in its territory has gained traction. The ratio of teachers obtaining an international qualification (in this case, a PhD degree) was much better compared with the share of introduced foreign faculty (Figure 5.3): 11.8 percent in the universities in Project 985, 7.5 percent in those in Project 211. Other HEIs lag behind, with their overseas PhD holders accounting only for 2 percent. The Chinese government permitted foreign students to study in China as early as 1950. The first cohort of fourteen international students was admitted by Tsinghua University.4 The “Regulation on Foreign Students in Chinese Universities” (MoE, 2000) further opened the door for international students to pursue different kinds of degree or non-degree education in the mainland. The implementation of such policies at the institutional level has been relatively effective. In 2018, 492,185 overseas students from

FIGURE 5.3: Percentage of teachers with an international PhD degree at universities in Projects 985 and 211 and in other HEIs. Source: China Education Association for International Exchange, 2015, the Report on Internationalization of Higher Education in China, retrieved from http://www.ceaie.edu.cn/uploads/201604/13/G413381033619098.pdf For details, please refer to https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/newthu/newthu_cnt/education/edu-3-1.html

4

56

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 5.4: Percentage of English-taught curricula at universities in Projects 985 and 211 and in other HEIs. Source: China Education Association for International Exchange, 2015.

196 countries were studying in China, indicating an increase of 3,013 from 2017 (MoE, 2019a,b). Referring to the data offered by the report, the remaining inequality in the level of institutional internationalization is quite obvious; the ratio of international students in Project 985 universities reached 5.7 percent, while the figure in Project 211 universities was 4.0 percent, and only 1.3 percent in other universities. In addition to the recruitment of international staff and students, HEIs in China have also gradually revised their curriculum design, adopting English as the teaching language to help students become competitive globally. Figure 5.4 shows the ratio of the courses delivered in English to the total number of courses offered by Chinese universities. Considering the advantage enjoyed by Project 985 and Project 211 universities in terms of talent recruitment and introduction, the relatively high proportion of courses taught in English is not unpredictable. Students in key universities, especially 985 ones, generally enjoy the benefit of more opportunities to immerse themselves in the English-speaking environment and thus are better equipped for the global labor market. Transnational cooperation is another important indicator of Chinese HEIs’ internationalization level. Unlike Sino–foreign cooperation universities that depend on the support of national and local governments, the cooperation programs and secondary colleges are initiated mostly by institutions. Specifically, Han’s (2016) definitions of the transnational cooperation categories are as follows: ●



Sino–foreign cooperation programs: An agreement made between Chinese universities and foreign HEIs. Students in the programs share facilities in the Chinese partners, are taught by both local and foreign teaching staff, and adopt combined overseas and local learning materials. Sino–foreign cooperation secondary/subordinate (erji) colleges: Secondary/ subordinate (erji) colleges affiliated to the Chinese universities and collaborated independently with foreign HEIs. Students enjoy separate facilities offered by the colleges, are taught by both local and foreign teaching staff, and adopt combined overseas and local learning materials.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION ●

57

Sino–foreign cooperation universities: Joint HEIs are established collaboratively by Chinese and foreign universities. Students enjoy separate facilities and campuses offered by the new HEI, are taught by both local and foreign teaching staff, and adopt almost complete overseas learning materials (except compulsory courses required by the MoE).

The first TNHE category is the Sino–foreign cooperation programs. With the surging number from two in the mid-1980s (Huang, 2010) to 1,105 in 2016 (MoE, 2016a), it represents the largest part of transnational cooperation activities in China. Some of these programs have been entitled to confer both overseas diplomas and Chinese certificates and diplomas while others can only issue a diploma from their foreign partners. The enrollment requirements and the learning period also vary. However, because this cooperation type must affiliate to a certain college in Chinese universities, Sino–foreign cooperation programs are usually criticized for their limited enrollment capacity and the indistinct division of responsibility. Thus, another cooperation type was developed, and some scholars treat it as the transitional type of TNHE (Wang, 2005). The establishment of Yanbian University of Science and Technology in 1992 represents the first appearance of this new cooperation type in China: the Sino–foreign cooperation secondary/subordinate (erji) colleges (even the official website of Yanbian University of Science and Technology calls itself a joint-venture university; it is categorized as a secondary/subordinate (erji) college by the MoE). The number of cooperation programs reached 1,1055 while 63 secondary colleges were established by 2017. Realizing the introduction of world-class educational resources demands not only the input of tangible or intangible assets but also more administrative autonomy, a new cooperation type, the Sino–foreign cooperation university, was established. Marked by the foundation of the University of Nottingham Ningbo in 2004, this new cooperation type has received strong support from both the central and local governments. According to the MoE, Sino–foreign cooperation universities could enjoy the status of legal entities or corporate bodies (duli faren), which permits them to enjoy more autonomy, such as the recruitment of teaching and administrative staff, developing independent enrollment criteria, and selecting or introducing textbooks. After the establishment of the University of Nottingham Ningbo in 2004 (6,808 students in total; with 6,157 undergraduates, 376 master’s, and 275 PhD students), twelve other Sino–foreign cooperation universities have been built or are under construction. They are listed below.

Completed Universities6 ●

Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University



New York University Shanghai (2013; around 1,200 students)



Wenzhou-Kean University (2014)

There are six programs (two in Heilongjiang, two in Hubei, one in Jiangsu, and one in Liaoning) that have qualified in the re-examination, but they have decided to quit. Thus, the table excludes these cases. 6 Source: The University of Nottingham Ningbo Annual Report (2015): http://www.nottingham.edu.cn/en/about/ documents/unnc-annual-report-2015-v14-bilingual-web.pdf; official website of Shanghai New York University, Admission Information (the total number of registered students was calculated by the author), https://shanghai. nyu.edu/admissions; official website of Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University, http://www.xjtlu.edu.cn/zh/studywith-us/why-study-at-xjtlu; official website of United International College, http://uic.edu.hk/cn/admission/ home/uic/6927-2012-01-10-16-53-41; The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen) Annual Report, http:// www.cuhk.edu.cn/UploadFiles/俉⑟ѝ᮷བྷᆖ˄␡ൣ˅єᒤᐕ֌എ亮.pdf 5

58

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION ●







Duke Kunshan University (2013) United International College (jointly founded by Beijing Normal University and Hong Kong Baptist University) (2005, over 5,000 students) The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen) (2014; over 1,000 students with a long-term aim of 11,000 with 7,500 undergraduate and 3,500 postgraduates) Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business (2003).

Universities under Construction ●

Shenzhen Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT)—Moscow State University (MSU) University



Shenzhen Jilin University—The University of Queensland University



Guangdong University of Foreign Studies—Lancaster University



Guangdong Technion—Israel Institute of Technology



Yantai University of Groningen.7

The thriving development of TNHE in China has undergone three generations, as categorized by Knight (2014), from the students moving across borders for education opportunities, to academic programs and HEIs. Student mobility, as the first generation of TNHE, has observed a meteoric rise during the past few years as mentioned earlier, while the education hub, defined as “a concerted and planned effort by a country, zone, or city to build a critical mass of local and international actors to strengthen the HE sector, expand the talent pool, and/ or contribute to the knowledge economy” (Knight, 2014: 19), including both the first- and second wave of transnational activities, has been given increasing attention both by researchers and officers. The most active participants in establishing education hubs, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, and the United Arab Emirates (Knight, 2011) are concentrated in the Asia-Pacific region and represent the main destination of education exportation. China has also joined this competition. Echoing the MoE’s ambition in moving to education output, Peking University, Tongji University, Suzhou University, and Xiamen University have established their own branch campuses not only in Asia but in Europe. Taking Xiamen University as an example, it offers undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral degree training programs in Malaysia on subjects including Chinese language, traditional Chinese medicine, accounting, and computer science, among others. Graduates are awarded the certificate and degree by Xiamen University, which could be recognized by the MoE in both China and Malaysia.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN RESEARCH In addition to the efforts of the national government and the institutions themselves, Woldegiyorgis, Proctor, and de Wit (2018) pointed out that another essential aspect in the 7 Official website of BIT, retrieved from http://www.bit.edu.cn/xww/mtlg/119794.htm, President Hu from BIT, retrieved from http://epaper.gmw.cn/gmrb/html/2015-04/28/nw.D110000gmrb_20150428_3-05.htm?div=-1; Official website of Jilin University, retrieved from http://oic.jlu.edu.cn/index.php?action=subnews_ detailandnid=133andfid=64; People. Cn. http://edu.people.com.cn/n/2013/0507/c1053-21384885.html; People. Cn. http://edu.people.com.cn/n/2015/0115/c220605-26392231.html; Telephone interview in 2016.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

59

internationalization of HE, research, should be considered. The common view that research is inherently international leads to a situation where fewer studies have concentrated on the research work of academic staff and explore whether the national and institutional policies have supported or hindered the greater internationalization of research. Various knowledge centers have developed worldwide, collaborating and competing with each other (Beaver, 2001). The nature of research as internally international should be analyzed from various perspectives including mobility, publication, research collaboration, and other forms of knowledge dissemination (Altbach and Teichler, 2001). While some elite universities have long been supported by governments to improve the internationalization of their research and ensure greater competitiveness (Antelo, 2012), the painful experience in China during the Cultural Revolution, from a different perspective, proves the indispensability of guidance by national policies. As a result of stagnation in Chinese academic research, the number of academic journals decreased sharply from 475 in 1966 to 57 in 1967, 10 in 1967, and zero in 1969 (Dean and Macioti, 1973). The severe reality that only one SCI article was published in 1973 from the entire country does not mean it is incapable of producing quality research but rather indicates separation from international academia (Davidson, Narin, and Carpenter, 1977). The report produced by Kormondy based on his experience of visiting China in 1980 pointed out that Peking University only had 170 professors, with an average age of over 65 out of its 2,700 teaching staff. Under the effects of the Cultural Revolution, most faculty retreated from academic studies (Kormondy, 1982). The re-immersion of China into global academia happened in the era of the Chinese Economic Reform. From 1978 to 1980, the number of SCI articles published by Chinese scholars was 2,457, representing 37.83 percent of Hungarian researchers’ contribution, much lower than that of India (35,322) and America (407,726). However, the turning point occurred in 1990, when the number of SCI articles increased to 7,607, decreasing tremendously the gap between China and India (10,327) (Zhong, 1998; Oleksiyenko, 2014). The increasing trend in China has continued. In 2005, the number of high-citation articles surpassed that of Japan while, in 2009, it equalized with those of the UK and Germany (Xie, Zhang, and Lai, 2014). According to the ranking developed by Leiden University focusing on the subjects of mathematics and physics, Tsinghua University takes first position in the number of high-citation articles in the fields of mathematics, computer science, physics, and engineering with 1,421 productions, preceding Massachusetts Institute of Technology with 1,420 (Flowerdew and Li, 2009). In addition to the achievements made in science, the Chinese government has also focused considerable efforts in promoting internationalization in social science and humanities. In 2011, the MoE promulgated the “Notice on Internationalizing Social Science in Chinese Universities,” with the aim of internalizing higher education in China further and improving its global profile. Higher education institutions have issued a series of policies to award SSCI authors to encourage publications in English. For example, a certain 985 university stipulates that the faculty member should publish in internal peerreviewed journals before he/she can be promoted to the position of full professor. In the “Criteria in Faculty Evaluation” issued in 2012, this university clearly states the importance of SSCI and A&HCI publications in career promotion because the staff without such contributions are only considered for “special reasons” and have to go through a very complicated process (University A, 2012). The outcomes of such efforts are promising: in 2006–2010, around 376,000 social science and humanities scholars in Chinese universities participated in international

60

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

conferences. Moreover, the number of cross-national collaboration projects increased to 2,600; over 15,000 articles were published in international journals; and around 800 works first authored by Chinese researchers have been translated into other languages (Ma, 2011). Although Woldegiyorgis et al. (2018) conclude that the internationalization of research differs from student mobility because the latter is considered to be a management-driven strategy while the former is affected weakly by internationalization strategies formulated by institutions (Trondal, 2010), the situation in China has revealed another facet. The effects of national policies cannot be ignored even though research activities have long been recognized as a principally bottom-up activity driven by individual faculty (Woldegiyorgis et al., 2018). Hence, more empirical research is called for on this increasingly important issue.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The above analysis focuses on the internationalization strategies adopted by the national government and institutions and embeds the background information on Chinese HE internalization development. The survey conducted by the China Education Association for the International Exchange shows that HEIs were not only encouraged by national policies but were also enthusiastic to internationalize themselves in their home campus and abroad. Scholars do believe that universities are attempting to follow the Western model on Chinese soil (Yang, Xie, and Wen, 2018). However, scholars should also pay heed to the emphasis (maybe over-emphasis) on international peer-reviewed journal publications and global cooperation that has taken up a considerable amount of faculty members’ teaching time. This is aggravated further by the clear inclination of giving funding to “hard” sciences, leaving social scientists greatly disadvantaged (Xie, 2017). The inevitable effects of national policies and initiatives are illustrated further by the research outputs contributed by Chinese scholars. Although, in principle, research is a bottom-up individual choice, national guidance is indispensable for its development. When the “neoliberal political agenda” (Singh, 2015: 363) becomes prevalent globally, the nature of education inevitably changes from public good to tradable commodity. Responding to the market’s call, the universities are compelled to train graduates as employable, catering to the needs of economic development and national profile improvement. The emphasis on the more profitable hard sciences is, to some extent, unavoidable. Transplanting and modulating Western styles to cater to the needs of China, especially in the new era when the central government exhibits great enthusiasm in establishing firm connections to the external world, has gradually become a severe problem encountered by both researchers and university administrators. It remains an issue for further exploration of the practical strategies in internationalizing Chinese HE and guiding its development work for the benefit of the nation and its citizens.

REFERENCES Altbach, P.G., and Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1): 5–25. Antelo, A. (2012). Internationalization of research. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 2(1): 1–6. Beaver, D.D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52: 365–377.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

61

Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (1985). The Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party of China on the Reform of the Educational System (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.MoE.edu.cn/publicfiles/ business/htmlfiles/MoE/MoE_177/200407/2482.html. Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and State Council (2016). The General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council issue “Some Opinions on Doing Well the Opening-up of Education in the New Period” (in Chinese). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from http://www.mohrss.gov.cn/ SYrlzyhshbzb/dongtaixinwen/shizhengyaowen/201605/t20160504_239378.html China Education Association for International Exchange (2015). Report on the Internationalization of Higher Education in China, retrieved from http://www.ceaie.edu.cn/ uploads/201604/13/G413381033619098.pdf Chinese News (2016). Over Two Thousand Programs and 0.55 Million Students Enrolled in Sino-foreign Cooperation Activities [in Chinese]. Retrieved April 24, 2019 from http://www. chinanews.com/gn/2016/04-15/7836318.shtml Davidson, F., Narin, F., and Carpenter, M.P. (1977). The distribution of world science. Social Studies of Science, 7(4): 501–516. Dean, G., and Macioti, M. (1973). Scientific institutions in China. Minerva, 11(3): 318–334. Flowerdew, J., and Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1): 1–16. Foskett, N. (2010). Global markets, national challenges, local strategies: The strategic challenge of internationalization. In Maringe, F. and Foskett, N. (eds), Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education. London: MPG Books Group, pp. 35–50. Foskett, N., and Maringe, F. (eds) (2010). Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Guo, Q. J. (ed.) (1995). A Collection of Education Laws in the People’s Republic of China (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing Broadcasting Institute Press. Han, X. (2016). Transnational Higher Education in China: Development Trends, Institutional Autonomy, Student Learning and Policy Implications. Doctoral dissertation. Hao, K. (ed) (1998). Twenty Years of Educational Reform in China (in Chinese). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Guji Chubanshe. Hawkins, J.N. (2006). Walking on three legs: Centralization, decentralization, and recentralization in Chinese education. In Bjork, C. (ed.), Educational Decentralization: Asian Experiences and Conceptual Contribution. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 27–41. Huang, F. (2003). Policy and practice of the internationalization of higher education in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(3): 225–240. Huang, F. (2010). Transnational higher education in Japan and China: A comparative study. In Chapman, D.W., Cummings, W.K., and Postiglione, G.A. (eds), Crossing Borders in East Asian Higher Education (pp. 265–282). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. International Institute for Management Development (IMD) (2015). World Competitiveness Yearbook 2015. Lausanne: International Institute for Management Development. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand, an innovation? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3): 221–240. Knight, J. (2014). International Education Hubs: Student, Talent, Knowledge Models. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

62

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Kormondy, E.J. (1982). The People’s Republic of CHINA revitalizing an educational system. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 14(5): 32–37. Ma, H.Y. (2011). China’s ambition in establishing academic research centres overseas. China News. Maringe, F. (2010). The meanings of globalization and internationalization in HE: Findings from a world survey. In Maringe, F. and Foskett, N. (eds), Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education: Theoretical, Strategic and Management Perspectives. London: Continuum, pp. 17–34. Maringe, F., and Gibbs, P. (2009). Marketing Higher Education: Theory and Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Ministry of Education (MoE) (2000). The Regulation on Foreign Students in Chinese Universities. Retrieved April 24, 2019 from: http://www.moe.edu.cn/s78/A20/gjs_left/ moe_850/tnull_557.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2004a). The Implementation Measures of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.MoE.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/MoE/ MoE_162/200408/2544.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2004b). The Notice on Reviewing Transnational Cooperation Programs and Institutions (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/index.php/ default/news/index/11 Ministry of Education (MoE) (2007). The Advice on Introducing Overseas Talent. Retrieved April 24, 2019 from: http://www.gov.cn/ztzl/kjfzgh/content_883641.htm Ministry of Education (MoE) (2010). The Outline of National Medium and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Planning (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www. MoE.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/MoE/MoE_838/201008/93704.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2012). The Report on New Round of Project “985” Contract (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/ s7045/201212/146215.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2015). Report of Internationalization of Higher Education in China. Retrieved from: http://www.ceaie.edu.cn/index.html Ministry of Education (MoE) (2016). The Information Platform of Chinese-foreign Cooperation in Running Schools. Retrieved from http://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/index.php/ default/index Ministry of Education (MoE) (2019a). Statistics of incoming foreign students (in Chinese). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from: http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/201904/ t20190412_377692.html?from=timelineandisappinstalled=0 Ministry of Education (MoE) (2019b). MoE: The number of study abroad students reaches 662.1 thousand in 2018 (in Chinese). Retrieved April 24, 2019 from: http://www.gov.cn/ xinwen/2019-03/27/content_5377428.htm Mok, K.H., and Chan, K.K. (2012). The reorientation of higher education: Transnational higher education and challenges for governance in China. In Adamson, B. (ed.), The Reorientation of Higher Education: Compliance and Defiance. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Comparative Education Research Centre and Springer, pp. 113–133. Mok, K.H., and Yu, K.M. (2011). The quest for regional education hub status and transnational higher education: Challenges for managing human capital in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31(3): 229–248. Ngok, K.L. (2007). Chinese education policy in the context of decentralization and marketization: Evolution and implications. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(1): 142–157.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN CHINA’S HIGHER EDUCATION

63

Oleksiyenko A. (2014). On the shoulders of giants? Global science, resource asymmetries, and repositioning of research universities in China and Russia. Comparative Education Review, 58(3): 482–508. Rosen, S. (1997). Education and economic reform. In Hudson, C. (ed.), The China Handbook. Chicago and London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, pp. 250–261. Singh, P. (2015). Performativity and pedagogising knowledge: Globalising educational policy formation, dissemination and enactment. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3): 363–384. doi:1 0.1080/02680939.2014.961968. State Council (2003). Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Chinese-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools (in Chinese). Retrieved from http://www.jsj.edu.cn Trondal, J. (2010). Two worlds of change: On the internationalization of universities. Globalization, Societies and Education, 8: 351–368. UNESCO (1985). Statistical Yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. University A. (2012). Criteria on faculty evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.zju.edu. cn/2012/0428/c5086a268485/page.htm Wang, J.B. (2005). Transnational Higher Education and SFCRS (in Chinese). Jinan: Shandong Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Woldegiyorgis, A.A., Proctor, D., and de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of research: Key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2): 161–176. Xie, M. (2017). Living with internationalization: The changing face of the academic life of Chinese social scientists. Higher Education, 75(3): 381–397. Xie, Y., Zhang, C., and Lai, Q. (2014). China’s rise as a major contributor to science and technology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(26): 9437–9442. Yang, R., Vidovich, L., and Currie, J. (2007). “Dancing in a cage”: Changing autonomy in Chinese higher education. Higher Education, 54(4): 575–592. Yang, R., Xie, M., and Wen, W. (2018). Pilgrimage to the West: Modern transformations of Chinese intellectual formation in social sciences. Higher Education, 77(4): 1–15. Ying, C. (2011). A reflection on the effects of the 985 Project. Chinese Education & Society, 44(5): 19–30. Zhong, W. (1998). Chinese scholars and the world community. In Agelasto, M. and Adamson, B. (eds), Higher Education in Post-Mao China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 59–77. Zhong, Y. (2011). Aligning capacity with needs in the process of massification of higher education in China: Northeast normal university as a case. In Neubauer, D.E. (ed.), Access, Equity, and Capacity in Asia-Pacific Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 115–125.

CHAPTER SIX

Internationalization of Japan’s Higher Education FUTAO HUANG

INTRODUCTION There are numerous definitions of internationalization of higher education as the phrase not only changes over time, but also is nationally-bound or socially-based. Historically speaking, since the medieval universities emerged in Europe, international activities were already carried out. There is little doubt that the purposes, forms, and main activities of internationalization of higher education in the twenty-first century significantly differ from those in the medieval times or the nineteenth century. Further, there exists a huge difference in the understanding of internationalization of higher education in East Asian countries alone. For example, the interpretations of internationalization of higher education in China are not the same as in Japan. This chapter focuses on analyzing changes that have occurred in the internationalization of Japanese higher education, the rationales for recent policies and strategies, as well as the outcomes of internationalization of Japanese higher education, and main challenges it faces. With regard to the organization of this chapter, the next section gives a brief introduction to the most pertinent features of Japanese higher education. It then presents the main changes that have occurred in the internationalization of Japan’s higher education from the historic perspective. The third section discusses recent policies and strategies of internationalization of Japanese higher education, main international activities, and their outcomes. The fourth section addresses key challenges facing Japan. The chapter concludes by presenting the main characteristics of the internationalization of Japan’s higher education from the international and comparative perspectives. Regarding the term ‘internationalization of higher education’, it is widely acknowledged that internationalization of higher education occurred as early as the twelfth century when, in Europe, medieval universities emerged. Its development can be divided into several phases. In each phase, internationalization adopted different forms and its aims varied due to differing contexts or rationales. However, it is also true that the situation in one country differs greatly from that in another country. There are a vast number of explanations that can be assigned to it. This chapter regards internationalization of higher education as the process of undertaking various forms of educational, research, or in a broad sense, academic activities between different countries and societies at a tertiary level. It emphasizes two major components. On one hand, it refers to internationalization of higher education in home institutions, including 64

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

65

internationalization of the university curriculum and integrating an international dimension into education, research and administration; on the other hand, it denotes cross-border mobility of students, faculty, educational programs and institutions, including sending students and faculty abroad and accepting foreign students and faculty (Huang, 2007a).

JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION AND CHANGES IN ITS INTERNATIONALIZATION Japan’s Higher Education Compared to many Western countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and European continental countries, Japanese higher education is characterized by three striking features as follows. First, private institutions, including both universities and junior colleges, account for the largest proportion of all higher education institutions (HEIs). For example, in 2018, the proportion of students in private universities and junior colleges constituted respectively to 73.7 percent and 94.8 percent of the totals. Moreover, the number of private institutions at university and junior college levels comprises 77.1percent and 94.9 percent of the total respectively (MEXT1, 2019a). Second, there is a clear-cut division of labour between national universities, local public universities, and private universities. These three different sectors play different roles and fulfil distinctive functions according to their missions. For example, as the modern Japanese universities were developed on the German research-oriented model, this tradition has dominated Japanese universities, especially the national sector, for a long time. According to the results of the International Survey of the Academic Profession, which was conducted by the Carnegie Foundation in 1992, Japanese faculty completed more scholarly publications than faculty in any of the other countries surveyed. Moreover, approximately 75 percent of Japanese faculty members think that it is important for a faculty member to have a strong record of successful research activity, a proportion much higher than in most of the other countries (Arimoto, 1996). The national universities are expected to facilitate the advancement of basic, applied, and large-scale (with substantial funding, often supported by the national budget) scientific research, and undertake more research activities. Except for a very few private universities, the vast majority of private sector are primarily engaged in undergraduate educational activities. Besides, more of them provide degree programs in humanities and social sciences. As local public universities are established, administered and mainly funded by local authorities, the goals and missions of local public universities place more emphasis on producing graduates who can serve the local economic development and prosperity. Third, Japanese higher education system displays a typically hierarchical structure. Except for very few private universities like Waseda and Keio universities which came into existence in the late nineteenthh century, a majority of national universities enjoy the highest academic and social reputation, relative to the other two sectors. Even within either national or private universities, those national HEIs which were founded before the World War II, normally identified as the former Imperial Universities, even now enjoy a higher academic and social prestige than any other institutions. Below them are numerous

MEXT refers to Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Science and Technology

1

66

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

national, public and private universities which were located in big cities. They are followed by a plurality of provincial public and private universities and junior colleges.

Changes in Internationalization From a historical perspective, focusing on the relationships between Japan and foreign countries in terms of international activities, changes in the internationalization of Japan’ higher education can be split for practical purposes into four major phrases (Huang, 2007b, 2019; Kurimoto, 2017): In the first phase (late nineteenth century - late 1900s), truly, there was a long history of educational and cultural exchange activities between China and Japan, and Japanese education was significantly influenced by China since the Tang dynasty in the early seventh century. By the time when the Meiji government built the University of Tokyo in 1868, there were already several institutions called the Shohei Gakko, the Kaisei Gakko and the Medical School (Igakko), which had formerly emphasized National and Chinese scholarship. Under the guidance of Wakon Yosai (Japanese spirit imbued with Western learning), the government incorporated more Western learning into their curriculums and made them become one part of the Grand School for the new educational system (Ministry of Education, 1980). During the process the impacts of Western ideas and patterns on the formation of the modern higher education systems in Japan are evident and considerable. Earlier research suggests that: “All of the higher education systems considered here have Western roots and use basically Western models. In Asia, as in the rest of the world, the contemporary university is a basically Western institution, tracing their roots to the medieval European universities and shaped by the particular Western power that was the colonial ruler. In the case of Japan, China and Thailand, foreign influences were chosen with independence, but the models were foreign nonetheless.” —Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989: xii. At the time, in addition to the translation of foreign academic books into local languages in Japan, important ways of learning from foreign ideas and patterns of higher education were to dispatch domestic scholars and students to Western countries and invite foreign experts and scholars from different fields to introduce their modern knowledge and technology and work for the national governments in Japan. For example, in the early Meiji era (1868-1912), the central government dispatched many university students abroad, mostly to the U.S., the U.K., France and Germany. In 1876 alone, there were 78 foreign faculty members who were involved in professional and language teaching activities, and in most cases taught in foreign languages other than Japanese (Ministry of Education (Japan), 1992). According to Ebuchi (1997), because Japan made huge efforts in learning from Western countries, it built a modern higher education system based on Germany, France, the UK and the USA. As western ideas and academic norms and conventions exerted profound impacts on the modernization of Japan’s higher education, this period of internationalization of higher education is typically characterized with “the phase of Westernization”. This one-way acceptance of western civilization is merely receptive to western countries by adopting their ideas, values of education and culture, and models of modern universities and colleges, hiring foreign academics and experts, and also sending domestic students and scholars to advanced western countries.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

67

In the second phase (1910s~1945), since the early 1910s when Japan colonized both Korea and Taiwan, the Japanese educational model and conventions were exported to Korea, Taiwan and some South-Asia countries as one control measure in colonizing these countries. In contrast to the previous phase, the primary form of Japan’s higher education during this period consisted of exporting Japanese academic values and standards to Asian countries and areas, while objecting to undertake international exchange activities with western countries, especially with the USA and the UK. For example, after Korea became Japan’s colony in 1910, the Japanese colonial administration closed and took over most of Korean institutions and found the Keijo Imperial University as the sixth imperial university of Japan in 1924. This university has a very short history and only existed until 1946, but it laid a basis on the establishment of the first national university in Korea when it was reformed and changed to Seoul National University. The other is Taihoku Imperial University- the predecessor of National Taiwan University-which was founded by the Japanese colonial administration in 1928. Because this period of internationalization of Japan’s higher education was more influenced by nationalism and emphasized exporting its ideas and academic standards to other Asian countries and accepted inbound international students from these countries based on its policy of colonialism in Asia, in a major sense, internationalization of higher education is more like Japanization - exporting Japanese models to other Asian countries (Huang, 2011). The third phase (1946 1970) of internationalization is characterized by the dominant influences from the USA on many aspects of Japan’s higher education. After WWII, impacted by the US ideas imbued during its occupation of Japan, the country restructured its national higher education systems based on the two main national policies of democracy and massification of higher education which was strongly enforced by the US occupation force. For example, educational subjects based on democracy replaced the former educational materials closely relating to the values of Bushido: nationalism and militarism. Japan realized the massification of higher education and the near-universal access to higher education by building new national and local public higher education institutions and encouraging the expansion of private universities and junior colleges by the end of the 1980s (Tsuchimochi, 1996). Furthermore, because of the introduction of the US general education to all Japanese universities, in which English language and, to a lesser extent, other foreign languages like German and French, became compulsory subjects for all undergraduate students, international faculty, especially from English-speaking countries began to be hired at Japanese universities. With a massification of Japan’s higher education since the 1960s, their numbers have massively expanded, including some programs taught in English in several private universities such as International Christian University and Sophia University. Other international activities include the widespread growth of interest in research and establishment of various academic societies: in particular academic faculty became more research-oriented, engaging in both pure research and applied research (Cummings and Amano, 1977). This period can also be called the phrase of Americanization of higher education in Japan. Since the late 1970s, Japan moved to the fourth phase which is normally viewed as the period of Kokusaika (ഭ䳋ॆ) in Japanese, a literal translation of Japanese word from internationalization in English. Huge and new changes have occurred in the internationalization of higher education in Japan. One of the most important factors affecting these changes is the suggestions made in the OECD report in 1971. In terms of internationalization, the report (OECD, 1971) proposed that Japan should make more efforts in providing foreign language education, encouraging domestic students to study

68

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

abroad, making Japanese educational institutions easier for international students to study in Japanese universities and colleges and opening its academic labor market for international academics wider, and producing graduates or human resources who are not only employed in Japan but also equipped with international perspectives and character. Among several responses to the OECD suggestions in relation to internationalization, one was the Nakasone Plan, named after the then Premier Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone. This national policy was to host 100,000 overseas students by the year 2000. To attain these goals, various efforts have been made at both policy and institutional levels. Since then, almost every aspect of internationalization of higher education, including internationalization of university curricula and even of the academic profession, has been largely affected by the plan. As discussed below, compared to previous phases, the goals, activities, forms, and means of Japan’s internationalization of higher education have become more diversified.

RECENT POLICIES AND OUTCOMES Since the 1990s, in addition to impacts from economic globalization, the knowledgebased society, new public management theories, the market, and massification of higher education, according to Amano (Amano, 2014), specific factors affecting Japanese university changes include a rapid decline of the cohort of 18-year-olds, the economic slump, and relaxation of government control and regulation on higher education. To illustrate, firstly, since 1994, there has been a continual decline in numbers of 18-yearolds. This has exerted a considerable and evident influence on the size and structure of Japan’s higher education, and its internationalization. Due to the steady drop in numbers in the 18 year-age group, it has become increasingly difficult for many small and local private institutions to recruit sufficient new entrants. Many private universities, as well as some national and local public universities, have to explore more diversified and flexible ways of attracting enough students. One of the effective ways is to accept more inbound international students to Japan. This has inevitably facilitated the international mobility of students. Secondly, the growing financial constraints have made government develop numerous policies to liberalize and revitalize tuition and research, many of which have asked universities to be more responsive to the market and competitive in attracting new entrants, including inbound international students, so as to secure the necessary tuition fee income. Thirdly, because of increased global competition and the demands from the market, the Japanese government has implemented a policy of freedom and competition to replace regulation and protection. This has resulted in radical changes in Japanese higher education, including its internationalization. Furthermore, the decrease in the numbers of outbound Japanese students going abroad and decline in the global ranking of Japanese universities are also considered to be two important drivers for the government’s promulgation of new policies. For example, according to the OECD report (OECD, 2016) and the report made by the MEXT (2019b), although the numbers of outbound Japanese students going abroad kept rising rapidly, from 18,066 in 1983 to 79,455 in 2002, and reaching a peak of 82,945 by 2004, it began a continual decline since then. As of 2011, only 57,501 Japanese students went abroad. Regarding the changes in the ranking of Japanese universities, as Figure 1 reveals, the numbers of Japanese universities which were ranked among top 500, 400, 300, 200, 100, and 20 also decreased from 2004-2014. Of many reasons for these changes, it is generally agreed that low percentages of inbound international students and international academics to Japanese

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

69

FIGURE 6.1: Changes in the ranking of Japanese universities in 2004–2014 Source: Academic Ranking of World Universities. Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking.com/arwu2019.html

campuses, publications in indexed journals, internationally co-authored publications, and citations of science papers, etc. all caused this consequence.

Policies and Strategies Affected by all these drivers, since the 2000s, many new and diverse policies of internationalization of higher education have been created and carried out by both government and individual universities. They are not only concerned with accepting inbound international students to Japan and hiring international faculty at Japanese universities which played a central role in its internationalization, but also involved improving the quality and global competitiveness of its teaching, learning and academic performance, providing English-medium degree programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels, allowing more foreign universities to establish their campuses in Japan, etc. More details of these policies can be practically summarized as follows. In terms of educational activities, firstly, in order to level the internationalization of Japanese universities and also improve the proportion of inbound international students of the total, in 2008 the Japanese government implemented a national project of increasing the numbers of inbound international students to Japan from 135,000 in 2013 to 300,000 by 2020. Also, based on various national-level projects such as Campus Asia (MEXT, 2011a), Japan Revitalization Strategy(MEXT, 2013), Go Global Japan (JSPS, 2014), and Inter-University Exchange Project(MEXT, 2011b), the Japanese government aimed at expanding the numbers of domestic students studying abroad from 60,000 in 2010 to 120,000 by 2020.

70

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Secondly, since the early 2002, the Japanese government has begun to revise and deregulate the legislation concerning approval of foreign institutions in Japan and to adopt new strategies for recognizing cross-border or transnational branches and programs. This approval makes it possible for foreign educational activities or service to be recognized by Japanese universities and allows Japanese students to apply to the foreign educational programs or institutions in Japan (Torii, 2006). As to be mentioned later, these polices have facilitated a quick expansion of inbound foreign universities and branch campuses to Japan. Thirdly, in the FY 2012, the Japanese government launched the national project of the promotion of global human resource development. Although the project was initially defined and demanded by big enterprises in the context of an increased global economic competition, it was soon accepted by the government. According to the report by the MEXT (MEXT, 2012), 11 university-wide projects and 31 faculty/school specific projects were selected in the project. An additional budget has been allocated to these designated universities and faculties or schools with an aim of promoting global human resource development through a wide variety of reforms, including designing more appropriate academic programs and restructuring educational, research and administrative arrangements at both institutional and faculty or school levels. Despite an unambiguous phrase of global human resource defined by the government, industry and business, media, and researchers, etc., the goal of the project is to develop global human resources through industry-academia-government collaboration, foster global human resources based on the partnership of universities, enterprises and society, and implement the national project of promoting and cultivating global human resources. Fourthly, as an important means of attracting more inbound international students with high quality to Japan and improve the English proficiency of domestic students, in recent years, the government also required individual universities, especially those which are selected to be intensively funded by the government based on national-level projects such as the “Global 30” project in 2001 and “Top Global University” project in 2014 to provide more English-medium degree programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Regarding research activities, firstly, similarly to countries like China and South Korea in East Asia, the Japanese government also developed national strategies to support several selected universities or disciplines with enlarged budgets to become world-class universities, or world-renowned centers of excellence. To illustrate, in June 2001, the Japanese government implemented the goal of fostering the “Top 30” Universities towards attainment of top global standards. Later, the program was changed into a scheme of cultivating ‘Centers of Excellence in the 21 Century’ (COE21). The central government is supporting the selected units with an expanded budget. It was hoped that the quality of research activity in Japanese higher education can be considerably enhanced and increased international dimensions can be integrated into campus research activities, although the data in Table 1 above seems to indicate limited success. Secondly, a follow-up strategy, the “Global 30” program, was launched in 2009. Its primary aim was to attract 300, 000, namely, to triple the number of inbound international students by 2020. In order to achieve the goal, 13 universities, including seven national and six private universities, were selected to play a central role in implementing the program. For example, in these universities, many more international students were to be accepted, and at least two English-taught degree programs were required to be provided. Thirdly, Japan used to have the largest numbers of research-oriented universities and top universities in Asia. Accordingly, it did not pay the same attention to the impact of global university ranking systems on higher education as China or Korea did by the early

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

71

2000s. Because of the quick rise of both Chinese and Korean universities in global university ranking systems, Japan’s government has also launched several national programs or projects to upgrade its universities and expand the number of its top universities. Much later than both China and Korea, in 2014, the Japanese government issued another national project: the “Top Global University Project”. This project aims to enhance the international compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan. It provided additional financial support for selected universities that were expected to press forward with comprehensive internationalization and university reform. Once more, there are two types of institution in the project. Type A (Top Type, 13 universities) consists of world-class universities with the potential to be ranked in the top 100 according to global university rankings. Type B (Global Traction Type, 24 universities) is for innovative universities that will continue to lead the internationalization of Japanese society, based on continuous improvement to their current internationalization efforts. It was reported that the central government will allocate 7.7 billion JPY annually for selected universities for 10 years (MEXT, 2014). But in practice, funding was limited: according to Yonezawa (2019), “The amount of public funding directly linked to the scheme constitutes only a small portion of the universities’ running costs, at around 0.2% of their annual income.”

Practices and Outcomes Based on earlier research and national statistics, progress made in the internationalization of Japanese higher education is remarkable and evident. They include main points below. Firstly, as the Japanese government has placed a particular emphasis on attracting more inbound international students and presented clearly defined plans recently, there has been a rapid growth in the number of international students in recent years. As Figure 2 shows, there has been a steady, fast growth in the number of inbound international students to Japan since the announcement of the 300,000 target in 2008. As of 2018, its total numbers already reached 298,980, and there is little doubt that the goal could be achieved by 2020. However, as Table 1 indicates, changes in both absolute numbers and percentages of inbound international students vary depending on different sectors of HEIs. Despite a growth in its absolute numbers, the percentages of inbound international students at national universities declined from 24.5 percent to 15 percent during the period. In contrast, both the absolute numbers and proportions of inbound international students at local public and private institutions expanded, as did international enrolments in language programmes. This is especially true in the case of private universities, growing by 10 percent from 2008 to 2018. There are at least two reasons why there has been a quick growth in the proportion of inbound international students in private universities. First, as mentioned earlier, the proportions of both private institutions and students make up for the largest share of the totals, it could accommodate the largest numbers of inbound international students. Second, compared to both national and local public universities, the operation of private universities largely depend on tuition and fees charged from their students. Although the Japanese government subsidizes these private basically according to student numbers, the amount of public funding only accounts for approximately 10 percent of their annual revenues at a national level. Therefore, like other Asian countries such Korea and Malaysia, Japanese private universities have to be more entrepreneurial and dynamic in recruiting international students than either national or local public universities. This is especially true in the case of small private institutions which are not located in metropolitan areas.

72

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 6.2: Trends in number of international students. Source: JASSO (Japan Student Services Organization, 2019). Retrieved from https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_ student/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2019/04/19/data18_brief_e.pdf Note: “International student” on this statistics is defined as a student from a foreign country who is receiving education at any Japanese university, graduate school, junior college, college of technology, professional training college or university preparatory courses and who resides in Japan with “college student” visa status, as defined in Annexed Table 1 of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act.

TABLE 6.1 Change in the number and proportion of international students in Japanese universities National 2008 2018

30,385 44,736

24.5% 15.0%

Local public 2,632 3,994

2.1% 1.3%

Private 90,812 73.3% 250,250 83.7%

Total 123,829 100.0% 298,980 100.0%

Source: JASSO (Japan Student Services Organization) (2008). Result of an Annual survey of International Students in Japan 2008. Retrieved from https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_student_e/2008/ index.html.

Secondly, there has been a rapid growth in full-time international faculty. According to Huang (2018a), as one response to the OECD suggestions, the number of international faculty at Japanese universities has expanded quickly since the 1980s. In recent years, recruiting international faculty has also been employed as an effective way to enhance the quality and international competitiveness of Japanese higher education. As Figure 3 suggests, from 1980 to 2018, the number of full-time international faculty alone showed fast, continuous growth. Compared to 1979 when there were 940 full-time international faculty (0.9 percent of all faculty), as of 2018, its number amounted to 8,609 (4.6 percent of all faculty).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

73

FIGURE 6.3: Changes in the proportion of full-time international faculty at Japanese universities. Source: MEXT (2019c).

Thirdly, although English-taught programs and courses were provided as early as the end of the Second World War in some private institutions which were founded by religious bodies, very few English-medium degree programs were still provided at Japanese universities in the early 1990s. In general, the English language programs are divided into two types. Degree-conferring courses or programs specially designed for international students at graduate level form one type. The other type refers to courses in English specifically designed for students from North America, Europe and other English-speaking countries at undergraduate level. With the implementation of the Global 30 program in 2008, as noted earlier, attempts have been made by the 13 universities to deliver Englishmedium degree programs. The national survey by the MEXT indicates that, compared to only seven universities and eight faculties in which English-medium degree programs were delivered at the undergraduate level and 73 universities and 139 graduate schools at the graduate level in 1999 (MEXT, 2011c), as of 2015 its numbers increased to 27 universities and 48 faculties at the undergraduate level and 97 universities and 222 graduate schools at the graduate level respectively (MEXT, 2017). Fourthly, the number of foreign branch campuses in Japan have increased. As early as the beginning of the 1980s, many US state universities established their branch campuses in Japan. For example, numbers increased from only 1 in 1982 to 18 in 1990. By 1990 the total existing number had risen to 36. But prior to February 2005, none of these branch campuses of foreign institutions had been accredited by the Japanese government as higher education institutions in accord with the Standards of Establishment of Universities and Colleges. Consequently, credits gained at these branch campuses were not transferable to other Japanese institutions, nor could students graduating from these branch campuses be accepted into higher-level Japanese educational programs. As a result, the number of these branch campuses decreased, now to less than 10. Because of recent policies of relaxation of control on these branch campuses, as of July 2019, three branch campuses from the USA and Russia are accredited and qualified to award Associate Degrees, five branch campuses being established by the USA and China provide

74

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

undergraduate programs, and three from the USA and Canada are approved to offer Master-level programs (MEXT, 2019c). Fifthly, since 2015 soon after Japan started its Top Global University project, it appears that, despite a fall in the numbers of Japanese universities being ranked among top 500 according to the ARWU in 2019 compared to the early 2000s, no sharp decline occurred of Japanese HEIs in the top 20, 100, 300, 400 and 500. Actually, the numbers of those being listed among top 200 rose from 3 in 2015 to four in 2018. It goes without saying that numerous factors affect changes in university rankings and there is no clear evidence showing that the government policies have had such speedy effects on changes in the rankings of Japanese universities. But, at least, it can be said that Japan has basically maintained a relatively stable status of its universities for the last four years. Finally, in terms of changes occurred in changes in the internationalization of Japanese higher education, according to Huang’s research based on two national surveys of institutional leaders who were in charge of internationalization or similar matters (Huang, 2019), these university leaders reported the internationalization of Japan’s universities is on-going, and still highly valued. There was not a clear transition from internationalism to nationalism in Japan in 2008-2017, compared to the USA and the UK. Further, the internationalization of Japan’s universities is not primarily motivated by the market, but exhibits strong non-commercial characteristics. The case study of Japan indicates that internationalization could be undertaken without necessarily being totally driven by neoliberalism, entrepreneurialism or the market in a specific time. Finally, a majority of university leaders believe that the research productivity of Japan’s universities has already reached international standards. This is especially true in the case of national universities, in which research is more emphasized than either local public or private universities in Japan.

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES As discussed above, Japan has accomplished prominent achievements in stimulating and levelling its internationalization of higher education. However, it still faces plenty pf issues and challenges below. Firstly, there are some controversial views regarding the government policy of providing more English-medium degree programs in Japan. For example, some researchers like Kariya and his colleagues (e.g., Kariya and Rappleye, 2010) argued that, Japanese universities are unable to differentiate between the real competition that they are forced to confront and the unreal and unnecessary competition. Further, they emphasized that, as a non-English-speaking country, because of the language barrier and the lack of transparency, for internationally mobile faculty, students, and donors choosing one institution over another, increasing the number of classes taught in English or hiring more foreign faculty in an attempt to improve the university’s global ranking was of little importance. Not only that—for the vast majority of universities, improving international competitiveness in this way has no effect at all in terms of carrying forward the kind of reforms that are really needed. There is a lack of incentives for such initiatives. Secondly, in reality, due to a rapid expansion of inbound international students to Japan in a very short time, which has been directly and strongly driven by the government, the quality of international students, especially those who do not concentrate on their studies but invest more time in doing part-time jobs or even illegal jobs, have increased. Some international students even left their language schools or universities and disappeared within Japan.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

75

Thirdly, as Amano (2014) mentioned, despite a steady growth in the numbers of international faculty to Japan, Japan needs to make more efforts to open up its universities and work positively to welcome more—and more talented—researchers and students from overseas. It also needs to increase the number of courses available in English, the de facto global lingua franca. At the same time, it needs to send more Japanese researchers and students overseas to stimulate their research and improve standards. Fourthly, although clear differences can be found in the understanding of the image of global human resources between individual faculties in Japanese universities, according to the main findings from a national survey of deans of Japanese universities in 2014 (Huang and Daizen, 2014), it seems that the national strategies are carried out at faculty level. Since very few Deans confirmed that they are not proceeding well with fostering global human resources, more efforts should be made by both government and individual universities to provide more budget, produce supporting staff and quality academic faculty members for the cultivation of global human resources. Fifthly, a wider gap has emerged between selected universities and other universities in terms of funding, and social and academic reputation. The national government is focused on trying to increase the international competitiveness and academic excellence of a few select universities. This has facilitated the gradual formation of more rigid hierarchical structure of higher education and research system in Japan. Meanwhile, although Japan is trying to develop the distinctive features of national higher education and research systems, there seems to be an increasing convergence in higher education and research brought about by the desire to climb league tables. This may result in a new dependency culture and the Anglo-American hegemony. Finally, based on main findings from a national survey of the vice presidents’ views on the benefits and risks of the internationalization of Japanese higher education in 2017, Huang and Daizen (Huang and Daizen, 2017; Huang, 2018b; Huang and Daizen, 2018) argued that, as for the risks of internationalization, across the three sectors ‘growing gaps between universities within the country’ appeared as the most frequently mentioned risk (selected by 38.7 percent), followed by ‘overemphasizing the acceptance of international students’ (28.7 percent) and ‘increasing gaps between regions and countries’ (26.7 percent). By contrast, the lowest concern was the ‘decline of quality of education’ (8.6 percent). Further, national public and private university leaders both saw ‘growing gaps between universities within the country’ as the top risk across, while leaders from local public universities feared ‘increasing gaps between regions and countries’ most, followed by ‘growing gaps between universities within the country’ and ‘overuse of English as a teaching language’. A big worry for private universities was ‘internationalization at the expense of staff and students’ other activities’ and ‘overemphasizing the acceptance of international students’. Both research-intensive universities and other universities see ‘the emergence of elitism’ as the number one risk followed by ‘growing gaps between universities within the country’. It is interesting to note that in both types of universities, it appears that ‘standardization of curriculum’ is not a concern.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION As more diverse and complex factors at both global and domestic levels have affected the internationalization of Japanese higher education for the past decades, new changes have occurred in internationalization. These changes have significantly shaped the current internationalization of its higher education. Although the internationalization of Japan’s

76

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

higher education is full of twists and turns, there is little doubt that it has made huge contributions to the formation of modern Japanese higher education, its quantitative growth, qualitative improvement, as well as international competitiveness. Like many countries, despite numerous challenges, apparently, government, individual universities, and other stakeholders like industry and business, have been trying to facilitate a further internationalization of higher education and eventually use it as one of effective means to enhance the quality of Japan’s higher education. Since the 1990s, several initiatives have been introduced in Japan’s internationalization. It has gone beyond simple mobility of international students and members of faculty, and has come to include activities in a more competitive internal environment. They include, inter alia, internationalization of the university curriculum, promotion of cross-border higher education activities, construction of ‘Centers of Excellence’, building up worldclass universities, and more English language programs. Furthermore, compared to many western countries like the USA, the UK, Australia, the internationalization of Japan’s higher education is also characterized with top-down commitment toward the improvement of international competitiveness through internationalization; facilitating internationalization through a close partnership between government, industry and business, and individual universities; raising the level of Japanese higher education through internationalization of all types of Japanese HEIs, including private universities, and teaching-centered universities; and enhancing the international competitiveness by internationalizing teaching, learning, and research activities, as well as governance and management. As a result, the recent internationalization of Japanese higher education differs essentially from those in the previous phases. It is, though, evident that Japan is also facing many issues resulting from the internationalization of higher education in this era of globalization. A number of clear examples illustrate this. First, in comparison with the private sector, neither the national nor the public sector is actively responding to new challenges, nor have they accomplished any remarkable expansion of employment international faculty nor have they exported cross-border programs and institutions, although there are plans to do so(Ariff, 2019). Second, in the past decades data shows there has been no big rise in the number of non-Japanese presidents or vice-presidents in either national or public universities. Finally, it appears that in most cases, institutional leaders’ perceptions of benefits and risks of internationalization at their universities differ significantly from many other countries, including China or Korea in East Asia, let alone the USA, the UK, Australia and other English-speaking countries, which have been increasingly affected by the market. In general, the internationalization of Japanese higher education is still highly valued and academically prioritized. They list higher responses of students/staff international awareness, international collaboration and partnership in research, and knowledge creation. This is especially different from those countries in which internationalization at an institutional level is primarily expected to generate more revenues.

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities (2019). Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking. com/arwu2019.html Altbach, P. G. & Selvaratnam, V. (eds.) (1989). From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. xii.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF JAPAN’S HIGHER EDUCATION

77

Amano, I. (2014). Globalization and Higher Education Reforms in Japan: The Obstacles to Greater International Competitiveness. Retrieved from https://www.nippon.com/en/ in-depth/a02801/globalization-and-higher-education-reforms-in-japan-the-obstacles-togreater-international.html Ariff, S. U. (2019). Dr. M: Malaysia to host the first overseas Japanese varsity branch campus. New Straites Times on 8 January. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/news/ nation/2019/08/511240/dr-m-malaysia-host-first-overseas-japanese-varsity-branch-campus Arimoto, A. (Eds) (1996) Daigaku kyoukyusyoku no kokusai hikaku [Academic Profession in the Comparative Perspectives] Tokyo, Tamagawa Printing House (in Japanese). Cummings W. G. & Amano, I. (1977) “The Changing Roles of the Japanese Professor”, Altbach, P. G. (ed.) Comparative Perspectives on the Academic Profession. Praeger Publishers, pp.43–67. Ebuchi, K. (1997). Daigaku kokusaika no kenkyu [Research in internationalization of university]. Tokyo: Tamagawa Press (in Japanese). Huang, F. (2007a). “Challenges of Internationalization of Higher Education and Changes in the Academic Profession: A Perspective from Japan”, in Maurice Kogan and Ulrich Teichler (Eds.) UNESCO Forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge. International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel, INCHER-Kassel, Paris and Kassel, pp.81–98. Huang, F. (2007b). Internationalization of higher education in the era of globalization: What have been its implications in China and Japan? Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(1): 47–61. Huang, F. (2011). Changes in and Issues of Academic Profession in Asia. In The Changing Academic Profession in Asia: Contexts, Realities and Trends (RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17), pp.245–248. Hiroshima: RIHE Hiroshima University. Huang, F. and Daizen, T. (2014). Cultivating Global Human Resources in Japan. Presented in the First Annual Conference on Global Higher Education at Lakeland College Japan on 17 May 2014 at Lakeland College Japan Campus, Tokyo, Japan. Huang, F. and Daizen, T. (2017). How do university leaders view internationalisation? University World News on 18 August. No. 470. Huang, F. (2018a). “International Faculty in Japan”. International Higher Education No. 96. pp.18–19. The Boston Center for International Higher Education. Huang, F. (2018b). “Chapter 12 What Are the Benefits and Risks of Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education?” Yan Wu, Qi Wang and Nian Cai Liu (Eds.). World-Class Universities: Towards Global Common Good and Seeking National and Institutional Contribution. Brill Sense. Huang, F. & Daizen, T. (2018). “The Benefits and Risks of HE Internationalisation”. University World News No. 505. Huang, F. (2019). “Changes to Internationalization of Higher Education? An Analysis of Main Findings from Two National Surveys in 2008 and 2017”. In Neubauer D., Mok K., Edwards S. (eds) Contesting Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education. International and Development Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. pp. 95–108. Huang, F. and Daizen, T. (2017). How do university leaders view internationalisation? University World News on 18 August. No. 470 JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science). (2014). Go Global Japan Project. Retrieved from https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-ggj/outline.html Kariya, K. and Rappleye, J. (2010). “The Twisted, Unintended Impacts of Globalization on Japanese Education,” Research in the Sociology of Education, Vol. 17, pp. 17–63, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

78

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Kurimoto, K. (1997). “Internationalization of the national university sector in Japan”, in Knight, J. & Hans de (Eds.) Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries, Amsterdam: EAIE, pp. 100–101. Knight, J. (2002). The impact of GATS and trade liberalisation on higher education. In Globalization and the Market in Higher Education: Quality, Accreditation and Qualifications. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 191–209. MEXT. (2011a). What is Campus Asia? Retrieved from http://campus-asia.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/ about/ MEXT. (2011b). Inter-University Exchange Project. Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/a_ menu/koutou/kaikaku/sekaitenkai/1306226.htm (in Japanese) MEXT. (2011c). Heisei 21 nendo daigaku niokeru kyouiku naiyou do no kaikaku ni tsuite (gaiyo) [A summary of reforms on educational content of Japanese universities in 2009]. Retrieve from https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2011/08/25/1310269_1.pdf (in Japanese) MEXT (2012). Decision of Global Human Resource Development Project in 2012. Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/24/09/1326068.htm (in Japanese) MEXT (2013). Japan Revitalization Strategy-JAPAN is Back-. Retrieved from https://www. kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/en_saikou_jpn_hon.pdf MEXT (2014). Selection for the FY 2014 Top Global University Project. Retrieved from https:// www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf MEXT (2017). Heisei 27 nendo daigaku niokeru kyouiku naiyou do no kaikaku ni tsuite (gaiyo) [A summary of educational content of Japanese universities in 2005]. Retrieved from https:// www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/daigaku/04052801/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2019/05/28/1398426_001.pdf (in Japanese) MEXT (2019a). Japan statistical abstract, 2019 edition, Tokyo, National Printing Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/002/002b/1417059.htm (in Japanese). MEXT (2019b). Gaikokujin ryugakusei oyobi nihonjin kaigai ryugakusyasu nitsuite (on inbound international students to Japan and Japanese students going abroad). Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ryugaku/__icsfiles/ afieldfile/2019/01/18/1412692_1.pdf (in Japanese). MEXT (2019c). Gaikokudaigaku nihonkou no shite (Accreditation on branch campuses of foreign universities). Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/ shitu/08052204/1417852.htm (in Japanese). Ministry of Education (Japan). (1980). Japan’s Modern Education System. Retrieved from https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/others/detail/1317276.htm Ministry of Education (Japan). (1992) Gakusei hyakunijyuunenshi (History of 120-year school system). Tokyo: Kabushiki kaisya gyousei. pp. 39–40. OECD (1971) Reviews of national policies for education: Japan. Pari: OECD. OECD (2016). Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD. Torii, Y. (2006). Future Prospects of Foreign Branch Campuses in Japan Temple University Japan. National Institute for Policy Research No. 135, pp. 177–187. Retrieved fromhttps:// www.nier.go.jp/kankou_kiyou/kiyou135-181.pdf (in Japanese) Tsuchimochi, G. H. (1996). Shinsei daigaku no tanjyou (The emergence of newly-established universities). Tamagawa Publishing House. Yonezawa, A. (2019). A new national role for universities, but little funding. University World News on 25 January.

CHAPTER SEVEN

Internationalization of Korean Higher Education (1945–2018) A Success Story SUNWOONG KIM

INTRODUCTION The higher education (HE) system in South Korea (Korea, hereafter) has improved tremendously in quantity and quality over the last few decades. In 1960, there were 52 higher education institutions (HEIs) in Korea, and their total enrollment was fewer than 100,000 (Kang et al., 2005). Half a century later, the situation has improved dramatically. In 2018, the number of HEIs has increased to 430 and the enrollment is more than 3.3 million (including about 320,000 in graduate schools). This produced about 170,000 associate bachelor’s, 350,000 bachelor’s, 83,000 master’s, and 15,000 doctorates in the same year. The enrollment rate is 67.6 percent and more than three quarters of students are enrolled in four-year universities (KEDI, 2018). The proportion of college and university graduates in the age group 25 to 34 in Korea is 70 percent, whereas the OECD average was 44 percent, making Korea one of the most highly educated nations in the world (OECD, 2018). Along with its substantial growth, the quality of the Korean HE system has improved substantially. As a result of the higher student numbers, the number of academic staff has also increased. In 1960, there were fewer than 3,500 faculty members, but the number has increased to more than 90,000 in 2018. The student/faculty ratio has been declining continuously over the years, and it reached to 23.6 for regular universities and 35.0 for junior colleges. About 85 percent of all faculty members have PhDs or other equivalent academic credentials, and the proportion is close to 100 percent for most of the topranked research universities. The international ranking of Korean universities has improved consistently over the last couple of decades.1

For example, four to five Korean universities have regularly made it into the QS Top 100 World Universities Rankings recently. Korea ranked 12th in the world in the number of publications in SCI indexed journals (KISTEP, 2018). See Krechetnikov and Pestereva (2017) for a comparable quality evaluation between Korean and Japanese HE systems.

1

79

80

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Internationalization has played a very crucial role in the development of the modern Korean HE system. Korea’s main economic development strategy when it was still a poor country in the 1960s was export promotion and using international trade as the engine of growth. From early on Korea has sent a large number of students abroad for graduate study. Many students who obtained advanced degrees such as PhDs have returned to Korea, and served as professors. These foreign-educated human resources have played crucial roles in building international level research capacity. Government initiatives for HE internationalization and efforts by HEIs to attract foreign students through academic exchange programs have resulted in steady growth of the number of foreign students. In 2018, the number of foreigners seeking degrees in Korea reached 85,000. Several top universities such as Korea University have been running successful short-term academic programs such as international summer schools. These programs attract thousands of foreign students into Korea. This chapter critically evaluates the process of internationalization of the Korean HE system from a dynamic and systemic viewpoint. The socio-economic environment changes over time and the changes that have happened in Korea over the last few decades have been very substantial. In this dynamic environment, policy initiatives by the government and actions by market participants have swiftly produced a new socio-economic environment. Consequently, the government policy initiatives and market participant behavior would and should change over time as well. This chapter adopts a more or less historical analysis. But it is not merely a report of the history per se; rather, the emphasis is on understanding the historical trajectory based on major stakeholders’ objectives, incentives, and constraints. The next section provides a description of the conceptual framework that we adopt in this chapter. We shall call it the HE eco-system. Using this conceptual framework, we analyze the development of the internationalization of the Korean HE system since 1945 by dividing it into four periods. The next four sections detail the different socio-economic environments from the perspective of HE development and the changes that happened during each period. In the last section, we provide conclusions and prospects for future challenges that the Korean HE system is faced with.

HIGHER EDUCATION ECO-SYSTEM: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK We shall take a dynamic systems approach in this chapter. The main framework of reference will be the HE eco-system within which three major stakeholders are operating: government, HE institutions (HEIs), and households. While there are other stakeholders such as firms in the HE system, we believe that these three stakeholders adequately represent the most important players in the Korean HE system. Since HE systems operates under the supervision of the nation state, we make a distinction between domestic and global (or international) environments. All three stakeholders operate mainly in the domestic environment. However, global environments outside the country provides challenges and opportunities for all stakeholders for international activities. In the HE system, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to agree on the principal objectives within and among the three groups of stakeholders. Therefore, we shall assume that each group would maintain separate objectives in choosing their actions. Moreover, the objectives are multi-dimensional and often conflict amongst them. Also, it is important to remember that the priority may change over time depending on the socio-economic environment.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

81

The government includes provincial and local governments as well as the central government. However, in the case of Korea, the role of the central government, particularly the Ministry of Education, is much more important than other branches of government, as its willingness and ability to control the behavior of other stakeholders (i.e., HEIs and households) have been quite substantial over the decades that we are going to examine. There are three major roles of the government in the HE ecosystem. First, it sets the policy objectives and initiatives, and maintains the bureaucracy in order to implement them. Second, it finances substantial portions of HE expenditure. Its financial capacity is constrained by the political will as well as the nation’s economic strength. Third, the government also operates national universities. Furthermore, it is very important to recognize that each group contains quite heterogeneous members. Stakeholders are diverse in their ideologies, opportunities, and constraints. Within the group of HEIs, there are institutions that are historically prestigious and command a large amount of fiscal resources seeking to advance international prestige. At the same time, there are institutions having difficulty in recruiting students and their top priority may be to achieve financial stability. Also, their objectives and behavior would be naturally quite different even when the socio-economic environment they are faced with is the same. Households are different in terms of their academic and financial capability as well. In regards to HEIs, households are educational consumers. The decision of whether to attend a HEI, and which HEI, would depend on the perceived benefit of receiving HE, and the cost (the direct cost, such as tuition fees, as well as the amount of time involved). To the government, households create political pressure for certain policy choices. Each stakeholder operates in a common environment in a particular time period. We shall call this environment the “socio-economic environment.” It encompasses other elements such as the political ideology which dominates a particular time period and social psychological attitudes towards certain phenomena. It is important to recognize that the current socio-economic environment is a product of past actions of the three stakeholders as well as the changing global environment. An important assumption that we adopt is that the socio-economic environment is stable during a certain time period. Of course, the environment may, in reality, constantly change over time. However, the stable environment allows us to identify a plausible course of actions by each stakeholder in a more controlled static framework. The determination of the period of constant socio-economic environment is certainly a subjective choice, but we believe that the periods identified in this chapter are a reasonable choice based on several factors including political regime change, the socioeconomic situation of Korea, as well as global environment. Over time, the environment may change due to changes in “external” forces, over which the groups have no control, as well as those of “internal” forces determined by the actions of the stakeholders. As the environment changes, the agents’ objectives or the priorities among them may change. Based on the information gathered from the environment and the incentive system of the environment, each agent chooses its optimal activities, and the collection of these activities by other agents will determine the “internal” environment of the next period. The HE eco-system is depicted in Figure 7.1. The three boxes represent three stakeholders, and the circle surrounding the boxes defines the boundary between domestic and international environment. Each stakeholder has windows towards the global environment in which they can operate. The “internationalization” happens mainly

82

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 7.1: Higher education eco-system.

through these windows. For example, HEIs accepts foreign students and hire foreign academic staff. Households go abroad to study further education. These activities are “direct internationalization” of HE. The direct internationalization also creates “indirect internationalization” of the stakeholders’ behavior. For example, a large influx of foreign students (direct internationalization) may affect HEIs’ administrative structure and/or resource allocation (indirect internationalization) in order to accommodate the large number of foreign students. The interactions among stakeholders are represented by the arrows between the boxes. For example, the arrow from government to HEIs represents government laws and regulations towards HEIs, and the opposing arrow represents actions by HEIs in order to satisfy them. The collection of actions and the reactions of a particular period define the workings of the eco-system until new changes (due to external or internal forces) make the old eco-system no longer sustainable.

INFANCY OF MODERN HE AND POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (1945–1960) In the aftermath of the Second World War and the retreat of the Japanese colonial government, the occupying Allied Forces put the Korean peninsula under the trust of the two victors, the United States and the Soviet Union. The divided trust eventually resulted in the divided nations when South Korea (Republic of Korea) and North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) both separately declared their independence in 1948. On June 25, 1950, the Korean War broke out as the North tried to unify the South by force, and the peninsula was engulfed in bitter fighting. After more than one million soldiers and four million civilians died, the war ended on July 27, 1953.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

83

TABLE 7.1 Trends in GDP per capita (current USD) and enrollments (in thousands) Year 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018

GDP per Primary capita (USD) School

158 106 279 608 1,674 2,368 6,153 11,468 11,347 17,551 20,510 27,105 31,363

1,733 2,658 2,947 3,261 4,941 5,849 5,599 5,658 4,857 4,868 3,905 4,020 4,002 3,299 2,715 2,711

Middle School

High School

Higher Education

Graduate School

10 381 226 529 751 1,319 2,027 2,472 2,782 2,276 2,482 1,861 2,011 1,975 1,586 1,334

268 273 427 5,901 1,123 1,698 2,153 2,284 2,158 2,071 1,763 1,962 1,788 1,539

80 93 127 164 221 564 1,192 1,380 2,213 3,130 3,209 3,223 3,275 3,056

4 7 14 34 68 87 113 229 277 317 333 322

Source: GDP per capita (World Bank); enrollment (Kang et al., 2005, KEDI, 2018).

South Korea inherited the Japanese educational infrastructure established during the colonial period (1910–1945). When all Japanese returned home, Korea was faced with a serious shortage of teachers as most of the teachers were Japanese. Also, during the Korean War, many of the school buildings were destroyed as many of them were used for military purposes. Despite the severe shortage of teachers and school buildings, the compulsory primary school education law adopted during the late 1940s, combined with the post-war baby boom, increased demand for primary education tremendously. The number of primary school students increased from fewer than 1.5 million in 1945, to 3.6 million in 1960, and to 5.7 million in 1970 (see Table 7.1). With the ballooning financial need for reconstruction after the war, the Korean government did not have much public financial resources that could be invested in education. Moreover, during the 1950s, the share of the educational expenditure out of the total government budget ranged from between 10–15 percent, whereas the share has stayed around 20–25 percent since 1980. Because of the fiscal constraint under ballooning demand for primary school education, the government had to rely heavily on private supply in secondary and HE. Even the public institutions had to charge relatively high tuition fees. Over the following decades, the government financial share in primary and secondary education has gradually increased, but the tradition of relatively high tuition fees for public universities remains. The enrollment in HE in Korea during this period was extremely low, and the quality of education was also very poor. Because of the rapidly growing demand for primary education, the HE sector was very low priority. Without strong government oversight or financial backing, many private universities were established during the late 1940s and 1950s. In particular, private HEIs took advantage of the loophole of the 1950 land reform laws in which land used for schools was exempt from the mandatory land redistribution scheme (Chae and Hong, 2009).

84

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

During the colonial period, the Japanese Imperial government established a limited HE system in Korea, including one Imperial University in Seoul. In the aftermath of the Second World War and the Korean War, many national universities (at least one per province) and private universities were established. Because of the American occupation, the Korean HE system is naturally heavily influenced by the American model of HE as well as the Japanese model, which in turn is influenced mostly by the German model. During this period of infancy the most remarkable internationalization of HE happened through the channel of study abroad. The Rhee Syngman government sent its top talent to the United States and Europe under the official scholarship programs in order to nurture leaders of future generations, particularly in the field of science and engineering. President Rhee, himself a trailblazer of studying abroad, had studied at George Washington (BA), Harvard (MA), and Princeton (PhD) and valued the experience of studying abroad when the domestic educational opportunities were quite limited. In 1948 the Rhee Administration selected thirty-five students for the first two-year government-funded scholarships, and the first students departed in 1949 (Kim, 2009). The program stopped due to the Korean War, and restarted in the late 1950s with an annual count of fifty to sixty students. In addition to the government scholarship, a substantial number of privately funded Korean students went abroad for further study. During the Japanese colonial period, the most popular destination for study abroad was Japan. However, since the liberation the most popular destination changed to the United States as American influence became most dominant in Korean affairs. In the late 1950s, Korean students accounted for up to 8 percent of total foreign students in the United States (Kim, 2010). Despite the substantial number of students studying abroad, the situation was a classic case of brain drain. Most students did not return, instead settling in the United States and other more developed nations, where living and working conditions were much superior to those in Korea, a country that had experienced two major wars and destruction and suffering from political chaos, lack of social infrastructure, and material shortage (see GDP per capita in Table 7.1). However, substantial Korean expatriates who were educated and trained in developed nations contributed greatly in the industrialization that happened in the late 1960s through the 1970s and 1980s, as we shall see in the next section.

PUSHING FOR INDUSTRIALIZATION AND SUPPRESSION OF HE (1961–1979) In 1961, political stability had been restored by a successful bloodless coup d’état organized by General Park Chung Hee. Since the military coup, Park served as the interim President and the President for four four-year terms until his assassination in 1979. While his later years would be characterized as a suppressive dictatorial regime, the economic policies adopted by the Park administration during the early 1960s turned out to be very successful and enabled the Korean economy to take the path of modernization. Utilizing expert economic technocrats educated in the United States, Park adopted an export promotion policy for the nation’s economic development. Giving preferential state support for successful manufacturers that could export large volumes of goods to developed nations, the Park Administration was able to achieve a very high rate of economic development (6–10 percent per annum during the 1960s and 1970s). In the 1960s, these exporting firms specialized in light manufacturing goods, such as clothing

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

85

and the textile industry, to take advantage of abundant low-skilled labor. As the level of technology and entrepreneurship improved, these firms moved into more capital intensive goods, such as the steel, automotive, and petrochemical industries. This successful industrialization created a boom for the demand for semi-skilled workers. The government responded to the labor demand by expanding secondary school education. As the highest priority of the government was to maximize investment in the physical capital stock, the expansion of secondary education was in large part financed by private sector suppliers. Up until the mid-1970s the Korean education system was characterized as an elite system with a strict principle of meritocracy starting from secondary education. All middle schools (grades 7–9) and high schools (grades 10–12) had individual entrance examinations with a complete school choice. Consequently, all the secondary schools had a strict hierarchy based on reputation and quality. However, the secondary school equalization policy adopted during the mid-1970s eliminated the competition for most of the top-ranked secondary schools. The secondary school equalization policy virtually nationalized private schools by eliminating the entrance examinations (and mandatory assignment of students) and fixed tuition fees. During this period of rapid expansion of secondary education (see Table 7.1), HE was highly regulated and suppressed by the government. The government strictly regulated the entry to the HE market and the enrollment of the existing colleges and universities were dictated by a quota system, in which the Ministry of Education (MoE) controlled the enrollment capacity for each department for each institution. There was also a political reason for this suppression. The students and professors in universities are the most vocal opponents against the Park regime, which had become more dictatorial, and the civil unrest led by student anti-government activists were serious threats to the legitimacy of the government. Because of the limited supply of university graduates, the returns to HE were very high. Most graduates from universities have ample opportunities in the job market regardless of their majors. During this period, Korea experienced rapid urbanization along with industrialization. Cities were getting larger, and universities located mostly in cities have no problem in filling their places. The constraint was the enrollment quota imposed by the government. There was very little attention by the government with regard to the internationalization of HE. However, interactions with the outside world grew substantially because of growing trade. Many workers began to have overseas experiences through employment. In order to export manufactured goods, the Korean industries have to import substantial capital goods. Rather than over-valuing the domestic currency, as many Latin American counties did during the period, Korea has kept its official exchange rate close to the market rate. Consequently, the country ran a chronic trade deficit, and foreign exchange was in short supply. The government’s reaction to this problem was to allocate the valuable foreign currency to industry more favorably. Households trying to visit foreign countries (including students) faced severe restrictions in converting money to foreign currencies. There were very few internationalization efforts by HEIs either by domestic institutions or foreign institutions. Although study abroad remained popular, the flow was limited because of the strict foreign exchange control and travel restrictions. Students are required to pass government exams to be qualified for study abroad, and the amount of money that can be converted to foreign currencies was limited. Consequently, study abroad was concentrated on the disciplines in science and engineering in which paid assistantships were more abundant.

86

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

One exception to this limitation was the Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies, established by the former chairman of the SK Corporation, Chay Jong Hyun. The foundation started a full scholarship program for students pursuing study abroad for their PhDs in social science fields in 1974. Since then, the Foundation has successfully funded more than 700 PhDs (see http:/kfas.or.krf for more details). In the late 1970s, the export promotion policy started to bear fruit. The economy grew very rapidly during the 1960s and early 1970s. The country was able to get out of a chronic trade deficit and started to generate trade surplus. The government wanted to change the industrial structure of the Korean economy from light manufacturing to heavy manufacturing. The latter industries require more technical know-how, and consequently the demand for human capital with a high level of engineering and technology increased. Because of these factors, the government revitalized government-funded scholarship for study abroad programs sending a dozen or so students per year (Y. Kim, 2009). Towards the end of this period, active recruitment of Korean expatriates in developed countries started. In 1966, the Korean Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) was established and actively recruited Korean scientists and engineers abroad. In 1971, the Korea Development Institute (KDI), an economic think tank, was established. These institutes provided far better compensation packages (two or three times higher salary with housing and other subsidies) for their recruits compared with those for domestically trained researchers, as the perceived abilities and productivity between the two groups were deemed to reflect those differences. Universities and private firms started to recruit expatriates as well. Many freshly qualified PhD students were virtually guaranteed professorial or executive positions in large corporations such as Samsung, LG, and so on. Brain drain of the previous period reversed itself to “brain gain,” in which many of the former study abroad students who resided in advanced countries started to come back to Korea.

VENT FOR THE EXCESS DEMAND (1980–1993) In the aftermath of the assassination of Park in 1979, Chun Doo-Whan, a Major General, took the control of the government. Civil unrest continued until the country finally returned to a stable democratic government in 1987, when another general, Roh TaeHoo, won the popular vote against the two political opponents who divided the votes of the democratic supporters. During the 1980s, despite the political turmoil, the economy continuously grew rapidly. Korea became an export power house in the world trade scene. The chronic trade deficit turned into a chronic trade surplus, and the surplus gets larger every year. The foreign exchange reserve continuously increased, as did the value of the Korean won. The government’s hold on foreign exchange control for households became more liberalized. Although the strong MoE control on the HE sector remains, the government can no longer contain the excess demand for HE. The limited number of places makes the entrance to universities very difficult, as the number of high school graduates has increased very rapidly. The imbalance between the supply and demand for university places increased the number of jaesusang (repeat exam takers). Under this tremendous social pressure, the Chun Administration expanded the enrollment quota substantially to accommodate the rapidly rising HE demand. In 1975, the enrollment in HE was about 220,000. In 1985, the figure increased to about 1.2 million, and the Korean HE system began to enter a massification stage (S. Kim, 2008).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

87

With the expansion of HE and the growing economy, there was a shortage of professionals such as engineers, managers, university professors, and so on. However, the quality of graduate education in Korea was still quite low. Many academic staff do not have proper advanced degrees. Consequently, numbers of those returning to graduate education were quite high. The combination of a high rate of returns to graduate education, lack of high-quality domestic graduate programs, and prospering export economy with large foreign exchange and strong domestic currency create a bonanza of study abroad. In the late 1970s, the number of Korean students in the United States was less than 5,000, but in 1995 it increased to 40,000, Korea became the third largest sending country to the United States in the world. Most of these students studying abroad were self-funded. During this period, most of the top Korean students practically used schools in advanced countries, particularly the United States, for their graduate education. Between 1990 and 1995, the number of PhDs awarded to Korean nationals reached 1,500 per year, almost the same number awarded domestically. Since then the domestic PhD recipients have continued to grow, whereas the number of Koreans who received their PhDs in the United States began to stabilize between 1,000 and 1,500 per year. This period is also characterized by a strong brain gain. Many PhD students from the United States, Europe, and Japan came back to Korean universities. With the rapid expansion of the HE sector, the demand for professorial positions increased rapidly. Freshly qualified PhD graduates from abroad rapidly filled the new positions. During this period, a large number of Korean students who received PhDs abroad also returned home.2

LIBERALIZATION AND DEEPENING OF INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HE (1994–2019) President Kim Young Sam (1993–1997), the first civilian elected to office since 1960, began to loosen the government’s grip on the political and economic arena. The economic growth of the past three decades made Korea much more affluent. Due to the past three decades of export promotion, Korea’s economy was closely linked to the rest of the world. When the Uruguay Round, a decade-long multilateral trade talk involving 123 countries, was concluded with the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, Korea embraced the new era of globalization. In addition, in 1996 Korea made a successful attempt to join the club of the most industrialized nations, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The inclusion of HE as a service industry under the WTO charter gave Korea the impetus it needed to internationalize the HE sector. Achieving a fully democratic nation with substantial economic power, Korea now started to engage with the global economy much more extensively by putting kugjehwa (internationalization) as the nation’s top priority. The 1995 Education Reform also marks an important turning point in Korean education policy. The Reform was an attempt to introduce the neoliberal paradigm and rid Korea of heavy-handed government control. Before the reform, the HE sector was highly regulated. For example, the establishment of a HEI required approval by the MoE. The enrollment quota for each school was strictly controlled. The reform allowed anyone who satisfied the regulatory requirement to establish a HEI. Choice of educational consumers and diversity of market provision of HE were emphasized. However, the MoE

See Namgoong (2009) for a detailed study on the role of returned scholars.

2

88

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

was resistant to let go of its strong bureaucratic impulse to control and guide the HE sector. Simply put, it started to use financial incentives more often than direct regulations (Byun, 2008; T. Kim, 2008). The 1995 Reform opened the floodgates of the pent-up demand for HE in Korea. Because of the suppressed demand during the past three decades, the HE market was flooded with a swift market supply. In 2000, there were more than 160 four-year universities in Korea, compared with about only 85 in 1980. Many two-year junior colleges converted to four-year universities. In 2000, the HE enrollment figure increased to 3.1 million, more than double that of the previous ten years. The enrollment rate increased to 60 percent at the turn of the century. Korea has entered into the era of a universal access to HE. Since then, internationalization of the Korean HE system has been deepening continuously. The change has been significant in many ways. During this transformation, all three stakeholders, government, HEIs, and households, have pursued their own objectives and initiatives in the changing domestic and international environment. The Korean case of the internationalization of HE demonstrates how their actions and reactions can produce changes in many areas of the HE system, which include student choice, institutional changes in teaching, research activities, governance structure, government funding, and so on. Overall, since the 1995 Education Reform, internationalization of HE in Korea now encompasses multiple channels for different stakeholders, including: a. Traditional study abroad students who seek the best graduate education abroad b. Korean students who seek international HE experience for better language and cultural proficiency for Korean and global labor market advantage c. Overseas Korean students who would like to experience the culture and learn the language of the mother land d. Foreign students who seek cross-cultural experience (semester abroad or international summer school participants) e. Foreign students coming to Korea for academic training (enrolling in degree programs) in Korea f. Faculty members for teaching and research across the national border. The tight web of internationalization is closely connected for the several decades of the engagement in the international arena through commerce, travel, education, etc. Overall, the changes during the period can be summarized in three points. First, student mobility has been diversified. Outbound destination started to include not only the United States, the UK, Germany, and Japan, but also include Canada, Australia, China, and Southeast Asian countries. The classes of students who participate in study abroad were broadened. The objectives for study abroad are more diverse, and the destinations now include many developing countries as well as developed countries. Second, Korean HEIs began to target international students as well as domestic students who are likely to study abroad much more conscientiously. In order to meet the demand for these international students, many HEIs adopted significant changes in instruction medium and administrative structure so that Korea became a significant inbound destination for international students. There are now many more courses taught in English. Some departments or schools in many institutions are completely run in English. There are even some HEIs (either founded by a foreign entity or Korean) completely run in English. Joint or dual degrees between Korean and foreign institutions began to be established.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

89

Third, Korean universities are now much more visible in global HE market by improving their research capacity. Publications in international scholarly journals have increased tremendously during this time period. Korean universities attract many more international students and professors. We shall discuss these three points separately in more detail.

International Student Mobility During the Kim Young Sam Administration (1993–98), many universities started to implement internationalization policies following the financial incentives of the government. With a high rate of access to HE and more competition among institutions in place, Korean HEIs needed to develop institutional strategy to promote themselves. However, academic reputation is relatively difficult to change in a short time, and one of the most visible activities in attracting students was the internationalization policies. Also, many international rankings for world class universities include several indicators of internationalization, such as number of foreign students and foreign faculty members. Such indicators are used by the Korean government in distributing resources for research and development across universities. Also, a major daily newspaper in Korea, Joongang Ilbo, started to announce its university rankings in response to the market demand for more information among universities. Although the Korean HE system has been known to be very hierarchical and the reputations of major universities are well known to everyone, the Joongang Ilbo rankings were the first independent and systematic effort to evaluate university performances by using objective criteria. The most important internationalization activity by many Korean HEIs was international academic exchange programs. Up until then, study abroad was mostly initiated by individual students. During this period, however, many universities actively started to create international academic exchange programs through bilateral agreement with foreign HEIs. Students who are enrolled in Korean universities are sent to foreign universities for a semester or two in exchange of hosting the counterpart university students.3 Typical modus operandi are to sign an MOU (memorandum of understanding), establishing an intent to cooperation, and follow up with a specific exchange programs describing each party’s privileges and obligations. While the typical program includes faculty and staff exchanges and research cooperation, student exchange is the main component. Such bilateral student exchange programs have started to mushroom since then, and many major Korean universities now maintains hundreds of such exchange programs in their books. The student exchange programs spread among many Korean HEIs, as this kind of internationalization would make the HEI receive favourable evaluation from the MoE. But, more importantly, there was large market demand for such short-term study abroad. As the Korean economy developed, many high-paying jobs required foreign language competency (English to begin with, but later Chinese and Japanese as well). While some students still seek foreign degrees, particularly at the world’s top institutions, most are less willing to spend many years studying abroad. The majority of students prefer a shorter visit (a semester or two) abroad for acquiring language and cultural competency, and eventually get a job in Korea. Bang (2013) stresses the importance of presidential leadership and staff members’ entrepreneurship of the institution in reaching out in its internationalization efforts.

3

90

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

One critical bottleneck in the bilateral student exchange program was the mismatch between the number of Korean students who wanted to go abroad and the number of foreign students who visited Korean HEIs. When the former was much larger than the latter, foreign institutions were naturally reluctant to take too many Korean students. Most institutions overcame this issue by charging fees (typically at a discount rate) to overflow students or by creating short-term visits for foreign students during the summer time. When the Study Korea program started, during the Kim Dae Joong Administration, it gave Korean universities a subsidy for attracting foreign students. Another innovation was the provision of dual or joint degree programs between Korean and foreign institutions. Recently, many institutions have developed more structured academic cooperation by offering dual degree programs. In the dual degree programs, a Korean university has a bilateral agreement with another foreign university so that one student can receive two separate degrees simultaneously by satisfying the degree requirements through the favorable agreement. For example, Ajou University at Suwon City started dual degree programs with Stony Brook University and Illinois Institute of Technology in early the 2010s. Currently, a few other universities such as Seoul National University, Sookmyung Women’s University, and Hanyang University are operating dual degree programs with foreign partners.4 Meanwhile, the average age of the students participating in study abroad was becoming lower. Up until the 1970s, most of the students were graduate students. During this period, the number of undergraduate students studying abroad began to exceed that of graduate students. Some high school and middle school (and even primary school) students started to go abroad to study. In 2005, the government reported about 8,000 primary school students and 12,000 secondary schools were studying abroad. However, these numbers are likely to be grossly underestimated, as many of them did not report where they were studying to the government. The early study abroad boom was motivated by many upper-class parents who were frustrated by the lack of private school opportunities and the high-pressure university admissions process in Korea.

Catering for the Demand for International Education Domestically As a result of the 1995 Reform, Korean HEIs started to actively respond to the demand for international education of domestic and foreign students (groups b, c, d, and e identified earlier). Attracting more international students became an important institutional goal for many universities, as government policy and market demand recognize the success of attracting foreign students. Consequently, the number of foreign students studying in Korea has been increasing rapidly. In 2000, there were fewer than 4,000 students in Korea, roughly equally divided between undergraduate and graduate students. In 2018, there were about 55,000 undergraduate students and 30,000 graduate students (see Table 7.2). China sent the largest number of students in 2018, followed by Vietnam and Mongolia (see Table 7.3). There are two major incentives for promoting in-bound international students. The first is to improve global and domestic ranking of the university, as the share of international

4 Byun and Kim (2011) report that twenty-nine Korean universities have dual degree programs, with thirty-four overseas HEIs in fourteen countries.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

91

TABLE 7.2 Trend of degree-seeking foreign students (2000–2018) Total University Junior college Graduate school

2000

2005

2010

2015

2016

2017

2018

3,963 1,846 183 1,877

15,577 6,926 2,153 5,742

60,000 37,491 3,262 16,291

55,739 31,377 1,595 22,767

63,104 35,753 1,822 24,160

72,032 42,371 2,238 26,066

86,036 50,997 3,702 29,939

Source: KEDI, Basic Statistics in Korean Education, various years.

TABLE 7.3 Number of foreign students by country and purpose (2018) Degree programs

Non-degree programs

Junior college

University Master’s Doctorate

Language Other training training

142,205 3,729

52,368

21,429

8,510

41,661

14,508

China 68,537 1,286 Vietnam 27,061 1,596 Japan 3,977 61 Mongolia 6,768 106 Others 22,163 601

36,303 3,757 1,394 1,172 7,126

10,565 1,479 171 1,875 4,380

3,636 953 71 304 2,568

10,722 18,791 1,378 3,218 5,398

6,025 469 902 93 2,090

Total

Total

Asia

United States America Canada Others Europe

France Russia Others

2,746

23

660

490

207

306

1,060

846 1,230

5 5

361 336

192 315

78 68

61 260

149 246

1,257 1,080 3,195

2 24 15

51 273 596

38 148 1,404

20 35 481

144 351 482

1,002 249 217

Source: KEDI (2018), Basic Statistics in Korean Education.

students is often incorporated into the determination of the rankings. Both government and individual institutions have strong motives to attract more international students. The second incentive is the tuition revenue generated by foreign students. As most universities in Korea rely heavily on tuition revenue as the most important source of income, securing adequate enrollment numbers is an important financial goal. In particular, during the time in which the number of domestic students decreased sharply due to the low fertility rate in Korea, private universities had to watch their enrollment figures. In order to meet the demand for non-Korean speaking students, many Korean institutions started to offer EMI (English Medium Instruction) courses. Before 1995, EMI courses were a rarity, offered only when instructors could not give lectures in Korean. However, since 1995, several Korean universities started to offer EMI courses. Study Korea 2004 during the Roh Administration gave financial incentives to HEIs for EMIs. Top research universities that want to attract high quality non-Korean graduate students offer such courses in order to make themselves attractive to foreign students. A few internationally oriented small universities such as Handong Global University and Woosong University do offer EMI courses. This is in order to take advantage of the niche

92

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

market by attracting Korean students who want to take EMI courses either because they are not comfortable taking courses in Korean or they want to experience EMI courses to improve their English-language ability. EMI have courses proliferated since then, and currently most top-ranking universities have substantial numbers of undergraduate as well as graduate courses in English.5 While the increasing EMI courses offered broader opportunities for international students, it was still not easy to complete degree programs by taking only EMI courses in most universities. In order to respond to the demand for English-only programs, some English-only institutions started to be established in Korea. In 1998, KDI School of Public Policy and Management, under the auspices of the Korea Development Institute, opened as a graduate school only institution within the course on public policy, public and business administration. As part of Korea’s overseas development assistance initiatives, KDI School’s main mission was to educate students from many developing nations about Korea’s economic development experience. Some universities convert graduate schools of international studies or graduate schools of management into English-only institutions. Most of the faculty members and students in these schools were Korean. So, initially, there were substantial problems. Many Korean faculty members complained that teaching (mostly or all) Korean students in English was difficult, time-consuming, and not effective. However, in many institutions, particularly more internationally focused programs, seemed to overcame those initial difficulties, as Korean students and faculty members became more prepared for English-only environment, and the proportion of non-Korean students and faculty members became higher. In the mid-2000s, many top ranked universities started to have international summer programs, such as International Summer Semester at Sungkyunkwan University and the International Summer Campus at Korea University. These programs have been growing steadily over the years, and in 2019 Seoul National, Yonsei, Korea, Ewha, Sungkyunkwan, and Hanyang Universities each attracted more than 1,000 students from abroad to the Korean universities to take courses and participate in cultural activities. The growth of these short-term summer programs has been influenced by the growing soft power and cultural attraction of Korea through pop culture, such as K-pop (Korean food, songs, movies, dramas, and reality shows) as well as high culture, such as translations of Korean literature. Recently, there has been a rapid increase in the number of foreign professors.6 At first, most of the foreign professors were language teachers; then the Korean HEIs started to use native-English speakers for their conversational English courses. However, recently the country of origin and specialization has become much more diversified, and as the number of English-only programs begins to increase in Korea, more specialized courses are being taken by foreign students.7 English-only programs and institutions are not only for graduate studies. Yonsei University started its all-English undergraduate liberal arts college, Underwood International College, in 2006. In 2007, Ewha Womans University started Scranton College in the same model. Both Yonsei and Ewha are among the most established private

For example, Korea University boasts that 40 percent of their current courses are taught in English. In 2000, there were 1,373 foreign professors in Korea. The number increased to 5,441 in 2018 (KEDI 2018). 7 In an observatory study, Jang (2017) describes the success of a male Caucasian professor teaching a computer architecture course in a top-ranked university. 5 6

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

93

universities, founded in the late nineteenth century by American Christian missionaries. Naturally, their governance structure very much resembled that of many private colleges in the United States, and many non-Koreans were on the Board. During this time period, both universities taught 10–20 percent of their courses in English. But, obtaining a degree by only taking English courses was difficult and extremely limiting. The two institutions recognized the market for an all-English liberal arts college, where students are accepted with the expectation that they will be able to finish their undergraduate degree by taking only classes taught in English.8 Woosong University, located in Daejeon, also started a couple of colleges with English as the main medium of instruction and administration. However, Sol International School (2014) and Endicott College (2015) at Woosong have undergraduate degrees (Bachelor and Associate Bachelor degrees) with professional training, such as management, digital arts, international studies, and so on. These examples show that both government and private institutions recognize the niche market for English-only institutions. While the majority of the students in these institutions are still Korean, the share of international students has been growing and the quality of instruction and administration has been improving as they accumulate more experience in English-only operation. Recently, the market for English-only programs has been opened to international operators. In 2007, the government announced the plan to create Incheon Free Economic Zone on the reclaimed area near the newly opened Incheon International Airport. The Zone has many international business plans including the idea of attracting several branch campuses of major foreign universities and research institutions by providing financial benefit for facilities and taxes. Because of the dissent of the MoE, which traditionally has opposed the opening of the HE market to international suppliers, the plan has been stalled even though in 2008 Stony Brook University, one of the State Universities of New York, agreed to open the campus in Incheon. Despite its slow start, SUNY Korea opened in the spring of 2012. Since then, Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) of New York started its summer program in 2013, George Mason University Korea, Ghent University Global Campus, and the University of Utah Asia Campus opened in 2014. The branch campuses are supervised by the Incheon Global Campus (IGC), which sets the operational rule of the international campus and coordinate the relationship to the government.9 Currently, those branch campuses in total operate about two dozen undergraduate departments and four graduate programs. English-only programs in Korea are relatively new. So it may be too early to evaluate their success or failure. English is not a commonly spoken language in Korea in the daily lives of most people. In this regard, these programs in Korea do not have the same advantage as those in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, or Canada. However, there is still a large demand in Korea for study abroad and experience of English-only instruction and language skills for higher-level business activities. The 1995 Reform and the gradual liberalization of regulatory environment enable domestic and foreign institutions to take advantage of the demand for international education not only in Korea but in the region as well (Jon et al., 2004). During the Lee Administration there was an attempt to allow for-profit universities to operate in Korea, but this initiative was not implemented because of strong opposition by Stephanie Kim (2014) analyzes the two international colleges as a “third space,” a hybrid between the native and the space imposed by colonists for many Korean diasporas. 9 See Jin (2015) for more detailed information on George Mason University at Songdo Campus. 8

94

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

the MoE. At the same time, regional cooperation mechanisms among universities with China, Japan, and ASEAN countries started, and the initiative eventually launched the CAMPUS Asia (Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students in Asia), a joint academic program among three countries. In 2016, Peking University, Waseda University, and Korea University were selected to start joint degree programs and intensive short-term programs. There is a good reason to expect Korean HEIs to be more open to English-only programs in the near future. Due to the rapid decline in fertility, Korea is now faced with the dim prospect of a reduction in the college-going age group population. Since Korea is virtually at the highest level of enrollment rate in HE, the reduction in population size would directly translate into the reduction of university students. Until 2019, the annual number of the 18-year-old population was between 550,000–600,000. However, that number is expected to decline sharply starting from 2020, and will hover around 450,000 in five years. As most public, as well as private, universities rely heavily on tuition revenue, the decline of university attending students will inevitably create financial hardship in many institutions, particularly private ones located in small cities and the countryside. English-only programs could be an important cash cow for Korean universities in the future.

Enhancement of Research Capacity The most important government HE initiative during the 2000s was its effort to build greater capacity for graduation education and research. Projects included the Brain Korea 21 (BK21, with 21 standing for 21st century), during the Kim Dae Joong (1998–2003) and Roh Moo Hyun (2003–2008) Administrations, and the World Class University (WCU) program, during the Lee Myung Bak (2008–2013) Administration. When China announced its ambitious plan to develop its world-class universities by launching the 211 Project in 1995 and the 985 Project in 1998, Korea was motivated to follow a similar dream. The major objective of these government policy initiatives was to increase the size and capability of the research pool that can create new knowledge and technology so that the nation’s graduate programs achieve global competitiveness among the top research universities in the world. The secondary objective was to promote economic development (particularly outside of the Seoul Metropolitan area) through university–industry linkage. In 1999, the Kim Dae Joong Administration launched the BK21, with a budget of 1.4 trillion KRW ($1.4 billion USD) for six years. During the next Roh Administration, the program was reauthorized for another six years with a larger budget of 2.1 trillion KRW ($2.1 billion USD) in 2006 with minor modifications. The program gave financial support for research support (and the publication of scientific papers), technology transfer, and graduate students’ training. The government aimed to create ten “world class universities” by 2012. Also, it wanted to double the rate of technology transfer from university to industry during the same period. Both programs were similar in their objectives and policy incentives. They emphasized the selective concentrated financial support for top universities and departments. The selection criteria were pre-announced (many of them are objective quantitative metric) and the selection process was based on anonymous peer review. Since the amount of financial awards was very substantial, most top universities wanted to participate in the programs. The awards were given to the applying research groups (not university or department) so that each applying research group could assemble the members of the group from the existing faculty members from various departments, post-docs, graduate

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

95

students, or contract-based researchers. Also awards were not tied to specific projects and had relatively long-term (seven-year) funding.10 Among twenty or so research universities in Korea, BK21 had a direct and strong impact on internationalization. First, the emphasis for research output, particularly on SCI or SSCI indexed journals was stressed by research universities and their potential academic staff. Evaluation for tenure and promotion became stricter and the research output became a key criterion for personnel actions. While the government’s quantitative measure-driven policies ignore quality dimensions, the number of publications has increased substantially (Byun and Kim, 2011; Cho and Palmer, 2013). In fact, there was no effective tenure systems in most Korean universities. Although many institutions have reappointment of professors on the books, the process has been mostly nominal. In effect, when teaching personnel were appointed as full-time lecturers or assistant professors, the expectation was life-long employment until the retirement age of sixty-five. When President Suh Nam Pyo, a long-time faculty member of M.I.T. before he was appointed as the President of KAIST in 2006, used the tenure evaluation process, as in the US research universities, it was a tremendous shock to the Korean academic profession. The combination of competition among research universities, BK21, and the introduction of an effective tenure system at KAIST changed the academic market in Korea. Research productivity became the most important criterion over personal connections (nepotism) with existing faculty members and institutional loyalty. Naturally, BK21 generated important incentives for internationalization. First, professors have to pay more attention to publications, particularly internationally recognized scholarly journals published in English. Many returned young PhD students have a stronger incentive to cooperate with their former advisors and/or colleagues for publication advice. In previous decades, as soon as the young scholars returned, their activities were mostly around domestic affairs, as those activities yielded more immediate and greater reward while efforts to publish in international scholarly journals were time consuming and produced no tangible benefit. Second, through the program, many young PhD students were hired as post-docs and term-contract professors. The funds from BK21 enabled HEIs to hire more internationally trained young scholars. Third, the graduate students in BK21 universities had new opportunities to attend international conferences and engage in research activities with international colleagues. With more qualified PhD students produced domestically and abroad, graduate programs started to grow. Research activities became more important, and the number of graduate students increased very rapidly during this period. For example, between 1995 and 2005, the number of graduate students increased from about 113,000 to 280,000. The number of domestic PhDs continuously increased. The WCU program during the Lee Administration had a smaller budget than BK21 ($600 million USD). The new program focused on inviting promising young researchers and eminent senior researchers to Korea for cooperative research initiatives. The program had a policy initiative to invite senior international scholars as research partners. Although WCU is more outward looking in the sense that it tried to attract foreign talents into the Korean research infrastructure, whereas BK21 is more inward looking in the sense that it tried to The strategy of selective support naturally meant that the awards were concentrated on the top universities in Korea, particularly Seoul National University. SNU attracted more than one third of the total BK21 funding, and the top five universities about two thirds. The BK21 funding provided about 5–15 percent of the total research expenses of these institutions (Seong et al., 2008).

10

96

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

enhance the ability of domestic research personnel, the sustained efforts to promote more and better research output generally paid off. The research output measures such as scientific papers published in SCI/SSCI indexed journals and the combined impact of the publication has been increasing substantially since the mid-1990s (Byun, Jon, and Kim 2013).11 In 2009, the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea was established by merging three major research funding agencies: Korea Science and Engineering Foundation, which is an umbrella organization for supporting science and engineering research, The Foundation for International Cooperation of Science and Technology, and Korea Research Foundation, which supports international research on Korean studies. The NRF is modeled on the National Science Foundation of the United States. Since the merger, the NRF has been playing a major role in supporting academic research activities. Although its major funding is through competitive research proposals evaluated by peer experts, some parts of BK21 and the WCU program have been continuing until now. Also, NRF coordinates international research activities with many research funding agencies around the world.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS Since the devastating destruction caused by the Korean War in the early 1950s, South Korea has achieved tremendous success in building a globally competitive HE system in such a short time. During the process of its growth and development, internationalization of HE has been playing a crucial role, just as international trade has been the engine of Korea’s remarkable economic development. However, the nature of international relations has changed over time, as the domestic and international socio-economic environments change. With very few natural resources, Korea’s development is reminiscent of Say’s law in human resources. That is to say, the supply of human resources through education creates its own demand for it later. Rapid expansion of the primary school sector during the 1950s and 1960s provided abundant human resources for the rapid industrialization of the 1960s and 1970s. Largescale study abroad and the brain drain during the 1960s and 1970s provided an abundant pool of professional expatriates who were educated and trained in developed nations. They became a valuable resource when the nation’s demand for highly skilled human resources later increased (Green, Ashton, James, and Sung, 1999). However, it should be warned that the policy of rapid expansion of education, without financial resources or future demand for educated labor, may be precarious. Rapid expansion without resources would yield low-quality education, and excess supply of educated labor without corresponding demand would generate high unemployment of the educated. The main reason that this path of rushed over-education worked in Korea is that the succeeding generations of government policymakers chose appropriate policies, given the supply of human resources available in the marketplace (domestic and abroad). Many low-income countries push for the rapid expansion in education and end up with low-quality education and high unemployment of the educated. Also, many developing nations provide large subsidies to the HE sector and are then faced with the serious situation of brain drain without much hope for imminent brain gain. Korea ranked twenty-first in the number of SCI publications in 1996. The rank has improved to fourteenth in 2005 and twelfth in 2014, where it has remained to the present day (KISTEP).

11

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

97

Korea’s experience shows that a positive feedback loop is possible, but it is clearly not always guaranteed. The Korean case worked because of the government’s aggressive initiatives to recruit expatriates and the successful economic development that happened as a result. In addition to the government’s timely and opportunistic policy initiatives, households and HEIs responded effectively with entrepreneurship and astuteness. Education has served as the most important channel for social mobility for many decades, and the strong demand for education has been maintained when the expectation of higher returns to education had been consistently met through successful economic development for a sustained time period. The process of internationalization in Korean HE also shows a similar resilient dynamic process. In the early stage of internationalization, the government’s role was relatively minor except for the case of moderate study abroad scholarship programs. Up until 1990, internationalization of HE was clearly not on the government’s priority list; increasing export and rapid industrialization was. However, post-WTO, Korean governments embraced globalization wholeheartedly and tried to internationalize Korean HE by consistently providing financial incentives and administrative guidelines. The HEIs responded quickly and creatively to those incentives and guidelines. The strong positive market response is mainly due to the fact that Korea’s HE system is quite competitive; institutions rely heavily on tuition payments and internationalization was consistent with meeting the students’ demand for internationalization in the market. Since the neoliberal reform in 1995, Korean internationalization of HE has been deeper and more diversified. Korea has been consistently one of the top countries in terms of outbound study abroad. Over time, Korea’s international student mobility became much more diversified. Major destinations now include many other countries, such as China. At the same time, the number of inbound foreign students has been increasing quite rapidly, and currently there are more than 80,000 degree-seeking foreign students and another 60,000 short-term language learners and occupational trainees in Korea. Korea now effectively competes with Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore for attracting Chinese and Southeast Asian out-bound study abroad students. Korea’s HE market is much bigger than that of Hong Kong and Singapore, so it has the capacity to absorb the large Chinese demand. While Korea does not have the native English advantage of Australia, it is culturally close to China and the number of courses taught in English has been increasing. Physical proximity works for Korea as well. Advice and housing for foreign students have been improving, and Korea’s public safety record is excellent. Economic ties between China and Korea are very strong. These conditions mark Korea as a competitive destination for many students in the region. The quality of instruction (including classes taught in English) has improved substantially over the last couple of decades. Research capacity of top research universities has improved substantially, attracting both quality graduate students and international professoriates. While the goal of so-called “world class university” may not have been realized yet, many top universities in Korea have been climbing the ladder of international ranking. More importantly, the current upward movement is likely to continue, given the availability of Korea’s human and financial resources. Traditionally, Korea has not allowed for-profit (domestic or international) HEIs. While some private HEIs in Korea work as de facto for-profit institutions for the benefit of the founding family or dominant board members, the prohibition has effectively fended off predatory international for-profit HEIs. International HEIs are now allowed to operate

98

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

with strict policy guidelines and locations, such as the Jeju Special Autonomous District. The English-only degree programs offered in Korean Universities and the foreign branch campuses in IGC are trying to attract foreign students, as well as Korean students who could have gone to study abroad. It is too early to tell the true impact of these campuses in terms of quantity and quality. However, given the level of substantial international engagement of the Korean economy over the last half century, they may soon be able to carve out Korea’s share in attracting foreign students.

REFERENCES Bang, Y. (2013). Internationalization of Higher Education: A Case Study of Three Korean Private Universities, PhD Dissertation, University of Southern California. Byun, K. (2008). New public management in Korean HE : Is it reality or another fad? Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(2): 190–205. Byun, K., and Kim, M. (2011). Shifting patterns of the government’s policies for the internationalization of Korean higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5): 467–486. Byun, K., Jon, J.E., and Kim, D. (2013). Quest for building world-class universities in South Korea: Outcomes and consequences. Higher Education, 65(5): 645–659. Chae, J.-E. and Hong, H.K. (2009). The expansion of higher education led by private universities in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3): 341–355. Cho, Y.H. and Palmer, J.D. (2013). Stakeholders’ views of South Korea’s higher education internationalization policy. Higher Education, 65: 291–308. Green, F., Ashton, D. James, D. and Sung, J. (1999). The role of the state in skill formation: Evidence from the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15(1): 82–96. Jang, E-Y. (2017). Sustainable internationalization in South Korean higher education: Languages and cultures in a foreign professor’s course. Higher Education, 73: 673–689. Jin, J.C. (2015). Internationalization, deregulation and the extension of higher education in Korea: A further note. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(3): 156–160. Jon, J.E. et al. (2004). The emergence of a regional hub: Comparing international student choices and experiences in South Korea. Higher Education, 67: 691–710. Kang, S.G. et al. (2005). Analysis on the Growth of Korean Education for 60 years, Seoul: Korea Education Development Institute (KEDI). Kim, S. (2008). Rapid expansion of higher education in South Korea: Political economy of education fever. In Baker, D.P. and Wiseman, A.W. (eds), The Worldwide Transformation of Higher Education, Bingley, UK : Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 223–268. Kim, S. (2010). From brain drain to brain competition: Changing employment opportunities and career pattern of U.S.-trained Korean academics. In Clotfelter, C.T. (ed.), American Universities in a Global Market. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 335–369. Kim, S. (2014). An International College in South Korea as a Third Space between Korean and US Models of Higher Education, PhD Dissertation, UCLA . Kim, T. (2008). Higher education reforms in South Korea: Public–private problems in internationalizing and incorporating universities. Policy Futures in Education, 6(5): 558–568. Kim, Y.J. (2009). Let us nurture talents: National scholarship program in 1949. Chosun Ilbo, September 30. KEDI (2018). Basic Statistics in Korean Education. Seoul: Korea Education Development Institute (KEDI).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION

99

KISTEP (2018). Main Science and Technology Index of Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Policy (KISTEP). Krechetnikov, K.G., and Pestereva, N.M. (2017). A comparative analysis of the education system in Korea and Japan from the perspective of internationalization. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(1): 77–88. Namgoong, S.U. (2009). Returning Scholars in Korean Education: A Case Study of Internationalization of Higher Education, PhD dissertation. Sydney: The University of Sydney. OECD (2018). Education at a Glance. Paris: Organization for Economic and Cultural Development (OECD). Seong, S. et al. (2008). Brain Korea 21 Phase II: A New Evaluation Model. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.

CHAPTER EIGHT

Internationalization as a Mechanism of Higher Education Modernization in Kazakhstan ALIYA KUZHABEKOVA

INTRODUCTION Internationalization has been one of the main mechanisms for modernization of higher education in Kazakhstan since the country became independent after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In fact, “internationalization has become a vital component of the (reform) process” (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014: 17). International mobility, predominantly in the form of government sponsorship of faculty and staff professional development, international faculty hiring and domestic students’ study abroad, has been the main approach to training and exporting academic labor force in the conditions of lacking local higher education capacity. Participation in regional internationalization initiatives, in particular, the Bologna process, has become the driving force for modification of the degree structure, introduction of a new system of academic hours accounting (the credit system), reforms in the system of quality assurance, and integration of the previously isolated higher educational system into the global system of postsecondary training and research. The establishment of several private international universities has been dependent on a steady influx of international faculty. International research collaboration has been viewed as one of the main instruments for strengthening the research capacity of Kazakhstani higher education institutions. Recently, internationalization has been discussed as the way to support the expansion of universities’ autonomy and selfgovernance. This chapter provides an overview of the process of internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan during the three decades of the country’s independence. It starts with a short description of the higher education system in the country. It then provides an account of the historical development of the process of internationalization, including a description of the main players, rationales for internationalization initiatives, mechanisms, activities, policy documents, funding, outputs and outcomes, and challenges. Future directions are identified at the end of the chapter.

100

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

101

HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN The contemporary higher educational system of Kazakhstan, especially in terms of facilities, governance and organizational structures, decision-making mechanisms, and the stock of professional academic workforce, is largely a legacy of Soviet times. The Soviet government invested a lot of effort in the development of universities in the region, prior to the Second World War, because higher education was viewed as essential for industrialization and the development of large-scale farming in Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, which was one of the richest areas in the Soviet Union in terms of natural resources and land. During the period between the 1950s and the 1980s, the number of universities in the country increased from twenty-six to fifty-five (Kuzembayuly, 2006: 323–324). A complex system of higher education was created, including the republic’s own Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized (Vocational) Education. Overall, the public university system was well integrated into the system of Soviet industrial and agricultural production, an effectively trained cadre for the republic’s government, healthcare, and education, which contributed to the Soviet system of innovation and research via several established university-based research schools (teams) in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and health and agricultural sciences. Importantly, due to ideological control and the relative isolation of the Soviet economic production system, the system of higher education in Soviet Kazakhstan had little interaction with the external world. Some collaborative activity existed between Kazakhstani universities and the key research and training centers in Moscow, which produced the top academic and research personnel for all Soviet republics and exported a small share of the academic and research workforce to other members of the union. Meanwhile, there was little mobility of either students or faculty between Kazakhstan and other Soviet republics, as well as between Kazakhstan and countries of the Soviet bloc. After Kazakhstan had become an independent state, the system of higher education established by the Soviets could no longer serve the needs of the new economic system. In fact, during the financial crisis of 1998, which struck the country in the first decade after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, higher education was severely affected by the lack of public funding, the collapse of the centrally planned industrial and agricultural production system, and the dissipation of the established networks of faculty professional development, student mobility and research across the former Soviet space. The funding deficit led to the degradation of facilities and equipment, to the loss of a significant number of faculty and researchers, who moved to better paid jobs in other sectors within Kazakhstan and other countries. It also created a gap in the system of the reproduction of the academic workforce, with few students willing to pursue doctoral degrees given the frugal scholarship support and the rapidly declining status of the academic profession. The government of Kazakhstan was forced to start the process of privatization and modernization of higher education to align the system with the demands of the globally integrated market economy. Over the three decades of independence, the capacity of higher education in Kazakhstan has more than doubled from 250,000 to 595,000 students (Ministry of Education and Science (MES), 2012a). The number of higher educational institutions has increased to 148, more than half of which (93 institutions) are private universities (MES, 2012a). Kazakhstan has joined the Bologna Process, adopted new qualification and quality assurance frameworks, introduced the credit system, and moved from the Soviet to the European three-tier degree structure. It has also developed a government-subsidized system of university scholarships and loans, a competitive system of public research

102

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

finance, and launched several effective international mobility programs. It has become better integrated in the regional and global higher education and research networks. In short, the system has experienced significant transformations, which were largely driven and supported by internationalization initiatives. In the sections below we provide our interpretation of the role internationalization played in the transformation of higher education in independent Kazakhstan.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY PROCESS AND GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN INTERNATIONALIZATION INITIATIVES In the search for new approaches to organization of higher education, which could replace the Soviet system, Kazakhstan has turned to “international experience,” also referred to as “best international practices,” which became the proverbial “holy grail” of educational reformation in the minds of educational policymakers. Policy borrowing has become the most important mechanism in educational modernization, with Kazakhstan having accepted “a post-socialist reform package” delivered as a ready-made solution to all ills by international development agencies (Silova and Steiner-Khamsi, 2008). Some of the items in the package were related to internationalization, which seems to have been conceptualized as a process leading to accumulation of “international experience” or dissemination of “best international practices.” Since internationalization has been viewed as a mechanism for educational policy reforms rather than a goal in itself, the form it took in Kazakhstan was activities-based (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016), with various internationalization activities implemented in connection with specific reforms or reform objectives. Such an approach is, in fact, most commonly used in countries across the world (De Wit, 2011) as opposed to a more comprehensive process approach, which is characterized by “higher commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service” (Hudzik, 2011: 64). Despite the important role that internationalization has played in the modernization of higher education in Kazakhstan, the process of internationalization has never been planned as a separate item on the national education reform agenda. The Kazakhstani government has yet to adopt a separate internationalization strategy and, in fact, needs to clearly define the concept of internationalization (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016). Instead, various initiatives associated with internationalization are discussed and corresponding objectives and outcome indicators are set in the National Programs for the Development of Education and the National Programs for the Development of Science, which are regularly adopted for specific periods of time following the Soviet practice of five-year strategic planning. The closest the government has ever come to formulating an internationalization strategy was the adoption of the Strategy for Academic Mobility in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2012–2020 (MES, 2012a). Similarly, there is no single coordinating agency or unit responsible for the overall process of internationalization, while there are government-funded agencies responsible for the implementation of the Bologna Process, government-sponsored international mobility (Centre for International Programs), and other internationalization-related initiatives. There is not only a lack of coordination, but there is frequently a “disjunction of strategies at the national and institutional levels” (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014: 14).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

103

This lack of coordination is combined with a high level of control over implementation of the initiatives pushed by the government. A team of scholars from Nazarbayev University (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014) conducted interviews with universities’ administrators to document their experiences with internationalization. They found that universities are severely constrained in their internationalization initiatives by “centralized budgets, centralized time-frames, and centralized aims” (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014: 15). To some extent this over centralization is related to the fact that universities have little understanding of the benefits, purposes, and approaches to internationalization because there is a shortage of qualified internationalization professionals in higher education institutions, as well as a huge turnover of English-speaking staff, who frequently find more attractive jobs outside higher education (Li and Ashirbekov, 2014: 15). Little effort has been made so far in terms of systematic data collection and analysis of internationalization. In 2012, the National Centre for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility (NCBPAM) was created to provide an analytical support for the process of implementation of the Bologna-related obligations and international mobility programs. So far, the center has produced only one report containing open statistical data on international student and faculty mobility, international partnerships and research collaborations (National Centre for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility, 2019). Given the lack of policy evaluation capacity in the country, as well as poor statistical data collection effort, only minimal assessment of the effectiveness of the prior internationalization initiatives is typically included in the introductory sections of the National Programs for the Development of Education and the National Programs for the Development of Science.

Some Statistics Related to Internationalization As has been mentioned above, there has been a lack of systematic statistic data collection effort so far. Most recent data on various aspects of internationalization has recently been provided by the National Centre for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility (NCBPAM; 2019). This section provides a summary of the data from the report of NCBPAM (2019). Since 2011, outbound international student mobility in Kazakhstani higher education has increased from 350 participants to 1,826 participants in 2018. Almost 15,000 domestic students participated in some sort of mobility programs during the period of 2011–2018. Of the participants in the mobility programs, 48 percent chose to go to a European university. The second most popular destination of outbound students has been the postSoviet region, especially Russia, followed by South and South-East Asia. The popularity of North America has been relatively decreasing over the years with participation rates declining from 2014 to 2018 and currently constituting only 0.1 percent of the total outflow. It is also worth noting that 49 percent of the participants took part in mobility programs in English. Finally, the share of government-funded students has been decreasing during the last decade relative to the share of self-funding students. While in 2013 the proportion of self- and government-funded students was almost equal at approximately 800 participants per year in each type of mobility, in 2018 annual participation of selffunding students (1,826) is almost three times greater than that of government-funded students (621). According to NCBPAM (2019), Kazakhstan has also become a relatively attractive destination for inbound international students. Between 2016 and 2019 the annual

104

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

enrollment of international students in Kazakhstani universities doubled from 10,399 in 2016 to 20,866 in 2019. The share of international students in the total student population is around 4 percent. Most international students come from other post-Soviet countries, most notably Central Asia. Another important supply region is Asia with most students coming from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China. More than a quarter (26 percent) of international students pursue degrees in medicine and health sciences. Finally, based on the data from NCBPAM (2019), over the last decade, Kazakhstan has attracted 10,590 international faculty (i.e., academics with foreign citizenship) to work in universities across the country. The greatest number was employed during the period of 2011–2014, when the newly created Nazarbayev University was aggressively forming its predominantly international faculty body. NCBPAM (2019) also provides statistics on the number of signed international partnership contracts and ongoing cross-border institutional collaborations. In 2019, universities across Kazakhstan were engaged in 6,373 active partnership contracts. Postsoviet countries are leaders as international partners in this respect and are followed by Europe and Asia. In addition, in the middle of 2019, there were 302 ongoing crossborder institutional collaborative projects, 38 percent of which were conducted by universities, which have the status of institutions of national importance, such as KazakhNational University named after Al-Farabi. Only 18 percent of Kazakhstan universities offered one or more of the 243 existing joint degree programs. The total number of 21 universities offered one or several of the 243 dual degree programs. Most of the programs are available at the Kazakh National University and Eurasian National University.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN THE EARLY STAGES OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM: THE PROLIFERATION OF INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY PROGRAMS As early as the first decade of independence, the government of Kazakhstan, as well as governments of Western countries interested in strengthening liberal economies and democratic regimes in post-Soviet states realized that one of the key deficiencies in Kazakhstan, which may stall the subsequent economic development and competitiveness was the lack of professional cadre to fill decision-making positions in the government and in the private sector. A significant share of the professional cadre in Soviet Kazakhstan was composed of ethnic Russians, Germans, Ukrainians, and other non-Kazakh ethnicities. This resulted from the intentional colonial policy of Russification on the one hand, and from diverse ethnic composition of the republic and ethnic differentiation in higher educational attainment on the other. The vast and largely underpopulated lands of Kazakhstan have become home to thousands of individuals evacuated there from the European part of the Soviet Union during the Second World War. In addition, it became a place of exile for political convicts, who were sent there by Stalin, as well as for “deported” peoples, who were forcibly relocated to the steppe out of fear for their political unreliability and the potential to be recruited as Germany’s allies. Finally, after the Second World War, Kazakhstan became home to thousands of technical and agricultural specialists, who were sent to assist with industrialization and the “raising the virgin lands” campaign. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many of the individuals, who had lived in Kazakhstan for less than two generations decided to return to their

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

105

places of origin. Unfortunately, many of those leaving were the most educated and successful during Soviet times and their departure left many government and management positions difficult to fill. This, combined with the lack of individuals with higher education among ethnic Kazakhs, as well as the more generic problem of the lack of specialists who were able to understand the realities of the capitalist economy, created the urgent need for a supply of new professional cadre to staff the republic’s government with policymakers and analysts able to understand global processes and approaches, as well as to provide the financial and the private sector with managerial staff able to understand the realities of the capitalist economy. Simultaneously, the commitment of Western countries to facilitate the transition of post-Soviet countries to democratic governance and to liberal economic regimes made them quickly realize the need to train locals, who could staff regional offices of international organizations, their own country’s missions, and non-government organizations. The huge demand for the new type of specialists could not be quickly met by the local higher education sector, and outbound international mobility supported with scholarships has come to be viewed as the main solution to the problem. One of the earliest solutions, which offered scholarships to Kazakhstani students to study abroad, were programs funded by the US Department of State, including Fullbright, Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, and Global UGRAD scholarships. These scholarships were provided for year-long study abroad, professional development trips, and graduate training in the US universities. Kazakhstan has also been viewed as an important partner for Germany given that it has been home to thousands of Soviet Germans, who were deported there during the Second World War. The German Academic Exchange Program (DAAD) has funded many Kazakhstani students to pursue education in Germany. In 2015 alone the agency provided 203 scholarships to Kazakhstani citizens (DAAD, 2015). Another notable funder of Kazakhstani students and faculty since the early days of independence has been the British Council (Chevening scholarship, short-term mobility grants, project grants). In later years, as Kazakhstan became a part of the European Higher Education area, Kazakhstani students received access to European mobility funds, most notably within Erasmus, Erasmus Mundus, and Tempus programs. Other foreign governments, which provide scholarships for Kazakhstani students include Japan, India, Singapore, Korea, China, and Turkey. Recently, China has announced plans to increase its funding for Kazakhstani students and faculty to study at and visit Chinese universities within its “One Belt, One Road” Initiative (Li, 2018: 14). Alumni of the programs funded by foreign governments have been highly important as members of the civil society (Campbell, 2016). While many of them work for the private sector and some are employed as university faculty and researchers, their greatest impact was as employees of non-government organizations and regional offices of international development organizations. Graduates of American programs, in particular, filled the labor market gap, which was not addressed as much by government programs. In addition to the foreign-government funded programs, international mobility takes place as a part of intergovernmental grant exchanges and interinstitutional exchange programs. Jumakulov and Ashirbekov (2016) provide a list of intergovernmental grant exchanges, which includes agreements with Egypt (7 grants) Belarus (6 grants), Romania (5 grants), Ukraine (40 grants), Kyrgyzstan (5 grants), China (100 grants), Slovakia (4 grants), and Mongolia (5 grants). Further, several Kazakhstani universities participate in regional higher education networks, which facilitate the creation of interinstitutional exchange programs. Examples of such networks include the Network of CIES (Commonwealth of

106

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Independent States) Universities and Universities of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016). However, the most impactful international mobility initiative administered at the national level turned out to be Kazakhstan’s own scholarship program. In 1993 the government of Kazakhstan launched the presidential “Bolashak” (translated from Kazakh as “Future”) scholarship, which was modeled after similar programs in Malaysia, Singapore, and other Asian transitional economies, which over time was recognized as one of the most successful international mobility programs of its kind (Vaida, 2018). The program awards full scholarship to recipients that covers tuition and fees, and a monthly stipend. It is fully funded from the republic’s national budget. In 2014, the Kazakhstani government allocated 16.5 billion tenge (about 105 million US dollars) to the program (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016). Over the years of its existence, the Bolashak scholarship was awarded to 12,831 individuals, and more than 200 universities in 35 countries have become Bolashak strategic partners (Omirgazy, 2018). According to Omirgazy (2018), during the academic year 2017–2018, 1,209 scholarship holders were studying abroad; 14 were enrolled in bachelor’s programs, 1,021 were master’s degree students, 118 were engaged in doctoral studies, 2 were undergoing postgraduate courses, and 54 were student interns funded by the government. Of the total, 46.2 percent were studying in United Kingdom universities, 38.5 percent were in the United States and Canada, 5.2 percent were in continental Europe, 4.9 percent were in Asia and Oceania, and 5 percent were in Russia. The Bolashak program boasts a very high return rate of students. This rate of return was achieved as a result of the implementation of an effective mechanism of guarantee, whereby students had to put their parents’ or their own apartment as collateral to receive funding. As a consequence of the significant efforts that were spent on cultivating the image of the patriotic, talented, and well-educated Bolashaker, alumni of the program were highly desired in the labor market, scholarships were highly prestigious for any student in the country, and the return was therefore attractive. Nowadays, thousands of Bolashak students occupy professional and decision-making positions in Kazakhstani universities, government, and the private sector. They have truly become the driving force of economic reforms and have produced an impressive return on government investment in international mobility. In addition to the government-level scholarships and grants, Kazakhstan offers a scholarship program for short-term international mobility, which is administered at university level. According to Jumakulov and Ashirbekov (2016), in 2015, 7,000 students received funding via this program, while during the period of 2012 to 2015 the government of Kazakhstan allocated 2.36 billion tenge (about 12.8 million US dollars) towards its budget. Ashirbekov (2016) also provides the results of a survey of university administrators who reported issues with this program. These were related to difficulty in the identification of international partners willing to accept students and insufficient amounts of scholarship, which could not cover the costs at the host universities. Consistent with the main argument of this chapter, international mobility played a key role in the reform of higher education (Jumakulov and Ashirbekov, 2016; Nessipbayeva, 2015). Many of the Kazakhstanis who received education or experience abroad, especially alumni of the Bolashak program, are now employed in an analyst capacity in government think-tanks, which assist policymakers with understanding the international experience and the formulation of new policies. Many of them teach at universities on a part-time or full-time basis, work as researchers in scientific laboratories, or are employed as

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

107

administrative personnel, who are introducing international approaches to university management. Some, who work outside of education in the private or public sector, serve on Boards of higher education institutions or private foundations, which provide sponsorship for research and education activities. Finally, as ordinary citizens they have a very active position with respect to educational reforms in the country and exert influence on their surroundings.

SECOND STAGE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION: THE BOLOGNA PROCESS AS A TEMPLATE FOR RESTRUCTURATION AND MODERNIZATION OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM While in the early years sending students and faculty abroad seemed like a good solution to the problem of the deficit of qualified specialists, in the long run a more viable solution was modernizing domestic higher education. The main issue was the lack of understanding of existing international models for organizing higher education and the difficulty in choosing the one most appropriate for the country. Meanwhile, in the background of the government’s struggles with these important choices, the European countries started the process of creating the European Higher Education Area with common standards and approaches to the organization of the educational process. Aligning the higher education system with the parameters set by the Bologna Declaration seemed like a viable solution to the problem of educational modernization in Kazakhstan. In addition, becoming at least an affiliate of the European Higher Education Area had geopolitical importance for Kazakhstan, which tried to develop the identity of a Eurasian vs. a Central Asian state (Tomusk, 2011). Kazakhstan started to follow the Bologna Process around 2000 and became a full member in 2010. The country has ratified the Lisbon Degree Recognition Convention. Over the years, higher education has undergone significant changes in accordance with the expectations of the Bologna Declaration. Some of the most important changes include (1) the transition to the three-tier degree structure to replace the Soviet organization of degrees, (2) the adoption of the European Credit Transfer system to replace the Soviet contact-hour system in the planning of the academic process, (3) the adoption of the grade point average as a system of marking, as well as the introduction of the diploma supplement, (4) the introduction of electives, of academic advising, and academic handbooks, (5) the reform in the system of quality control and the transition to the system of independent accreditation vs. centralized government control, (6) the development of the national qualifications framework. In addition, participation in the Bologna process increased the significance of international mobility and institutional and individual collaboration, and motivated many universities and individuals to seek opportunities to engage in overseas partnerships and projects. Kazakhstani students and faculty received access to European mobility funding mechanisms, while universities joined European university associations. While the Bologna Process did not necessarily make Kazakhstani degrees easily recognizable in the West and did not increase the influx of European students to Kazakhstan, as could have been expected from joining the process, it made Europe one of the main destinations of international mobility from Kazakhstan and contributed to the development of research and academic exchange links between Kazakhstani and European Universities. In addition, as Kazakhstani universities and programs receive international

108

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

accreditation, they may become more attractive for international students from the global South.

THIRD STAGE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION: INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES AS ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROVIDERS One of the approaches to higher education reform that the government of Kazakhstan started to use from the early days of independence is co-funding and support of international universities. By international universities I mean three types of universities, which utilize educational models from other countries on a large scale vs. adopting them for individual programs. The first type of such universities is international private institutions. One example is the University of International Business and Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research (KIMEP). International private universities are funded from either local or foreign private sources. However, they usually adopt an educational model of a foreign country (such as the United States) and hire a certain share of international or internationally trained domestic faculty on a systematic part-time or permanent basis to teach their students. The second type of universities are jointly funded international universities established as per inter-governmental agreements. Examples include Kazakh-Turkish University, Kazakh-British University, and Kazakh-Russian University, with the last two no longer existing in the market. These universities, funded by two partnering governments, also adopted the model or substantial parts of the curriculum from a foreign country’s higher education, as well as hiring a certain proportion of faculty from the country. In addition, some of these universities offered future faculty development programs, whereby students could pursue their higher degrees in the partner universities abroad in order to prepare them for subsequent teaching or leadership positions in their home institution. The first two types of universities played an important, while rarely recognized, role in the reform of higher education. They piloted innovative approaches and practices, some of which were later adopted by other private and even public institutions. For example, they were the first to adopt the credit hour system, and to introduce three-tiered degrees and some other innovations, which were adopted by other universities much later. Their rectors participated in national-level consultative groups, which could influence, at least to some extent, educational policy-making processes. They pushed reforms related to government standards regulating graduation and admission requirements, as well as curriculum standards. They were the first to receive programmatic and institutional accreditations, setting an example for other universities to follow. However, most importantly, they gradually led educational policymakers to the idea of providing greater autonomy to universities and prepared the government and the bureaucratic apparatus of Kazakhstan to tackle one of the most ambitious and successful internationalization projects in its history—the creation of Nazarbayev University. The creation of Nazarbayev University marks the beginning of the third stage of the internationalization process in Kazakhstan. The university was established in 2010 as a new type of international university, which utilizes a unique model of partnership and organization and attracts international faculty and staff on a much larger scale than any of its predecessors. The idea to create the university was largely prompted by Jamil Salmi from the World Bank in his paper on world-class universities (Salmi, 2009). This idea fell

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

109

on prepared ground, as the government was experiencing a shift in thinking about approaches to higher education reform in general and about effective ways to train the professional cadre able to understand international approaches and practices. This shift occurred on the one hand as a result of growing dissatisfaction of the government with the ability of Bolashak to produce the much-needed undergraduate students who were expected to fill the demand in priority sectors of areas of the economy associated with technology. After the extension of the scholarship to undergraduate students in 2005, the government came to realize that sending domestic students to other countries at a young age had some negative consequences—the students had a higher likelihood of failing academically, of eloping to the country of study, and of having trouble finding a job due to lack of understanding of Kazakhstani realities. On the other hand, there was growing dissatisfaction with the ability of local universities to modernize quickly enough for the country to catch up with the increasing global competition and technological progress. Any reform efforts in the university frequently faced resistance from the old generation of faculty and administrators, who were trained in Soviet times. Impressed with Jamil Salmi’s (2009) idea of world-class universities, the government decided that creating a flagship in Kazakhstan would be the best way to address two of its concerns. Building a completely new world-class university in Kazakhstan seemed like a viable alternative to sending students to such universities abroad or expecting domestic universities to do something for which they do not have the capacity. A domestic worldclass university, as it was assumed, could both train high-quality undergraduate students at home and to serve as a model to be adopted by other universities across the country. Nazarbayev University was built on a unique partnership and organizational model, which was different from the models used in other countries. It operates as a multipartner international consortia, where each of the schools has been created in partnership with reputable schools in the same discipline from other countries. For example, the Graduate School of Education at NU has Cambridge University and the University of Pennsylvania as its partner institutions. The Graduate School of Public Policy was established in collaboration with Lee Kuan Yew University’s School of Public Policy. The Graduate School of Business collaborates with Duke University. The partners actively participated in the development of the first programs, in the hiring of the founding faculty members and the administration of the corresponding schools. They continue to implement external program monitoring and quality control, participate in the process of hiring of faculty, and in the assessment of master’s and doctoral theses. In some cases, they offer professional development programs for faculty, engage in collaborative research, or host students for semester-long study abroad. They also have an influence on the determination of strategic plans of the university and the adoption of key university policies. At the same time, the consortia of these partnered schools are run together as one single university with common decision-making and administrative structures, shared policies, standards, and budgets. Unlike its predecessors, NU has complete autonomy from the Ministry of Education. This is consistent with the criteria of world-class universities identified by Jamil Salmi (2009). The university is free to utilize any model and approach to education, formulate its own policies, hire and promote its faculty, plan and allocate its budget, and issue its own diploma. It is also frequently able to rely on its special status in bending procurement and accounting reporting procedures, given that it frequently purchases equipment from abroad and faces expenses for doing so, which is uncommon in other Kazakhstani universities.

110

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The multi-partnership model, combined with complete autonomy from the control of the Ministry of Education, introduces some complications into the operation of the university, but also serves as a source of creative innovation. Each of the partners comes from a different country with their own educational traditions and standards in organization of the educational process. In addition, due to the fact that the partnerships are financed directly from the government’s budget, each of the partners feels committed to meet the expectations of the government, even when these expectations may contradict the established international practices. At times, these differences become a reason for disagreements about the way educational processes should be organized or lead to confusion and duplications in the educational process. However, they also serve as a source of creative ideas, which lead to the emergence of new approaches and models that reflect both international best practices and Kazakhstani realities and cultural practices and values. The language of instruction at the university is English. A significant proportion of faculty members are foreign nationals with the rest of the positions filled with internationally trained domestic academics. Foreign personnel also assume most of the leadership positions in administration, while the operational staff is formed from locals with master’s degrees from abroad, many of whom are graduates of the Bolashak program. The university uses a curriculum that is modeled on programs of top universities in the world and that is highly internationalized in its content. Many of its students and faculty participate in international mobility and international research collaborations. So, it is a truly international university in all respects, except for the presence of international students. In the early years the main goal of the university was to replace undergraduate training with Bolashak and all of the admitted students received a 100 percent government scholarship, for which international students did not qualify. The university did not charge tuition or fees from the students. However, at this point, there are discussions of an increasing international student presence on campus, of setting non-residential tuition and fees, as well as of developing scholarship programs for applicants from other countries. Over the nine years of its existence, NU has developed a very strong regional reputation and awareness about its growth across the world, with individuals from many regions of the world applying for faculty positions. NU has almost surpassed all national research universities in terms of research productivity and has developed a strong reputation as a provider of the highest quality of education. Many of its graduates continue on to receive education in top universities abroad or work in decision-making positions in Kazakhstani organizations. More importantly, it has played a key role in dissemination of the best practices to other Kazakhstani universities by conducting regional conferences, and organizing workshops and master classes for faculty and administration of other Kazakhstani higher education institutions.

FOURTH STAGE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION: INTERNATIONALIZATION OF AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITIES During the last two years, the process of internationalization in Kazakhstan seems to be entering a new stage. The expectation of the government is to scale up the model of the

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

111

newly created Nazarbayev University. According to the current State Program for the Development of Education in Kazakhstan 2011–2020 (MES, 2012b), higher education institutions are expected to be provided with greater institutional autonomy and should transition to a self-governing model implemented in the form of Board governance. In addition to that, using the example of NU, top universities are expected to identify an international partner, who would be actively involved in the process of institutional modernization, ensure quality control of academic programs, and collaborate on research projects. While the universities have received a directive from the top to identify such partners, if given real autonomy, they may be able to determine the conditions, the form, the goals, and the outcomes of the partnerships themselves. This may finally move the process of internationalization from the top to the level of universities. Some forward-looking rectors have already started to implement the required changes. A good example in this respect is the Agricultural University in Astana, which had started to collaborate with a partner institution from abroad before the program was even adopted. However, the examples are not yet numerous, and it remains to be seen whether the model of NU is scalable under constrained funding and human resource capacity conditions. After all, regular universities are expected to achieve almost the same quality and results with much less impressive facilities, with less ample funding, an average rather than gifted student body, underpaid, unmotivated, and under-skilled faculty, as well as lowered access to international trained administrative staff from among Bolashak and other mobility program graduates (not everyone would be willing to relocate to universities outside the former and the current capital cities).

LOCAL RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION The research capacity in international higher education is low in Kazakhstan. Very few local researchers conduct international-level research on the topic (Tazhibayeva, 2017). The capacity is now growing thanks to the efforts of the NU Graduate School of Education, which employs several international and local faculty members (some of whom are cited in the chapter) who conduct research on internationalization in Kazakhstan and train the next generation of local scholars. However, most of the research conducted in the country is descriptive in nature and has so far made very limited contributions in terms of new theories or methodological approaches.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROCESS IN KAZAKHSTAN AND POSSIBLE FUTURE DIRECTIONS Several distinctive features characterize the internationalization process in Kazakhstan. First, to a great extent, internationalization in Kazakhstan is pushed by the government as a mechanism for modernization of higher education rather than coming from the need for universities to compete for the student body and to raise extra funding. In fact, “the new developments initiated at the top were not necessarily received at the institutional level with open arms” (Li and Ashirbekova, 2014: 14). Domestic higher education enrollment is still expanding, and most universities target domestic rather than international students as main sources of income. None of the universities successfully compete in international

112

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

university rankings, where extent of internationalization as manifested in the share of international students is an important contributor to the rank. Hence, attracting international students is not particularly important for universities either in terms of generation of external funding or in terms of marketing efforts. International research is also not essential for the survival of local universities given that most of them are teaching oriented as a legacy of the Soviet research system, where universities played a secondary role in research as compared with industrial labs and research institutes of the Academy of Sciences. In addition, international mobility programs are funded by the government rather than by universities and universities have little interest in facilitating mobility of their students or faculty. Meanwhile, the government recognizes the potential of internationalization in stimulating the desired modernization of higher education. Hence, it takes an active part in providing funding for international mobility and international research collaboration, it initiates or supports the creation of international universities, and it leads the process of adoption of European Higher Education Area requirements associated with the Bologna Process. As a result, universities feel the external push to internationalize and many of the results achieved came out of the need for universities to reach certain statistical outcomes in terms of number of contracts signed, partnership projects launched, number of international faculty attracted, or of students sent abroad. Another distinctive feature of the internationalization process in Kazakhstan is that it is not a product of a single strategic initiative or a vision, which would encompass internationalization in various manifestations and would clearly describe desired outcomes in terms of various indicators. This is surprising, given that the government of Kazakhstan clearly views international experience as highly valuable and worthy of adoption. Instead, internationalization is largely a spontaneous process, frequently resulting from the government’s obsession with a certain aspect of international experience as a potentially adoptable approach, and then sending students abroad, and bringing international faculty to support the process of transfer of the desired international practice to Kazakhstan. As a result, internationalization in Kazakhstan looks more like a sequence of loosely connected initiatives targeting various players—students, faculty, research teams, or institutions. This has inevitable implications for the government’s ability to collect relevant data, to evaluate the results, to draw lessons, and to plan internationalization process. Some of the aspects of internationalization are barely present in Kazakhstan. Until recently, Kazakhstani universities were mostly concerned with the problem of employability of graduates in the local labor market. Hence, they did not view internationalization of curriculum as essential for preparation of graduates for the realities of the globalized world. The content of courses and of academic programs changed more as a result of the desire to bring Kazakhstani programs in compliance with international standards, which are viewed as being superior to the Soviet or local ones, than as a result of the commitment to produce multiculturally aware global citizens able to operate in a culturally diverse workplace. A survey on internationalization in Kazakhstan conducted by Maudarbekova and Kashkinbayeva (2013) revealed that the perceptions about the importance of internationalization of curriculum are changing. Of their respondents, 67 percent thought that internationalization of curriculum should become a priority of educational reform. However, the perceptions have not yet resulted in any significant changes given the troubling level of over centralization in curriculum control (Tazabek, 2016). Universities also are not yet concerned with recruiting international students and are rarely engaged

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTAN

113

in programs of international exchange or serve as hosts for study abroad participants from universities in other countries. Meanwhile, in certain disciplines, such as medicine, Kazakhstan has a potential to be attractive for international students from the former Soviet Union and Asia. In health sciences Kazakhstan has managed to retain some of the good traditions of Soviet education and to introduce some novel approaches from the West. International students from developing countries can receive good quality education in medicine at a lower cost than in the Western countries. This potential is not yet utilized to its full extent. Finally, little attention is paid by the government to the development of local research capacity on international higher education or to greater engagement of experts in the field into the national level decision-making process. Most importantly, the dominant view of internationalization is as universal good. There is little critical discussion of internationalization and the way it can become a mechanism for foreign colonization. Blind adoption of international practices may lead to the loss of the national culture, to the disregard of the positive original innovations in higher educational reform, as well as to the failure to recognize the existence of domestic scholars, who have the transformative capacity as a result of training received abroad or extensive education or experience accumulated in the domestic higher education system. While appreciating the value of international best practices, it is important not to omit the educational traditions of the nomadic past, the positive legacies of the Soviet time, as well as the innovative ideas suggested by contemporary Kazakhstani intellectuals. In summary, internationalization in Kazakhstan has been an important mechanism underlying the process of modernization of higher education. It has a promise to contribute to reforms even more if the government of Kazakhstan starts to look at it more strategically, if it starts to track previous successes and failures and gathers systematic information on lessons learned. In addition, while playing the goal-setting role, the government should ensure a greater engagement and initiative in internationalization from universities. At the same time, a greater coordination effort, as well as support for internationalization research is also necessary. Finally, while exploiting the developmental potential of internationalization, the government of Kazakhstan, as well as its higher education institutions, may also benefit from assuming a more critical perspective and start to recognize that internationalization could at times be more evil than good in that it may threaten local knowledge, traditions, and national interests.

REFERENCES Campbell, A.C. (2016). International scholarship graduates influencing social and economic development at home: The role of alumni networks in Georgia and Moldova. Current Issues in Comparative Education 19(1): 76–91. De Wit, H. (2011). Internationalization Misconceptions. International Higher Education, 64: 6–7. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). (2015). Annual Report 2015. https://www.daad. org/files/2016/08/daad-jahresbericht-2015-en.pdf Hudzik, J.K. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization: From Concept to Action. NAFSA ePublications. http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedfiles/nafsa_home/resource_library_assets/ publications_library/2011_comprehen_internationalization.pdf Jumakulov, Z., and Ashirbekov, A. (2016). Higher education internationalization: Insights from Kazakhstan. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 6, 35–55.

114

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Kuzembayuly, A., and Abil, E. (2006). History of Kazakhstan: A Textbook for High Schools. Kostanay, Kazakhstan: Kostanai Regional Institute of Historical Research. National Centre for the Bologna Process. Li, A. (2018). “One belt one road” and Central Asia: A new trend in internationalization of higher education? International Higher Education, 92: 14–16. Li, A., and Ashirbekov, A. (2014). Institutional engagement in internationalization of higher education: Perspectives from Kazakhstan. International Higher Education, 78: 17–19. Maudarbekova, B., and Kashkinbayeva, Z. (2014). Internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116: 4092–4097. Ministry of Education and Science (MES) (2012a). Strategy for Academic Mobility. http://www. tarsu.kz/images/dokumenty/Strategy_for_academic_mobility_in_the_Republic_of_ Kazakhstan_for_2012-2020.pdf Ministry of Education and Science (MES) (2012b). State Program for the Development of Education 2011–2020. https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2012/state-program-educationdevelopment-republic-kazakhstan-2011-2020-5506 National Centre on the Bologna Process and International Academic Mobility (NCBPAM) (2019). Operations Analytics January–July 2019. https://drive.google.com/ file/d/1vir8WxEKmvOc3WcqW-vpKLIHu8aij4qX/view Nessipbayeva, O. (2015). The Bolashak Program in building a democratic and prosperous society. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191: 2275–2279. Omirgazy, D. (2018). Kazakhstan’s Bolashak Programme has awarded 12,831 Scholarships in 25 years. Astana Times, September 27, 2018. https://astanatimes.com/2018/04/kazakhstansbolashak-programme-has-awarded-12831-scholarships-in-25-years/ Salmi, J. (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World Class Universities. The World Bank. Silova, I., and Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2008). How NGOs React: Globalization and Education Reform in the Caucuses. Central Asia, and Mongolia. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Tazabek, S. (2016). Internationalizing curriculum for innovation: Opportunities and challenges for entrepreneurial universities in Kazakhstan. Proceedings of the Eurasian Higher Education Leaders Forum 2016: 24–28. Tazhibayeva, A. (2017). Internationalization of Higher Education in Kazakhstan: State Policies and Institutional Practices. PhD dissertation, Nazarbayev University. Tomusk, V. (2011). The geography and geometry of the Bologna Process. In Silova, I. (ed.), Globalization on the Margins: Education and Postsocialist Transformations in Central Asia. Charlotte, NC : IAP, pp. 41–60. Vaida, M. (2018). How has “Bolashak” become a game-changing educational project? Central Asia Monitor, 16. https://camonitor.kz/31990-kak-bolashak-stal-proryvnym-obrazovatelnymproektom.html

CHAPTER NINE

The Rhetoric and Reality of Malaysian Higher Education Internationalization Policy and Its Strategic Initiatives NORZAINI AZMAN AND CHANG DA WAN

INTRODUCTION Internationalization has become the buzz word in higher education policy and practices, and it continues to dominate the discussion in most countries around the world, including Malaysia. Although higher education (HE) in Malaysia has always had an international element, given that the country inherited a British university when it gained its independence, the current policy discourse in Malaysia on the internationalization of higher education emphasizes competitiveness, global recognition, and having the ability to attract non-Malaysian students into the higher education institutions (HEIs). While internationalization of Malaysian HEIs is inevitable, given the twenty-first century globalization and knowledge-based economies, and the strong interdependence between education and economic and socio-political development, internationalization of higher education is first and foremost driven by economic forces and manifested explicitly through the concept of the international hub. Both the government and the university sector have responded decisively to the new challenges of a globalized economy through the process of internationalization by making significant changes and developments spearheaded by socio-economic and political transformation plans. These are the main discourses of internationalization, as articulated in various higher education policy documents, starting with the National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2007–2020. This chapter examines the implementation of policies and strategies of internationalizing higher education in Malaysia by analyzing the current system of higher education and policy directions for internationalization within the macro-political and socio-economic contexts. The chapter also explores the national policies initiated towards the implementation and promotion of programs aimed at internationalization. Finally, the chapter concludes with a critical review of the issues facing internationalization of Malaysia’s higher education system and suggestions for re-orientating the higher education internationalization agenda.

115

116

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

THE MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM The Malaysian higher education system is made up of both public and private institutions. The public sector of higher education comprises 20 public universities, 36 polytechnics, and 94 community colleges. The private sector includes 47 private universities, 10 foreign university branch campuses, 34 private university colleges, and 347 colleges. As of December 2018, 552,702 students were enrolled in the 20 public universities with 96,370 and 26,069 students in polytechnics and community colleges respectively. Polytechnics and community colleges are almost exclusively for Malaysian students. Approximately 304,587 students were enrolled in the 47 private universities and 84,999 in the university colleges (Figure 9.1). The public universities employed 31,528 academic staff while the private institutions employed 14,716 academic staff. A total of 7,281 and 2,764 academics were employed in

FIGURE 9.1: Student enrollment in Malaysian higher education institutions. Source: Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), Malaysia (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).

FIGURE 9.2: International academic staff in Malaysian higher education institutions (HEIs). Source: Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), Malaysia (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

117

the polytechnics and community colleges respectively (MoHE, 2018). In 2018, 4.6 percent and 13.1 percent of the academic staff in public and private institutions were non-Malaysian citizens (see Figure 9.2). The proportion of international academics in public institutions has been declining gradually, from 8.3 percent in 2013 to 4.6 percent in 2018. However, in the private institutions, the proportion has been fluctuating between 26.8 percent and 7.2 percent over the last six years. Tuition fees for Malaysians studying in public universities are kept to a minimal level, with the government subsidizing 90 to 95 percent of the fees, making public universities greatly dependent on government funding. But international students enrolled at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels pay full tuition fees, therefore encouraging universities to expand international student enrollment.

INITIATIVES IN INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Malaysia uses centralized and comprehensive strategic approaches, which arguably have addressed both broader national priorities and institutional interests in internationalization. Some of the bold and multifaceted policy initiatives have had positive effects on the system, and, evidently, have attracted much-needed public attention to the government’s policies in general.

Transnational Programs Malaysia can be regarded as a pioneer in transnational education (TNE) programs. Twinning arrangements first began in the 1970s with Institut Teknologi MARA (now UiTM) with universities in the United States. The innovative idea was to offer international programs to a larger group of Malaysian students at reduced costs. Concurrent with that initiative, the ethnic quota in public universities had also driven private colleges, which were not allowed to offer degree programs, to resort to twinning programs to provide greater access. Hence, twinning programs, in which students completed part of the program in Malaysia and the rest of it abroad, leading to a degree from the particular foreign university, became popular in the late 1980s and intensified further until the enactment of the Private Higher Education Institutions Act 1996. Ever since the 1998 financial crisis, higher education policies and capacity building strategies have been enhanced to stem the outflow of education funds to other countries. This resulted in the introduction of twinning programs and their evolution into what are commonly termed 3+0 degree programs, where an overseas degree program is fully conducted in the home country in partnership with a local institution. The Higher Education Statistics Agency in the UK in 2014 indicated that Malaysia was the top host country for overseas offshore provision/partnerships delivery for UK universities, surpassing China (56,340), Singapore (48,520), and Hong Kong (29,705). Almost all of these TNE students in Malaysia were with private education providers. Over the two decades from the 1980s to the 1990s, TNE continued to expand, and in 2012 TNE provision represented about 15.2 percent of the market share of accredited programs at private HEIs, equivalent to about 566 initiatives. An analysis of TNE’s contribution to Malaysian higher education shows that the majority of the collaborations were primarily with UK and Australian HEIs in the form of twinning, franchise, double/ joint degree programs, and branch campuses (The British Council, 2013). In 2010, there

118

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

were 3,218 joint, double, or franchise programs in Malaysia that received provisional or full accreditation (Knight and Sirat, 2011).

Education Hub The education hub remains the pivotal initiative in Malaysian government policies. Several developments in the 1990s led to the idea of an education hub in the Malaysian national agenda. First, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 saw the ringgit depreciate and, suddenly, overseas education became out of reach for many Malaysian students. The second key development was a concerted effort to improve the quality of private education. The Private Higher Educational Institutions Act laid out the criteria for setting up private institutions, including branch campuses, by foreign providers. Another piece of legislation created the National Accreditation Board (consolidated as the Malaysian Qualifications Agency or MQA) in 2007, an agency for accrediting private and public higher education institutions. Two higher education policy documents encapsulate Malaysia’s efforts to turn the country into an education hub. The National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2007–2010 (NHESP, 2007) formally launched the hub effort under the thrust of internationalization. The thrust aimed to make Malaysia an international hub of excellence through internationalization programs such as exchange of academics, students and courses, collaborative research, and networking linkages with renowned universities. The goal was to attract more international students to further their studies in HEIs. At the same time, local students would be expected to benefit from the interaction, exposure, and exchange of experiences with their international counterparts. Under the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), and under the identified twelve National Key Economic Areas (NKEAs) meant to boost Malaysia’s national income, the focus of the Education NKEA was on strengthening the private education services sector by increasing private consumption and investments as well as expanding education exports (ETP, 2010). The main focus was to promote private education, which includes cross-border higher education (e.g., twinning programs and branch campuses). The government further identified thirteen projects related to internationalization of higher education for implementation. Table 9.1 lists the relevant projects and their anticipated Growth National Income (GNI) contribution and job creation. Under the ETP, the higher education sector’s contribution to the GNI was expected to more than double in ten years: from RM 27 billion (2009) to RM 61 billion (2020).

TABLE 9.1 Relevant entry point project for education hub Relevant Entry Point Projects for Education Hub Expanding international distance learning Building an Islamic finance and business education discipline cluster Building a health sciences education discipline cluster Launching Iskandar EduCity

2020 GNI (RM Millions)

Jobs

350 1,190

3,920 4,365

2,870 1,016

11,854 1,164

Source: ETP, Economic Transformation Programme: A Roadmap for Malaysia (Putrajaya: Performance Management and Delivery Unit, 2010).

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

119

Malaysia’s education hub aspiration has expanded into three hub initiatives: KL EduCity, Iskandar EduCity and the Islamic Finance Education hub (IFE hub). In Iskandar EduCity there are currently seven higher education providers, including University of Reading Malaysia (UK), Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia (UK), University of Southampton Malaysia Campus (UK), Netherlands Maritime Institute of Technology (the Netherlands), Raffles University Iskandar (Singapore), Multimedia University (Malaysia), and Management Development Institute of Singapore (Singapore). EduCity provides common facilities (e.g., library, sports complex, dormitories) to reduce the capital cost and space required by each institution. Iskandar Malaysia also provides tax incentives to both institutions and employees to facilitate the growth of this economic zone. EduCity aims to have 16,000 students by 2025 (IRDA, 2015). However, EduCity has been plagued by some crucial challenges hindering the realization of the expected outcome and contribution as an education hub (Wan and Weerasena, 2018). The target number of students has not been as envisioned, with only 3,500 enrolled in 2017. One of the institutions was reported to be running at a considerable loss and another institution has yet to begin the construction of its campus. Malaysia continues to prioritize the education hub as a national agenda and to dedicate resources to planning and regulating cross-border higher education through the Malaysian Education Blueprint: Higher Education (MEBHE, 2015) 2015–2025. The blueprint has further increased the target of international student enrollment to 250,000 by 2025. Figure 9.3 shows the trend in international student enrollment in Malaysian HEIs over a period of thirteen years. Generally, there was an increase in total international student enrollment from 2007–2010 and from 2013–2017 for the private HEIs. A decline of 5.04 percent in international student enrollment in the private HEIs was recorded from 2017–2018. The decrease in student numbers was claimed to be the effect of more stringent enforcement such as regular audits and inspections (Tham, 2013). Public RUs are primarily domestic-market oriented, with a cap of 5 percent for international student enrollment at the undergraduate level. However, they are allowed to recruit students at postgraduate level. Malaysia has a long way to go before reaching the 250,000 student enrollment for 2025.

FIGURE 9.3: International student enrollment in public and private higher education institutions. Source: Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), Malaysia (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018).

120

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 9.2 Top 10 sending countries (2016 – 2018) No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Grand Total

Country Bangladesh China Nigeria Indonesia Yemen Pakistan Iraq India Libya Iran

Year

Total

2016

2017

2018

34,455 11,718 15,262 8,653 5,942 5,292 3,264 2,320 3,246 4,055 94,207

30,525 14,854 13,529 9,762 6,248 6,033 3,257 2,825 3,317 3,068 93,418

22,152 16,357 11,118 10,783 7,376 6,850 3,645 3,272 3,309 3,185 88,047

87,132 42,929 39,909 29,198 19,566 18,175 10,166 8,417 9,872 10,308 275,672

Source: EMGS, Education Malaysia Global Services (2018).

Currently, most international students in Malaysia are from specific regions, notably the Middle East and Africa (Table 9.2). Interestingly, Malaysia does not seem to be a preferred destination for students in countries in Southeast Asia, except for Indonesian students (see Table 9.2). In summary, Malaysia’s education hub development shows a strong orientation towards economic benefits and educational capacity. There are clear economic benefits of the education hub, largely coming from student fees. However, the education hub project is neither designed with the goal of attracting the Malaysian diaspora back to Malaysia nor of attracting talents from abroad (Lee, 2014).

Malaysia’s Global Outreach through Soft Power Under Phase II of NHESP (2012–2017), the implementation plan called for the use of soft power as its international engagement policy. Titled “Malaysia’s Global Reach: A New Dimension,” the plan includes development projects, technical assistance, and training programs for “preferred partner countries.” The following two statements capture the essence of this plan: “Soft power in the higher education sector refers to the capabilities and intentions of institutions to capture the hearts and minds of local and international stakeholders to collectively accept values, ideologies and cultures of learning that can benefit communities” (NHEAP2, 2011: 18). The aim of the soft power approach is to win over the hearts and minds of the preferred partner countries with a long-term view of creating trade of higher education between Malaysia and preferred partner countries (NHEAP2, 2011). The “Malaysia’s Global Reach” program constituted six clusters through expert sharing, diplomatic bonding, community exchange, student and institutional fellowship, as well as skills and technology transfer among the partner countries (see Ministry of Education (MoE), 2015). A total of more than RM 3 million was spent on this program. Apart from the successful programs (see Table 9.3), an unpublished evaluation of the program showed that, on average, the number of students from the partner countries had increased by 18 percent in public universities and 24 percent in private institutions. In financial terms, the program has brought a return of RM12 for every RM1 spent.

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

121

TABLE 9.3 Summary of Malaysia’s Global Reach programmes Programmes

Countries

Development of the curriculum structure and content for Institute of Diplomatic Studies Malaysia Africa Summit in 2014 Formulation of Higher Education Blue Print Annual Young Leaders of the Future Dialogue The ASEAN Skills Initiative Series of higher education dialogues Community and public health-related projects

Timor-Leste African countries Palestine Indonesia Turkey, Maldives and Indonesia Turkey, Maldives and Indonesia Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Timor-Leste.

Source: Ministry of Education (MoE), Malaysia’s Global Reach: Touching Lives and Transforming Futures (Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015).

Internationalization Strategy with an ASEAN Focus In the Internationalization Policy 2011, Malaysia identified several priorities with a regional scope: building regional research centers, creating regional studies programs, and engaging with regional associations (Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), 2011a). The government has adopted the “prosper thy neighbour” policy, which emphasizes development aid to the ASEAN region to help reduce the developmental gaps among member countries (MoHE, 2011a). The policy showcases the desire for Malaysia to become a leader of education in the ASEAN region by exerting influence as a respected country with expertise in higher education. In addition, Malaysia is also very active in Southeast Asian initiatives in higher education. In 2008, SEAMEO RIHED collaborated with the Malaysian Quality Assurance Agency to help establish the ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN). Malaysia is also participating in the developmental phase of SEAMEO’s credit transfer system. Another project headed by MoHE is the Malaysia-Indonesia-Thailand (M-I-T) Student Mobility Program. Launched in 2009, the program has become a model of student mobility (SEAMEO RIHED, 2010). It later expanded to become the ASEAN Mobility International Student (AIMS) program with implementing partners from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines. In the first three years of AIMS, the number of participating undergraduate students grew from a total of 260 in 2011 to more than 500 in 2013 (Sirat, Azman, and Bakar, 2016). The one-semester to six-month credit transfer mobility programs were conducted in seven disciplines including hospitality and tourism, agriculture, language and culture, food and engineering. Evidently, Malaysia’s approach to regional engagement in higher education can be claimed as infusing aid with self-interest rather than providing purely unconditional aid. This was in a way an attempt to marry neoliberalism and realism for the sake of gaining soft power. This attempt is in line with the internationalization policy of Malaysia’s Global Reach, which underscores the concept of “aid before trade” through capacity building and training activities contributing to human development capital in partner countries. The Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV) International Development Cooperation in Higher Education Program is an example of the aid-before-trade initiative (see Wan and Sirat, 2018). This is a research project-based engagement funded by the MoHE to develop capacity building and foster collaboration between Malaysian academics

122

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and their counterparts in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Nevertheless, CLMV countries continue to be under-represented among international students. Data on the mobility of intra-ASEAN students within Malaysian higher education institutions showed that the top three sending countries during the period between 2009–2013 were Indonesia (totaling 18,816 students), Singapore (2,755 students), and Thailand (3,820 students), with postgraduate programs at master’s and PhD levels being the most popular for enrollment. The strategy of going regional in the pursuit of the internationalization of Malaysia’s higher education sector under the ASEAN community remains unclear, especially when Malaysia is not considered as a preferred destination by ASEAN countries except Indonesia.

Islamization of Global Strategy—Seizing Opportunities of the Islamic Finance Global Hub In 2010, the 10MP also underlined an effort of the government towards making Malaysia an international Islamic Financial Education (IFE) hub, which is in line with Malaysia’s vision in positioning the country as an Islamic Finance Global Hub (IFGH). The idea of Islamic finance global hub was mooted to steer the development of Islamic finance in Malaysia due to the enhancement of financial service quality for local and global customers. In addition, Malaysia has one of the largest Islamic finance markets in the world, with assets worth US$ 1 trillion (RM 3.2 trillion) and ownership of 67 percent of the world’s Islamic bonds (Sukuk) (ETP, 2010). In 2011, the MoHE released a comprehensive internationalization policy report that also recognized Malaysia’s connection with Islamic states and niche. Unlike the education hub, the IFE hub is more concerned about talent development and soft power as the goal was to contribute to the Islamic world. In 2006, Malaysia’s central bank, Bank Negara, created the International Centre for Education in Islamic Finance (INCEIF), which is a HEI dedicated to the teaching and training of scholars and professionals (master’s and doctorate programs available). Other HEIs including International Islamic University, Universiti Utara Malaysia, and Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia were involved in the writing up of the curriculum for Islamic finance ranging from degree to doctoral levels. As of 2013, Malaysia was the second largest Islamic finance education provider in the world and ranked first in terms of providing training and professional courses in Islamic Finance (Yurizk Academy, 2013). Based on the report by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF), and the National Economic Council (NEC), forty-four programs were offered by Islamic finance education providers in Malaysia in 2018, from diplomas to PhDs. More HEIs are now offering programs in Islamic economics and finance as well as in ICIFE domains (Syariah and Law, Islamic Finance, Islamic Economics, Islamic Accounting, and Islamic Management). It is projected that by 2020 the global total market demand for Islamic finance professionals will be more than 200,000, and Malaysia aspires to contribute to the manpower requirements (Rudnyckyj, 2013; Malaysian Islamic Finance Centre, 2015). Since the early 2000s, the number of Middle Eastern students has been rising steadily as the government has developed strategies to recruit students from Indonesia and the Middle East. In the last few years, Bangladesh students have surpassed Chinese students as the largest group of international students in Malaysia. Indonesia and Yemen have also

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

123

consistently ranked in the top five countries sending students to Malaysia. Among the top ten countries sending students to Malaysia now, only India and China are non-Islamic states (see Table 9.2). For a moderate Islamic country like Malaysia, building an education hub and educating Muslim students from around the world would seem like a logical internationalization policy strategy. Having strong diplomatic ties with Islamic countries, proximity to the most populous Islamic country in the world (Indonesia with a 237 million population), and extensive experience in cross-border education, Malaysia is well prepared to become an education center for the Islamic world. While Malaysia may not be deliberately recruiting or attracting Muslim students, external factors and events such as September 11 in the United States have pushed these students towards countries deemed more hospitable to them (Sirat, 2008). The MoHE has stated that Malaysia must capitalize on its Islamic niche and bilateral relations with the Middle East countries in order to recruit more students (Rashid, 2007). Since 2012, the MoHE has specifically organized education fairs in the Middle East and North Africa to recruit students.

THE RHETORIC OF “INTERNATIONAL” VS. REALITY The above examples have been selected to highlight the policy initiatives for internationalization development in Malaysia and the discourse of achievement engaged in by the government and its representatives. What follows is a different analysis to uncover the reality behind the rhetoric. The major challenges in the internationalization of the Malaysian higher education system are related to the value or the politics of internationalization in terms of the role of the education hub, students’ learning experience, and research and development. These challenges are multifaceted and exist at the levels of policy formulation, coordination and implementation, across sectors, and within the local higher education sector.

How International are the Education Hubs in Reality? Although statistics have shown that the number of international students has increased from 2005–2017 as a result of policy reforms, an overwhelming 90 percent of the students are from middle- and low-income countries such as Bangladesh, Nigeria, China, and Indonesia. Based on 2016–2018 data (see Table 9.2), and rearranged according to world regions, the most important world regions that international students come from are West Asia, Africa, Southeast Asia, East Asia, South Asia, and Central Asia. Graf ’s (2016) study also found that the average international student in Malaysia comes from one of the countries with much lower innovation status (measured by Global Innovation Index score) than Malaysia. Thus, Malaysia has proven to be attractive to the non-Anglophone students from much less developed countries, particularly those in western Asia and Africa. While it is acknowledged that China and India are currently the world’s largest exporters of students for overseas studies, there is still the question of why Malaysia has not been successful in attracting students from other parts of the world. The question is highly relevant since there has been a shift towards studying abroad for European and American students, in developing countries, particularly in China in the last ten years (IIE, 2008; Pan, 2010; 2013). Yet, Malaysia has not seen an increase in these student numbers despite the fact that most of the foreign providers and TNE programs are largely

124

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

from these Anglophone countries. This issue brings to the fore the rhetoric of internationalization aims which, in reality, seem to encourage unequal exchange of human capital and the creation of one-way student mobility between more developed to lesser developed countries. In addition, there is an uneasy mix of faculty from different countries in most of the Malaysian HEIs. Most HEIs tend to settle for local teaching staff, which raises the question of how truly international the teaching–learning experience would be in these institutions. Issues of salary, taxes, and staff quality, among many others, appear to be factors that affect the process of attracting, recruiting, and retaining international faculty. Aside from the possible rivalry generated by the salary rates between local and international staff, the pay scale continues to affect the capacity of institutions to attract and recruit the best talents. It must also be borne in mind that true internationalization requires a much greater diversity of nationalities and cultural backgrounds of both the student and faculty bodies. Thus, in terms of attracting foreign faculty (academic talent), the Malaysian policy documents seemed to have recognized this imperative, but the realities of Malaysian politics and society have somehow prevented the implementation of this policy.

“Look West” vs. “The Malaysian Model” One of the major paradoxes in the development of internationalization in the Malaysian higher education system is the continuous tendency to “Look West,” despite having a governmental policy to “Look East,” as well as wanting to develop into an international education hub (Wan, Sirat, and Abdul Razak, 2019). While Malaysia continues to project itself as the international education students’ hub, more than half of Malaysian students have chosen Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States as their study abroad destinations. International hub and foreign branch campuses, as well as partnerships between Malaysian universities and their counterparts abroad, continue to be dominated by universities from the West. Out of nine international branch campuses, only one is not from an Anglosphere country. This paradox, therefore, underlines the fact that the development of internationalization in Malaysian higher education remains colonized and dictated by the Western, and more specifically, the Anglosphere, paradigm. Although there have been efforts and initiatives to engage with countries in other Southeast Asian and other developing regions, the identity of Malaysia at most can only be considered a “Western” international hub in a moderate Muslim and fast-developing country. It is not a truly indigenous Malaysian identity that is driving the internationalization of higher education.

Synergy between Local and Foreign Institutions? Malaysia’s higher education system cannot at all be considered an equal playing field. The glaring division between public and private higher education is steeped in history and replete with barriers that segregate rather than integrate. As HEIs compete for the same resources and benchmark themselves against the leading universities, they begin to resemble one another (e.g., in their preoccupation with world-class status and international rankings). Rather than competition begetting excellence, competition may have actually stifled innovation and encouraged duplication. The key words that dominate the language in the higher education policy such as competitiveness, ranking, branding, and selfpromotion clash with the emphasis on cooperation and synergy expected of knowledge

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

125

institutions. This is probably why there is less synergy between HEIs in the education hubs and more acceptance of competitive and hype consumerism of internationalization. According to Singh, Schapper, and Mayson (2010), competition among the Malaysian HEIs has generally led to mission drifts and institutional isomorphism. As government entities, the public HEIs are obligated to fulfill their social contracts to the nation in serving the public by advancing knowledge through research, developing the intellect and personalities of students, and engaging in public service. They are obliged to maintain the cap on the percentage of international students at both undergraduate and postgraduate courses supported by public money. Such a restrained internationalization strategy is intended to serve the purpose of enriching the learning environment for local students. But lately, with funding constraints imposed by the government, the public universities are joining the race to become suppliers of revenue-generating services through their competitive executive programs via their University Holding Companies. As most public HEIs are now at high risk for financial sustainability, international students form the most readily available source. This has further increased the competition between private and public HEIs as both HEIs will be competing for a homogeneous group of students. In addition, there is an assumption by the government that the presence of foreign providers in the form of branch campuses would automatically promote synergy between local and foreign institutions. The reality is that local and foreign institutions often operate in isolation under different sets of regulations. Without a conscious effort to engage them, branch campuses have been prone to serving only the privileged. Thus, the rhetoric of Malaysian education hubs as “truly global” and “developing strategic partnerships” fails to address not only the lack of synergy between institutions but also that between HEIs and external stakeholders such as industries and local communities.

Education Hub as Knowledge Reproduction Rather than Knowledge Production? Internationalization, particularly through the education hubs, is expected to contribute to Malaysia’s competitiveness in the knowledge economy. While there is some truth in this interpretation, the centrality of knowledge generation remains questionable in all the education hubs. While the IFE hub is a leader in Islamic finance education, it is weak in research and lacks a budget for R & D activities (Mohd Noor, Nooh Joni, and Borhan, 2014). For the private HEIs, the other goal, increasing revenue, seems to have superseded knowledge generation. Consequently, there is no real emphasis on indigenous or local knowledge in both the policies and research in the education hubs. TNE programs generally contain curricula exported directly from the home institution in the West. Discussions related to research are noticeably absent from discussions on TNE provisions. In short, the education hubs raise serious questions about epistemology, and, as argued by Lee (2014), this suggests that hubs may be more accurately termed as knowledge reproduction rather knowledge production. Other researchers (Marginson, 2011; Knight, 2011) have also lamented that economic perspectives adopted in many developing countries have had a significant effect on the development of research capacity as activities likely to lead to knowledge generation have been displaced by an exaggerated adaptation to market demands. Thus, despite decades of independence or self-rule, Malaysian higher education scholars are arguably still Eurocentric or dominated by Western worldviews in their scholarly undertakings. This could be due to several reasons but one of the key factors is

126

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

that they have mostly concentrated on the reproduction of the intellectual outputs of Western countries, including their theories and methodologies of selection of research problem priorities. Another factor could be that the Malaysian HEIs have not been as relevant to the needs and concerns of their local communities. This is in spite of the substantial resources expended to boost research and innovation grants. It is assuring, however, to note that the scenario is slowly changing, especially in the research universities. Through internationalization, university researchers are encouraged to generate their own indigenous concepts, definitions, theories, and methods which could guide the intellectual development in their research and academic fields while being more relevant to their local or regional setting. So, the question for Malaysian HEIs therefore is not whether to internationalize but how to internationalize most effectively: How to pursue internationalization strategies that strengthen their internal institutional and intellectual capacities, qualities, reputations and competitiveness as well as their potential to contribute to the national development agendas as stated in the Malaysian Development and Economic Plans? The policymakers must, in their rhetoric, also encourage local HEIs to build research capacity from the ground up and not focus single-mindedly on importing infrastructure and resources from foreign countries. After all, a foundational supporting structure that is indigenous and built from the ground up holds better promise for ventures such as education hubs (Wilkins and Huisman, 2012; Knight, 2011).

International Students’ Experience with Multicultural and Global Citizenship Education Issues regarding international students overlap and, as such, are difficult to address singly. To begin with, the rhetoric of reports and strategic plans generally cites “educating global citizens” and “multiculturalism” as primary goals of internationalization. The question is: do international students really experience a multicultural and global citizenship learning environment in the Malaysian HEIs? How realistic is this objective given that most international students are from east and west Asia? A few studies conducted on international students’ experience have shown that Malaysian HEIs generally face challenges in creating a new multicultural learning environment where international and local students study, connect, and work with one another across classrooms and local communities (Pandian, 2008; Malaklolunthu and Selan, 2011). In Malaysia, the fact remains that very few policymakers pay attention to student experience in the larger scheme of internationalization. The common assumption is that bringing together students from nearby countries to partake in programs provided by largely Anglophone institutions automatically constitutes a multicultural learning environment. This is a classic misconception which assumes that students acquire intercultural and international competencies naturally if they study or complete their internship abroad or take part in an international class (Knight, 2011). In reality, it is more complicated. International students can completely seclude themselves from sharing experiences with other students and other sections of the population. As research findings have shown, some international students do not integrate easily and are inclined to seek the company of their compatriots. Students also tend to seclude themselves from sharing experiences with other sections of the population and therefore exclude themselves from the culture. Other findings include lecturers’ inability to take advantage of the benefits that students have to offer in terms of the cultural diversity and knowledge they bring,

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

127

unequal treatment by certain lecturers, and insufficient socialization activities in the universities (Pandian, 2008; Teng, 2016). Another question that also arises is what is meant by “global citizenship” as stated in the MEBHE, and how should it be created or taught? As stated in the MEBHE (2015: 1–15): Every graduate will have the relevant disciplinary knowledge and skills, ethics and morality as well as the appropriate behaviours, mindsets, cultural, and civilizational literacy to advance them to a high level of personal well-being. They will be global citizens with a strong Malaysian identity, ready and willing to contribute to the harmony and betterment of the family, society, nation, and global community. However, how exactly local and international students would be transformed into “global citizens” through internationalization is absent in the policy as well as in academic discourses. Briefly, global citizenship education calls for “epistemological pluralism” (Abdi, 2011), which is the inclusion of indigenous world views and perspectives or alternative knowledge frameworks (Swanson, 2011). This means that graduates with global citizenship should possess the skills and framework to understand others from various cultures from different parts of the world. Arguably, what has been underlined in the policy can be considered as mere rhetoric as many have noted that the concept of a global citizen has often been used to highlight global market competence and neoliberal sentiments (Gacel-Ávila, 2005; Gaudelli, 2009). To our knowledge, the outcomes of global citizenship in Malaysian higher education seem to be neither formally required nor assessed. This is hardly surprising as the overall goal of Malaysian higher education especially for the private HEIs is to produce (and reduce) students to become knowledge workers with technical skills who can find jobs in the local or global market. Swanson (2011) further claimed that policy outcomes towards global citizenship often served to legitimate internationalization policy statements and branding as well as to show that the higher education system is promoting “cutting-edge” education.

International Students’ Interaction and Engagement Social integration and community engagement constitute one of the six important elements highlighted by the Malaysian Internationalization Policy for Higher Education (MoHE, 2011a). The policy plan underscores the need for the Malaysian community to adapt and accept international students as part of the community, by allowing full integration and the delivery of “Malaysian hospitality” (90). It goes on to propagate that community acceptance is predicated by their understanding of how best to profit from internationalization activities. Despite Malaysia being ranked as one of the top destinations for international students, some students reportedly found studying in Malaysia an overwhelming life and cultural transition. Limited studies on the topic have found that international students faced various challenges including culture and communication, inadequate facilities, loss of social support, and language difficulties (Al-Zubaidi and Richards, 2009; Yusoff and Chelliah, 2010; Malaklolunthu and Selan, 2011). The problems most frequently highlighted were the acts of negative stereotyping and racism they experienced. Somehow, regional tendencies and physical appearance tended to be identified with the unfair treatment and hostility experienced by the international students. This explains why certain international

128

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

students, particularly those from Africa and Bangladesh, are targeted over others. In addition, the Malaysian community has been increasingly agitated by the recent influx of Mainland Chinese, African, and Bangladeshi, especially due to many stories revolving around criminal activities. This has perpetuated the same negative images previously attached to Indonesian or Bangladeshi immigrant workers, who were perceived as a threat to national security. Of late, international students have expressed deeper concerns about their safety and security matters. What has exacerbated issues regarding the safety of international students is that the police and/or immigration officers have held some international students in lock-ups for a maximum of fourteen days, as allowed by the Federation Constitution Article 5. Currently, these international students have no recourse to any International Student Protection Framework, International Students’ Charter, or Students’ Ombudsman to ensure their safety and fair treatment. This “disconnect” between those responsible for policy, the educational service providers, the enforcement agencies, and the international students who are reliant on the local systems and structures is perhaps the most striking of the above findings and is of particular concern in terms of developing better responses to improving the safety and security of international students.

Declining Enrollment of International Students One of the ways hub development was to be achieved was through increasing the number of international students studying in Malaysia. For the last ten years or so, Malaysia has had increasing numbers of international students in the HEIs. However, from 2015 to 2016, the number of international students declined by 39 percent from approximately 68,000 to 41,400. The trend continued from 2017 to 2018 with a decline of 5.04 percent in international student enrollment in private HEIs. Students from Bangladesh and Nigeria constituted the most reduced number (ICEF, 2019). According to International Consultants for Education and Fairs (ICEF, 2019), issues related to student visas and the lack of co-ordination among agencies (including inconsistent requirements for visas) are some of the main reasons for the reduction in international student numbers. Changes to immigration policy ranging from instituting a ban from certain countries (in Africa) to placing international students under deportation proceedings for purportedly unknown violations also contributed to this problem. Such policies, in combination with competition for international students from other countries, have contributed to a chilling effect on internationalization in Malaysia. This also shows up inconsistencies in the policy calls for internationalization: even while internationalization is being promoted, tight rules are evidently being implemented by immigration to curb international student access. Although the scenarios above point to the reality of the policy rhetoric, they are just one side of a multifaceted issue. Immigration and police audits in the past have revealed that a significant number of international students not only had no visa or appropriate documentation to stay in Malaysia, they also had inadequate English-language skills, or had not registered for courses. In addition, several high-profile cases of violence, visa fraud, and drug trafficking involving students had compelled the government to tighten the reins on granting international student visas. These events have also indicated that a segment of the private HEIs, which are highly dependent on income from international students, may have taken advantage of their freedom as gatekeepers. In this context, Education Malaysia Global Services (EMGS, 2018) was founded in 2012 as an organization to oversee student

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

129

visa matters, including applications and renewal of student passes online. However, in spite of the new efforts to improve the immigration system, complaints persist about visas and study permits still not being processed in an efficient or timely manner. The ICEF (2019) report also highlighted that limitations on international students to undertake any form of paid employment, including internship, while studying in Malaysia has further dampened the interest of international students. The other factor is reputational damage, believed to be the other main reason for rapidly falling numbers of students from the Middle East and African countries. This damage is the result of a small number of highly publicized reports of mistreatment of Arab and African students in recent years, which has tarnished Malaysia’s reputation as a fair, safe, and tolerant destination. The effect of the negative incidents was exacerbated by a perceived lack of coherence in the relevant authorities’ handling of the issues, and the consequent reaction by the sending countries’ press. Countries that do well in attracting international students, for instance, the UK and Australia, have long proven to be responsive to the needs of international students, for example, by providing part-time employment opportunities. Such part-time and postemployment opportunities provide international students with valuable hands-on work experience, and they also allow them to be more independent, both financially and socially. Table 9.4 shows the comparative review of employment opportunities in six countries. The countries were chosen on the basis of the numbers of international students they attracted. The above issues regarding immigration and employment clearly reveal the intersection between national objectives to attract international students and immigration policies

TABLE 9.4 Comparative review of employment opportunities among five countries Malaysia

Singapore

UK

US

Canada

Australia

During Semester

None

16 hrs/ week

20 hrs/ week

20 hrs/ week

20 hrs/ week

20 hrs/ week

During Vacation

20 hrs/ week (restricted)

Full-time

Full-time

Full-time

40 hrs/ week

No restriction of hours

Internship

Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary not allowed not possible allowed for allowed F1(Academic Study) and M1(Vocational Study) visa

Additional Internship Internship Information must be part must be of course part of course

F1 (Academic Study) and M1(Vocational Study) visa allowed for working part-time & internship

Voluntary Work not allowed permit required for all internship Students in eligible institutions listed can work off-campus while other institutions require work permit

Work-based learning must be attached to qualification

Source: Enrizon, (2019); Ministry of Manpower, Work Pass Exemption for Foreign Students (2019).

130

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

aimed at protecting national security. If policies are developed and implemented in isolation from one another, or are directly at cross-purposes, policy effectiveness will suffer. It is also clear that to achieve the goal of attracting international students to Malaysia, the important keys to solving the conundrum are in the immigration and employment policies. In order to attract and recruit students from all over the world, Malaysia needs to put into place a set of supporting policies and measures regarding recruitment, entry permits, and part-time employment.

THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONALIZATION As internationalization of higher education will remain a priority in the foreseeable future, there is a need to assess the sustainability of internationalization, particularly the education hubs. Questions such as whether a critical mass already exists of local and international actors working together and committed for the long term, and whether existing policies positively impact the direction and progress of internationalization, need to be answered. More importantly, in the longer term, will policies succeed in furthering the economic and political goals they set out to achieve? Undoubtedly, determining the effectiveness of Malaysian internationalization policies is challenging and, in most cases, efforts to do so have mostly focused on easily measurable, quantifiable outputs, such as the number of international students and the number of international courses. In addition, financial analyses in the form of return of investment is another easily quantifiable measure used, one that often appeals to Malaysian policymakers. However, statistics are often meaningless when taken out of context. Specific data and clear answers about the questions raised above and issues of impact are still scarce in Malaysia. In fact, in most cases, evaluation of impact appears not to have been built into policy implementation structures. Under the soon-to-be launched twelfth Malaysia Plan (12MP 2020–2025), internationalization of higher education remains a politically strategic and economically promising policy area. Various suggestions for new policies have been forwarded by the MoE for inclusion in the plan. Among them is a review of the current tax incentives and its availability to a wider segment of the private HE industry (i.e., beyond science, technical, and vocational). Since private higher education is still considered a service industry and will fall under the tourism sector, there is a plan to develop and promote a different tourism niche which is edu-tourism. This will require close collaboration between the MoE and another ministry (Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture). Image and branding will also be focused on the ten new markets proposed by ICEF (2019), which include Indonesia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and India. The Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE) will be expected to develop a new set of criteria for Marketing Development Grants and to accelerate the utilization of the Services Export Fund for the internationalization of Malaysian higher education overseas. In addition, the Ministry of Finance’s assistance is needed to incentivize HEIs to support the MoE’s new policy on TNE programs with HEIs overseas and/or on setting up branch campuses overseas. Finally, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) is expected to intensify Government-to-Government economic cooperation through leveraging on new or existing regional and bilateral FTAs (Free Trade Areas), especially in ASEAN countries and in Japan and South Korea. In sum, the thrust of internationalization in the 12MP is expected to be focused on the role of incentives and policies in supporting the private HEIs and internationalization as a service industry.

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

131

CONCLUSION Internationalization policies have been used as policy instruments of Malaysian modernization, competitiveness, knowledge economy, soft power, and as a means to deriving various other economic and non-economic benefits. The development is, by and large, regulated at the central level with strategic stakeholders managing different facets of the implementation. As in many policy initiatives, a gap between rhetoric and reality commonly exists when action falls short of grand visions. Despite the positive contributing factors and various achievements, arguably a range of systemic, capacity, financial factors that (potentially) stands in the way of Malaysia realizing the aspiration of becoming a global education hub. While it is anticipated that internationalization discourse will continue to be dominated by neoliberal economic frameworks, there is a need for Malaysia to humanize its internationalization effort and articulate a more balanced rationale for it.

REFERENCES Abdi, A.A. (2011). De-monoculturalizing global citizenship education: The need for multicentric intentions and practices. In Shultz, L., Abdi, A.A., and Richardson, G.H. (eds), Global Citizenship Education in Post-Secondary Institutions: Theories, Practices, Policies. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 25–39. Al-Zubaidi, K.O., and Richards, C. (2010). Arab postgraduate students in Malaysia: Identifying and overcoming the cultural and language barriers. Arab World English Journal, 1(1): 107–129. EMGS (2018). Education Malaysia Global Services. Available online: https://educationmalaysia. gov.my/ (accessed September 18, 2019). ETP (2010). Economic Transformation Programme: A Roadmap for Malaysia, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrajaya: Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU). Gacel-Ávila, J. (2005). The internationalization of higher education: A paradigm for global citizenry. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(2): 121–136. Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1): 68–85. Graf, A. (2016). Malaysia’s niche in international higher education: Targeting Muslim majority, commonwealth, and less-developed countries. TR aNS: Trans-Regional and-National Studies of Southeast Asia, 4(1): 5–40. ICEF (2019). International Consultants for Education and Fairs. Available online: https://www. icef.com/ (accessed September 18, 2019). IIE (2008). Educational Exchange between the United States and China. Available online: https:// www.suny.edu/files/sunynewsfiles/pdf/IIE-ChinaPaper.pdf (accessed September 15, 2019). IRDA (2015). Education Lab’s Mission. Available online: http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com. my/iskandar-malaysia-corridor-city-transformation-programme (accessed October 1, 2019). Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand, an innovation? Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3): 221–240. Knight, J., and Sirat, M. (2011). The complexities and challenges of regional education hubs: Focus on Malaysia. Higher Education, 62(5): 593–606. Lee, J.T. (2014). Education hubs and talent development: Policymaking and implementation challenges. Higher Education, 68(6): 807–823.

132

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Malaklolunthu, S., and Selan, P.S. (2011). Adjustment problems among international students in Malaysian private higher education institutions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15: 833–837. Malaysian Islamic Finance Centre (2015). Malaysian Islamic Finance Centre. Available online: http://www.mifc.com/ (accessed October 5, 2019). Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and the public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(4): 411–433. MEBHE (2015). Malaysian Education Blueprint—Higher Education 2015–2025. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.my/en/dasar/1207-malaysia-education-blueprint-2013-2025/file (accessed October 3, 2019). Ministry of Education, Malaysia (2015). Malaysia’s Global Reach: Touching Lives and Transforming Futures. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2008). Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia: 2008 [Statistics of Higher Education in Malaysia: 2008]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2008 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2009). Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia: 2009 [Statistics of Higher Education in Malaysia: 2009]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2009 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2010). Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia: 2010 [Statistics of Higher Education in Malaysia: 2010]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2010 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2011a). Internationalization Policy for Higher Education in Malaysia 2011. Putrajaya: Malaysian National Printing Company. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2011b). Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia: 2011 [Statistics of Higher Education in Malaysia: 2011]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2011 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2012). Perangkaan Pendidikan Tinggi Negara: Sektor Pengajian Tinggi 2012 [National Education Statistics: Higher Education Sector 2012]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikantinggi/buku-perangkaan/2012 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2013). Perangkaan Pendidikan Tinggi Negara: Sektor Pengajian Tinggi 2013 [National Education Statistics: Higher Education Sector 2013]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikantinggi/buku-perangkaan/2013 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2014). Perangkaan Pendidikan Negara: Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi [National Education Statistics: Ministry of Higher Education]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/ buku-perangkaan/2014-1 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2015). Statistik Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia: 2015 [Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia: 2015]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2015-1 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2016). Statistik Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia: 2016 [Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia: 2016]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.

MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION POLICY

133

my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2016-4 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2017). Statistik Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia: 2017 [Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia: 2017]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2017-5 (accessed October 4, 2019). Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (2018). Statistik Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia: 2018 [Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia: 2018]. Available online: https://www.moe.gov. my/muat-turun/laporan-dan-statistik/pendidikan-tinggi/buku-perangkaan/2018-10 (accessed October 4, 2019). Mohd Noor, M.N., Nooh Joni, M.N., and Borhan, T. (2014). The global hub process: Malaysia’s vision towards becoming the Islamic finance global hub country. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(8): 206–223. NHEAP2 (2011). The National Higher Education Action Plan Phase 2. Available online: http:// www.ilo.org/dyn/youthpol/en/equest.fileutils.docHandle?p_uploaded_file_id=477 (accessed October 4, 2019). NHESP (2007). The National Higher Education Action Plan 2007–2010, Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education. Pan, S.Y. (2010). Changes and challenges in the flow of international human capital China’s experience. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(3): 259–288. Pan, S.Y. (2013). China’s approach to the international market for higher education students: Strategies and implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(3): 249–263. Pandian, A. (2008). Multiculturalism in higher education: A case study of Middle Eastern students’ perceptions and experiences in a Malaysian university. International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 4(1): 33–59. Rashid, N.F. (2007). MOHE Pushing for More Arab Students in Malaysia. Available online: http://web5.bernama.com/ssig/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=10874/ (accessed October 2, 2019). Rudnyckyj, D. (2013), From Wall Street to Halal street: Malaysia and the globalization of Islamic finance. The Journal of Asian Studies, 72(4): 831–848. SEAMEO RIHED (2010). M-I-T Student Mobility Programme: Pilot Project Review 2010. Available online: https://rIHEd.seameo.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/M-I-T_Project_ Review_2010.pdf (accessed October 4, 2019). Singh, J.K.N., Schapper, J., and Mayson, S. (2010). The impact of economic policy on reshaping higher education in Malaysia. In Devlin, M., Nagy, J., and Lichtenberg, A. (eds), Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education. Melbourne, Victoria: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia, pp. 585–595. Sirat, M. (2008). The impact of September 11 on international student flow into Malaysia: Lessons learned. International Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 4(1): 79–95. Sirat, M., Azman, N., and Bakar, A.A. (2016). Harmonization of higher education in Southeast Asia regionalism: Politics first and then education. In Robertson, S.L., Olds, K., Dale, R., and Dang, Q.A. (eds), Global Regionalisms and Higher Education: Projects, Processes and Politics. Northampton, MA : Elger, pp. 103–123. Swanson, D. (2011). Parallaxes and paradoxes of global citizenship: Critical reflections and possibilities of praxis in/through an international online course. In Schulz, L., Abdi, A.A.,

134

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and Richardson, G.H. (eds), Global Citizenship Education in Post-Secondary Institutions: Theories, Practices, Policies. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 120–139. Teng, R. (2016). The Quality of Private Higher Education in Malaysia. Available online: https:// www.theedgemarkets.com/article/quality-private-higher-education-malaysia (accessed October 4, 2019). Tham, S.Y. (ed.) (2013). Internationalizing Higher Education in Malaysia: Understanding, Practices and Challenges. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. The British Council (2013). International Higher Education. Available online: https://www. britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/tne_classification_frameworkfinal.pdf (accessed October 4, 2019). Wan, C.D., and Sirat, M. (2018). Internationalization of the Malaysian higher education system through the prism of south-south cooperation. International Journal of African Higher Education, 4(2): 79–90. Wan, C.D., and Weerasena, B. (2018). EduCity, Johor: A Promising Project with Multiple Challenges to Overcome. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Wan, C.D., Sirat, M., and Abdul Razak, D., (eds) (2019). Higher Education in Malaysia: A Critical Review of the Past and Present for the Future. Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press. Wilkins, S., and Huisman, J. (2012). The international branch campus as transnational strategy in higher education. Higher Education, 64(5): 627–645. Yurizk Academy (2013). Global Islamic Finance Education Report (GIFER) 2013. Available online: http://www.slideshare.net/joyabdullah/global-islamic-finance-education-special-r (accessed September 17, 2019). Yusoff, Y.M. and Chelliah, S. (2010). Adjustment in international students in Malaysian public university. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1(3): 275–278.

CHAPTER TEN

Internationalization of Indian Higher Education Aligning with the Mission of Knowledge Enhancement JULIE VARDHAN

INTRODUCTION The shift in economy from materialistic modes of production to that of an economy based on knowledge has resulted in universities and higher education institutions stressing the importance of producing knowledge—knowledge that is globally relevant. Since knowledge is considered universal in application and ideally should be universal in reach, the internationalization of higher education is being taken up vigorously by universities and higher education institutions. Jane Knight’s definition of internationalization is perhaps the most widely accepted: “the process of integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into the purpose, functions (teaching, research, and service), and delivery of higher education” (2004: 26). Although the Indian higher education system has been considered to be international since ancient times, the various international rankings do not seem to acknowledge this aspect currently (Times Higher Education, 2020; QS World University Rankings, 2020). International in India is understood to mean monitoring the inflow and outflow of students and teachers, and ensuring that the curriculum is on a par with the global standards. Internationalization of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is an issue of great interest to policymakers at the higher education institutions and governments because economic performance is affected by the growing cross-border flows of knowledge, knowledge-workers, and students (OECD, 2004; ACE, 2009; NAFSA, Hudzik, 2011; Hawawini, 2011). That higher education has a direct impact on the economic growth and development, especially in the knowledge era, has been endorsed by UNESCO (2008: 1): “one of the undisputed impacts of the adoption of the Knowledge Society as the leitmotif for economic development is that higher education and research have been reconceptualised as central to economic growth and national competitiveness.” The new knowledge economy has a direct association with the globalization dimensions—ease in international trade and access to increasing use of information technology in various aspects of management. The internationalization of higher education, however, involves the interplay of a number of activities ranging from 135

136

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

knowledge production and disbursement to the interpretation of knowledge in different academic landscapes. Schulte (2019) mentions that developing countries, in particular, face the challenge of not only providing access to higher education to a wider population base but also of ensuring that the graduates are competitive for the knowledge economy (Altbach, 2013; Teferra, 2016). A number of studies on the integration of higher education with the knowledge economy has been taken up in various countries. P˘a unic˘a, Matac, Motofei, and Manole (2011) elaborated on the role of higher education in knowledge economy in Australia; Pilkington (2012) made a study on the Europeanization of French Higher education; Gopinathan and Lee (2011) on the strategy adopted by Higher education institutions in Singapore due to effects of globalization; Ochilov (2014) deliberated if higher education could be considered as the driving force for economic growth in Uzbekistan; Hristova, Petrobska, and Dimitrova (2013) on the impact of internationalization on higher education of Macedonia; Vujicˇic´, and Ristic´ (2015) considered the impact of EU integration on Serbian Higher education; Wan (2011) conducted a study on the reforms brought in in Hong Kong post-massification of education. Similarly the study by Schulte (2019) explores how China has been expanding the internationalization of its higher education in the last two decades by focusing on building a national innovation system, creating world-class research universities and contributing in producing knowledge workers (Huang, 2015; Kennedy, 2016; Chen, 2012). With the emphasis on innovation by these universities, the author argues how Chinese higher education has been reorganized to adapt to the knowledge economy. Huber, Gunderson, and Stephens (2019), in their study, explore the role of public and private universities and the relation between education expenditure and wage dispersion, with public education expenditure found to be associated with lower wage dispersion, whereas private education expenditure is associated with greater wage dispersion. Stukilana (2008) discusses the importance of creating multidisciplinary focus and suggests that creating an integrated educational environment would help students be prepared for the knowledge economy. Wan (2011) mentions that the reforms initiated by several countries in the field of education have been to initiate private sector practices in the public educational institutions. Some of the developed countries, such as the United States, the UK, and Australia, also initiated these reforms. Higher education in several countries is regarded as an indicator of the employability of graduates and their ability to contribute to the knowledge-based economy emerging in the developed world (Freeman and Thomas, 2005). Universities have integrated the globalization tenets by way of online programs, increasing the mobility of students, and making changes to the academic curriculum. These are among various aspects being incorporated in several countries. The objective of this chapter is to explore the aspects of internationalization being undertaken in a developing country with a huge aspirational and young population base. This chapter will explore the relationship between the academic capitalism brought about through internationalization and the ancient ideology of the Indian education system. Knowledge, according to the ancient Indian system, consists of two important principles: first, it is limitless and, second, it leads to the holistic development of the self. The higher education system, though, has to both cater to the needs of the knowledge economy and ensure that the knowledge is disseminated consistent with the demands of the economy. The next section will document the background of the Indian higher education sector. This will be followed by a section that will highlight the internationalization effects on the Indian higher education sector and the various aspects

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

137

that can be ascribed to internationalization. There is then a discussion on academic capitalism and the mission of universities, with the last section being the conclusion.

THE INDIAN HERITAGE IN HIGHER EDUCATION The Indian subcontinent was in ancient times a formidable stronghold of higher education, with Nalanda (existed between 427 and 1197 CE) and Taxila (existed between 600 BC and AD 500) being centers for the seekers of knowledge from around the world. This international dimension was incorporated into the indigenous system of higher education well until the introduction of the Western education system imported by the British. A number of researchers have mentioned these time phases in the development of higher education; one being the pre-independent or colonial model that dates back prior to 1947, and the other post-independence, after 1947, which is a blend of the indigenous and the Western models (Makkar, Gabriel, and Tripathi, 2008; Singh, 2013). The higher education sector has witnessed a tremendous increase in the number of universities/ university level institutions and colleges since the independence of India in 1947. The Indian economy saw a massive shift from the year 1991 onwards with liberalization, privatization, and globalization being welcomed in the economy. The real shift in the higher education system was witnessed during this time, when private institutions came into existence. The number of universities has increased from 723 in 2013–14 to 903 in 2017–18, an increase of almost 24.9 percent in five years, whereas the number of colleges has increased from 36,634 in 2013–14 to 39,050 in 2017–18, an increase of 6.6 percent (AISHE, 2019). India, with a population of 1.25 billion people (Census, 2011), and with 2.5 million youths in the age group of 15 to 24 years, which increases by 13 percent annually—an increase that is much greater than the average global growth rate, is an attractive market for higher education (Kanungo, 2015). The number of universities post-independence from 1950 to 2017 has risen more than thirty times. Along with the growing population, the number of students enrolled in higher education has been growing over the years. Enrollment has increased considerably over the last five years, from 323,36,234 in 2013– 14 to 366,42,378 in 2017–18. The overall growth is 13.3 percent during this period, which is shown in Figure 10.1.

FIGURE 10.1: Student enrollment in the higher education sector. Source: AISHE (2019).

138

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) has increased during the last five years, from 23.0 in 2013–14 to 25.8 in 2017–18. The increase in student enrollment can be explained by three facts: the growing population, with a greater awareness among people for education; a burgeoning middle class having aspirations to be fulfilled through education; and the growth in the global knowledge economy that transcends boundaries. Guruz (2008) suggests that a country’s capacity to take advantage of the global knowledge economy depends on its capacity to generate, disseminate, and share the knowledge (Ahmed and Iqbal, 2011). The study alludes to the fact that the increase in the number of students and the changing nature of the higher education institutions is because these institutions are adapting themselves to the requirements of a global world. India has always been considered as home to the generation and dissemination of knowledge since ancient times, yet with increasing globalization, the Indian higher education sector is witnessing a number of aspects related to internationalization.

INTERNATIONALIZATION EFFECTS IN THE INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR A study by Chen and Huang (2013) mentions that although internationalization is a common goal shared by many Asian countries the approaches used may vary considerably. In the study, four countries (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia) are examined to reveal two different approaches used by these countries—independent and cooperative. Japan and Taiwan have been considered as examples of the independent strategy where there is tighter control over the entering of foreign universities within their domestic boundaries. Singapore and Malaysia, on the other hand, are considered examples of the cooperative approach where there is a strong intention of learning from more mature systems of higher education. The universities in India have grown after independence, in the latter part of nineteenth century, and undergone major changes from India’s colonial past. The universities in the twenty-first century will bring further change, with the orientation of the economy shifting towards producing knowledge workers. The country has an independent strategy whereby although very few foreign universities are allowed to set up campuses, a number of private universities are setting up their base outside India. Moreover, student mobility has also been a part of the Indian education system with a large number of young students seeking their higher education on foreign shores. The government in India has to manage the concerns of access and equity for the entire eligible population, which is highly diversified economically and socially, while planning the internationalization strategy. Some of the features of the Indian higher education system relative to the internationalization aspect are given below.

Adoption of English as the Dominant Language in the Education Sector Within the internationalization context, and post colonialism, India has been trying to broaden the range of teaching in English. Much of the non-Western world had European university models imposed on them by erstwhile colonial education systems. China and India are examples where, even though a number of well-established systems already existed, the European system and the English language were introduced (Altbach, 2004). The inclusion of English as a medium of instruction has been a step towards integrating the students with the international requirements of the language, with majority of the

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

139

private universities complying with it. Although the laws regarding inclusion of Hindi as the national language have faced much debate, English continues to be the dominant language for academics, and for business purposes throughout the country. English proficiency is required not just for instruction but in order for much needed research to be recognized by the international community. Bauwens, Mion, and Thisse (2007) have pointed to the fact that graduate teaching and scientific publishing are expected to be carried out in English, even in non-English speaking countries, and the study cites the examples of several Asian countries.

Proliferation of Various Types of Higher Education Institutions The Indian higher education system has transformed into a loose configuration of various types of institutions, namely the central universities, state universities, private universities, and deemed universities. The central universities are administered by central government; state universities are governed and administered by state governments; state private universities are located in their respective state boundaries and governed by Act of the State Legislatures but managed by the institutions themselves as private organizations; and deemed universities enjoy the academic status and privileges of a university, which is granted by the Department of Higher Education, Government of India. With 48 central universities, 394 state universities, 325 state private universities, and 125 deemed universities, the higher education model loosely follows the British model but also incorporates some parts of the American system. For example, although the state universities are under the state governments, as in a federal structure, the central universities and the institutes of national importance are under the central government (Ahmed and Iqbal, 2011). The emergence of private universities has added a new dimension to the Indian education landscape, bringing in newer competition, governance, and regulations. The number of universities and similar institutions listed on the AISHE portal has increased from 723 in 2013–14 to 903 in 2017–18, an increase of almost 24.9 percent, as shown in Table 10.1, with a consistent rise in the state private universities, from 153 in 2013–14 to 262 in 2017–18. Evidently, the increases in state private and state public universities are very high over the five-year period. These are indicative of the marketization and globalization effects on the education system.

TABLE 10.1 Major university types and number of universities Major University Type State Public University State Private University Deemed University-Private Institute of National Importance Central University Deemed University-Government Source: AISHE, 2019.

Number of University 2013–14

2014–15

2015–16

309 153 80 68 42 36

316 181 79 75 43 32

329 197 79 75 43 32

2016–17 2017–18 345 233 79 100 44 33

351 262 80 101 45 33

140

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY Education mobility is the most visible form of internationalization aspect, and it is also the most dominant perspective (Larsen, 2016). The inclusion of education in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) framework and factors such as marketization of education, a strong focus on students’ employability, and the increasing use of online technology have further facilitated the mobility of education (Barnett, 2016). International education has seen an increase in the mobility of students, faculty, educational programs, and even institutions moving to various international locations (Ullberg, 2015). The rise of private higher education has further increased the phenomenon, resulting in educational institutions becoming more like multinational corporations (Mundy, 2005). With the expansion of online learning, higher education has increasingly established itself as a knowledge disseminator crossing the borders of nationality, language, and cultural boundaries (Brooks and Waters, 2011; Hébert and Abdi, 2013 in Kahn and Misiaszek, 2019). The internationalization of higher education in India is mostly concerned with student mobility, with a large outward mobility of students. A number of foreign universities/ institutions have started to enter India and establish, mainly, franchise centers offering degrees/diplomas of their parent universities (which are not necessarily recognized by the parent universities in their own countries). Also, a number of Indian institutions are planning to set up similar centers in foreign countries. So while, on the one hand, India is importing, it is also engaging in export in this field. One of the other modes being explored in India driven by demand is open and distance education. It has been observed that almost every formal university has opted for a distance education cell and schools of correspondence courses (Tilak, 2008). The growing aspiration of the young population to gain international degrees and knowledge has ensured a continued demand for international programs in India. The number of Indian students abroad has increased from 55,444 in 1999 to about 255,030 in 2016. It is forecasted that 400,000 Indian students will leave the country to enroll in foreign universities by 2024. Inbound mobility used to be nominal but reached 30,423 in 2014. Inbound international students come from a limited number of countries: most come from developing countries, with only a small fraction coming from developed countries. According to AISHE (2019), 60 percent of the former category come from South Asian countries, with Nepal topping the list (11,521), followed by Afghanistan (4,378), Sudan (2,220), and Bhutan (1,999) (see Figure 10.2). A majority of the students come from Nepal, with most of them enrolled in undergraduate programs. Although there is a high number of females from Nepal, overall males have the majority among foreign students. Due to the growing imperative for higher education to internationalize, in order to enhance academic excellence, the mobility of students and academics is being taken up in a rigorous way by the institutions. Amongst all the universities in India enrolling international students, Manipal University has the largest number (2,742), followed by the University of Pune (Wadhwa, 2018). Based on these figures it can be understood that the huge population of India has an aspiration for international education, mainly due to the perception of better quality, higher standards and better placements as the outcome of an international degree. The intent of internationalization for the higher education institutions (HEIs) in India is about curriculum improvement, international quality standards, courses, programs, and research topics that deal with global issues, initiating a governance structure.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

141

FIGURE 10.2: Foreign student distribution by top ten countries in India. Source: AISHE (2019).

DISCUSSION: FROM INTERNATIONALIZATION FOR KNOWLEDGE SHARING TO ACADEMIC CAPITALISM The ancient Indian system of education focused on creating adept and capable citizens who were expected to have immense emotional and spiritual strength along with knowledge of society and culture. The objective of education for an individual was to attain liberation through knowledge. Compared with the role of universities that was being developed in the Western world, the Indian system of higher education laid more emphasis on the holistic development of the individual who was considered to be the pivot with the guru guiding him towards knowledge attainment. The Western world saw the role of universities and their lineage through the organization model, particularly after the book The Higher Learning in America by Thorstein Veblen in 1918. The book mentions the composition and structure of a university system that mirrored the bureaucratic model as espoused in the scientific management prevalent during those times (Marshall, 2016). With the emphasis on knowledge development through scientific research and discovery, the university’s role during the Second World War was taken to be of prime importance. The diffusion of this knowledge resulted in new product development and new businesses for the benefit of society. In the study by Marshall (2016), the second phase of university growth is considered from the 1980s to the present day. While the initial years of this phase were about philanthropic contributions in improving the infrastructure in the higher education sector, the later years saw the development of neo-liberalism, the philosophy of limiting the role of governments, and encouraging the principles of private enterprises in the economy. The Westernization brought about in India due to colonial rule saw a sea change in the aims and objectives of the education system. While the ancient system emphasized the importance of knowledge leading to the liberation of an individual, the neoliberal policies focused not on the social welfare of citizens as a whole, but rather on enabling individuals as economic actors whose contributions would help in developing the new economy in the global market (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). The impact of market-based thinking on academia became known as academic capitalism (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997), which was extended by Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) to the new knowledge economy that included new organizational networks, managerial capacity, focus on technological

142

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

innovation, and institutional adaptation to the new economy (Marshall, 2016). The academic capitalism places high performance expectations on the higher education institutions as well as on individuals who have to either perform or perish. While this helps in developing quality standards and a competitive spirit among the institutions and individuals, critics mention that the capitalistic culture makes the individual create his or her own parallel world filled with materialistic fulfillment. The influence of globalization has driven almost all the universities to aim to become world class and to progress highly on the international university rankings (Sidhu, 2009). Geerlings and Lundberg (2018) rightly point to the dilemma of academic institutions of disseminating Western discourses in the Asian cultural context. While proponents of global education consider that students need to be prepared to enter the global workforce (Ng, 2012) as no country can be untouched by the waves of globalization, some researchers argue that global knowledge may be at the expense of local expertise and diversity in education (Bourn, 2011). Critics also point to the growing cultural imperialism, neocolonialism (Rizvi, 2007), and dominance of the Anglo-American soft power in defining higher education. In their study, Geerlings and Lundberg (2018) mention that globalization reinforces the imaginaries of world class universities as a desirable development. This results in creation of eduscapes that call for international competition in terms of rankings, global status, international best practices, and the prestige associated with being a worldclass university. Hasan, Ramaprasad, and Singai (2014), in their study, show that a majority of the universities in the Indian state of Karnataka aim to be leading universities with a global focus and impact. In the same study the authors found that specialized local expertise or impact in local communities is not considered a valid option for many of these universities. One aspect of the capitalism view considers knowledge to be a commodity that has an exchange value and that can be sold on the open market. While the debate on the commodification of knowledge continues, some authors emphasize the nature of knowledge as a non-excludable public good (Kaupinnen, 2014), while others consider knowledge to be more symbolic in nature, something that serves as a foundation for philosophy (Gould, 2003) and its importance in understanding the history and culture of a country. Thus the universities are expressions of knowledge on both these aspects. Academic capitalism considers knowledge to be proprietary, and not for the public good— and with the universities passing this message to the stakeholders, the commercialization aspect is further enhanced. Knowledge in the new economy is considered to be the raw material, and therefore the focus of the universities in the knowledge economy is on generating intellectual capital, trademarking and licensing, and preparing students be ready as knowledge workers (Kauppinen, 2014; Mendoza and Berger, 2008; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; Szelényi and Bresonis, 2014, in Marshall, 2016). In sharp contrast to the scientific management, the organization structure of the knowledge economy would include core specialists supported by a contingent of workers, who rely on technological processes to assemble and organize data, based on projects. The various aspects of internationalization effects as seen in India point to the dichotomy that Indian HEIs experience in their objectives towards knowledge attainment and delivery. The growth in enrollment and the number of universities, both public and private, point to the huge demand for education, albeit still wanting considering India’s burgeoning population. The Government of India, in its Twelfth Five Year Plan, considers “a move towards internationalization of higher education is imperative and there should

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

143

be creation of alliance, networks, clusters, and consortia of academic institutions amongst themselves and with the research institutions and industry should be facilitated in order to create a self-governing system” (RUSA Report, 2013–14; Ministry of Human Resource Development, India, 2014: 7). A number of scholars and philosophers have urged for the bringing of autonomy of knowledge to the forefront (Spinoza, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Leibniz, and Voltaire, in Pilkington, 2012). This paradigm shift has been echoed favorably and India is one of the countries aiming to secure a leading position in the knowledge economy with its rich past in knowledge development. A number of Asian universities consider enacting globalization on the lines of Westernization (Geerlings and Lundberg, 2018). The globalization discourses show aspects of neo-liberalism that have largely been associated with the Western world. Geerlings and Lundberg (2018) argue that the discourses on globalization dismiss alternative viewpoints, for example to consider globalization as a process influenced by students, intellectuals, or university policymakers. Whereas the Western knowledge perspective has usually been accepted as the norm in academic knowledge, the scholarships from other regions, especially from the Asian region, are often dismissed unless written in English. As a result, the global knowledge is largely constituted of best practices and research developed and defined according to Western notions. Several researchers point to the continuing subjugation of Asian countries by the knowledge and power effects of Anglo-American countries. Implementation of best practices from outside the country or rooting on its philosophy will bring to the fore several challenges to the higher education sector—similar to the observation by Wan (2011): coping with the financial stringency faced by several of the institutions, lack of articulation opportunities, low quality of education, and educated unemployment (Wang, 2003; Kember, 2010; Spiegler, 1998, in Wan, 2011).

CONCLUSION The internationalization of higher education is favorable for academic institutions, governments, and students for a number of significant reasons. The millennial generation has been found to be more globally oriented than earlier generations (BusinessWire, 2017). New research commissioned by Western Union shows that millennials across fifteen countries are united by a belief in globalization, want the freedom to experience the opportunities it brings, and have a desire to play a role in shaping the future using technology (BusinessWire, 2017). This orientation is particularly apt in India with a huge population base of young millennials. Although the Indian education system is deeply rooted in philosophical insights, the marketization (Mok, 2011) and globalization forces seem to have played a role in creating a “plurality of institutions” (Pilkington, 2012) to cater to different socio-economic needs. Even though it has a strong historical background, the Indian higher education system suffers from social and cultural pressures, namely enrollment ratios, recruitment processes and training, and quality standards. Numerous studies have been taken up regarding the sustainability and quality of professionals, especially academics, and research seems to be at the heart of the system in trying to adapt to the demands of internationalization trends in higher education. The government has come up with a new education policy to bring about reforms for improving the quality and effectiveness of institutions. As universities find their new role in the knowledge economy, the context of knowledge and the form of delivery have changed. Academic capitalism is evident in the academic

144

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

structures, management, and relationships with stakeholders by the universities. Although symbolic knowledge and knowledge for public good have been emphasized by a number of studies, the importance of knowledge as a tool for inclusiveness needs to be understood by the policymakers. The dichotomy between the rich philosophical heritage of India and the requirements of the globalization forces is something that needs to be resolved at a policy level by the governments and the institutions.

REFERENCES Ahmed, S., and Iqbal, B.A. (2013). Financing of higher education in India: Then and now. Productivity, 53(4): 390–401. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =trueanddb=bthandAN=90457880andsite=ehost-live Ahmed, S., and Iqbal, B.A. (2013). Financing of higher education in India: Then and now. Productivity, 53(4): 390–401. AISHE (2019). Government of India. All India Survey on Higher Education. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi, 2019, http:// aishe.nic.in/ aishe/home Altbach, P.G. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1): 3–25. Altbach, P.G. (2013). Advancing the national and global knowledge economy: The role of research universities in developing countries. Studies in Higher Education, 38(3): 316–330. American Council on Education (ACE) (2009). Sizing up the competition: The future of international postsecondary student enrolment in the United States. Available from www. acenet.edu Barnett, R. (2016). Policy, what policy? In John, P. and Fanghanel, J. (eds), Dimensions of Marketisation in Higher Education. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 223–232. Bauwens, L., Mion, G., and Thisse, J-F. (2007). The resistible decline of European science. CORE Discussion Papers, 92. Retrieved from http://www.ecore.be/DPs/dp_1197470179. pdf Bourn, D. (2011). From internationalization to global perspectives. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(5): 559–571. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.598447 Brooks, R., and Johanna, L.W. (2011). Student Mobilities, Migration and the Internationalization of Higher Education. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. BusinessWire (2017). Millenials stand for globalisation and want to shape the future. November 15, 2017. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171115005572/en/MillennialsStand-Globalism-Shape-Future Census (2011). Government of India, https://censusindia.gov.in/2011-common/censusdata2011. html Chen, S.-Y. (2012). Contributing knowledge and knowledge workers: The role of Chinese universities in the knowledge economy. London Review of Education, 10(1): 101–112. Chen, L., and Huang, D. (2013). Internationalization of Chinese higher education. Higher Education Studies, 3(1): 92–105. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/13485 89447?accountid=62587 Freeman, I., and Thomas, M. (2005). Consumerism in education: A comparison between Canada and the United Kingdom. The International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2): 156–177.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

145

Geerlings L.R.C. and Lundberg, A. (2018). Global discourses and power/knowledge: Theoretical reflections on futures of higher education during the rise of Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(2): 229–240, doi: 10.1080/02188791.2018.1460259 Gopinathan, S., and Lee, M. (2011). Challenging and co-opting globalization: Singapore’s strategies in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(3): 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.565001 Gould, T. (2003). Hybrid Classes: Maximizing Institutional Resources and Student Learning. Proceedings of the 2003 ASCUE Conference, www.ascue.org Guruz, K. (2008). Higher Education and International Student Mobility in The Global Knowledge Economy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hasan, T., Ramaprasad, A., and Singai, C. (2014). Rethinking higher education research: Ontology mapping of higher education systems. Research and Development in Higher Education: Higher Education in a Globalized World, 37: 161–171. Hawawini, G. (2011). The internationalization of higher education institutions: A critical review and a radical proposal. INSEAD Working Papers Collection, 112: 1–45. Hébert, Y., and Abdi, A.A. (2013). Critical Perspectives on International Education, vol. 15. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Hristova, S., Petrovska, I., and Dimitrova, M. (2013). Internationalization in higher education: Trends and opportunities. Analele Universitatii “Eftimie Murgu” Resita. Fascicola II. Studii Economice, 90–100. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truean ddb=bthandAN=93679227andsite=ehost-live Huang, F. (2015). Building the world-class research universities: A case study of China. Higher Education, 70(2): 203–215. Huber, E., Gunderson, J., and Stephens, J.D. (2019). Private education and inequality in the knowledge economy. Policy and Society, doi: 0.1080/14494035.2019.1636603 Hudzik, J.K. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization: From Concept to Action. Washington, DC : NAFSA, Association of International Educators. Kahn P.E, and Misiaszek, L.I (2019). Educational mobilities and internationalised higher education: Critical perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(5): 587–598, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1625120 Kanungo, S. (2015). Growth of higher education in India—Problems and solutions. Global Management Review, 9(3): 53–60. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?d irect=trueanddb=bthandAN=111523931andsite=ehost-live Kauppinen, I. (2014). Different meanings of “knowledge as commodity” in the context of higher education. Critical Sociology, 40(3): 393–409. doi:10.1177/0896920512471218 Kember, D. (2010). Opening up the road to nowhere: Problems with the path to mass higher education in Hong Kong. Higher Education, 56: 167–179. Kennedy, A.B. (2016). Slouching tiger, roaring dragon: Comparing India and China as late innovators. Review of International Political Economy, 23(1): 65–92. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, rationales and approaches. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1): 5–31. Larsen, Marianne A. (2016). Internationalization of Higher Education: An Analysis through Spatial, Network, and Mobilities Theories. New York: Springer. Makkar, U., Gabriel, E.O., and Tripathi, S.K. (2008). Value chain for higher education sectorcase studies of India and Tanzania. Journal of Services Research, 81: 83–200. Marshall, G.S. (2016). The university in the knowledge economy: Academic capitalism and its implications for doctoral students in public administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 38(4): 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2016.1239398

146

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Mendoza, P., and Berger, J.B. (2008). Academic capitalism and academic culture: A case study. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(23): 1–24. doi:10.14507/epaa.v16n23.2008 Ministry of Human Resource Development, India (2014). RUSA report, 2013–14. https:// mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/RUSA_final090913.pdf Mok, K.H. (2011). The quest for regional hub of education: Growing heterarchies, organizational hybridization, and new governance in Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Education Policy, 26(1): 61–81. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2010.498900 Mundy, K. (2005). Globalization and educational change: New policy worlds. In Bascia, N., Cumming, A. Datnow, A., and Leithwood, K. (eds), International Handbook of Educational Policy. New York: Springer. Ng, S.W. (2012). Rethinking the mission of internationalization of higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 42(3): 439–459. doi:10.1080/03057925.2011.652815 Ochilov, A. (2014). Is higher education a driving force of economic growth in Uzbekistan? Perspectives of Innovations, Economics and Business, 14(4): 160–174. https://doi. org/10.15208/pieb.2014.19 OECD (2004). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD . P˘a unic˘a , M., Matac, M. L., Motofei, C., and Manole, A. (2011). The role of higher education in a dynamic knowledge-driven economy. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 6(1): 421–426. Retrieved from: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=trueanddb= bthandAN=97464330andsite=ehost-live Pilkington, M. (2012). The French evolution: France and the Europeanisation of higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1): 39–50. https://doi.or g/10.1080/1360080X.2012.642330 QS World University Rankings (2020). Top 10 universities 2020. https://www.topuniversities. com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2020 Rizvi, F. (2007). Postcolonialism and globalization in education. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 7(3): 256–263. doi: 10.1177/1532708607303606 Schulte, B. (2019). Innovation and control: Universities, the knowledge economy and the authoritarian state in China. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 5(1): 30–42, doi: 10.1080/20020317.2018.1535732 Sidhu, R. (2009). Running to stay still in the knowledge economy. Journal of Education Policy, 24(3): 237–253. doi: 10.1080/02680930802669250 Singh, M. (2013). Educational practice in India and its foundations in Indian heritage: A synthesis of the East and West? Comparative Education, 49(1): 88–106, doi: 10.1080/03050068.2012.740222 Slaughter, S., and Leslie, L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., and Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD : The Johns Hopkins University Press. Stukalina, Y. (2008). How to prepare students for productive and satisfying careers in the knowledge-based economy: Creating a more efficient educational environment. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 14(2): 197–207, https://doi. org/10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.197-207 Szelényi, K., and Bresonis, K. (2014). The public good and academic capitalism: Science and engineering doctoral students and faculty on the boundary of knowledge regimes. Journal of Higher Education, 85(1): 126–153. doi:10.1353/jhe.2014.0004

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

147

Teferra, D. (2016). African flagship universities: Their neglected contributions. Higher Education, 72(1): 79–99. Tilak, J.B.G. (2008). Transition from higher education as a public good to higher education as a private good: The saga of Indian experience. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1(2): 220–234, doi: 10.1080/17516230802094593 Times Higher Education (2020). World University Rankings. https://www.timeshighereducation. com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/ sort_order/asc/cols/stats Ullberg, E. (2015). New Perspectives on Internationalization and Competitiveness: Integrating Economics, Innovation and Higher Education. Cham: Springer. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2008, November). Final overview by the Rapporteur General. Final proceedings, research summaries and poster presentations, Merle Jacob. Global research seminar: Sharing research agendas on knowledge systems. Paris. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0018/001818/181836e.pdf Vujicˇic´, M., and Ristic´, L. (2015). Higher educational system of the republic of Serbia in support of sustainable development: Challenges of the EU integration. Megatrend Review, 12(1): 139–156. https://doi.org/10.5937/MegRev1501139V Wadhwa, R. (2018). Differential entry of first and non-first-generation students in higher education with reference to India. Higher Education for the Future, 5(2): 142–161. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2347631118767283 Wan, C. (2011). Reforming higher education in Hong Kong towards post-massification: The first decade and challenges ahead. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(2): 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.550034 Wang, R.J. (2003). From elitism to mass higher education in Taiwan: The problems faced. Higher Education, 46: 261–287.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Conclusion The Shift to the East, and the Changing Face of Internationalization ANTHONY R. WELCH

Internationalization of higher education in East and South East Asia can be seen as part of the wider global shift to the East. No longer simply a source of bright students for the global North, several systems already list major achievements, together with ambitious further plans and targets to extend internationalization. These include substantial inward student flows, incentives to attract internationally based staff (numbers of whom are from their own knowledge diaspora), heightened international research collaboration, and the creation of “world class” universities that are increasingly attractive to both scholars and international students. This chapter draws on several cases from East and Southeast Asia, including developing relations with Australia, the only major English language system in the South Pacific, with a history of close links to the countries of ASEAN, and to China.

DECONSTRUCTING MOBILITY MYTHS The rise of the East, however, should not be seen as something new, but rather a renaissance—a reversion to a world order of some centuries ago, in which both China and India, for example, were not merely major economies in their own right, but featured great centers of learning that attracted scholars and students from far and wide (Welch, 2019). While examples from India and the Arab world could be cited, Confucianism is perhaps the best example. Originating a century or so earlier than the Platonic academy, the sophisticated Confucian form of higher learning came to life during the Spring and Autumn period, although its formalization occurred more than a millennium later, in the Tang and Song dynasties, with a core curriculum based on the Four Books and Five Classics. Its regional importance cannot be overestimated, with a strong and enduring influence in Japan (into which, most often termed Jugaku, or Juky¯o, it was introduced in the sixth century), Korea, and Viet Nam. In the latter, like China, it formally persisted until the earliest years of the twentieth century.1 Echoes of China’s famed ancient Shuyuan,

On the persistent influence of the Confucian model in China and the region, see, inter alia, Ruth Hayhoe, China’s Universities 1895–1995. A Century of Cultural Conflict (New York, Garland, 1996), Tucker, J. (2018) ‘Japanese Confucian Philosophy’ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/

1

148

CONCLUSION

149

scholarly centers (mostly Confucian) are still to be seen in Ha Noi’s delightful V˘an Miê´u (Temple of Learning), founded in 1070, and in Korea where the shu¯yuàn (Korean Seowon 서원) was the most common educational institution during the mid-to-late Joseon dynasty. While of lesser regional influence, and much less well known, the development of Angkor Wat, under under the reign of King Jayavarman VII (1181–1218 CE) should also be mentioned. A key regional center of higher learning, at a time when the Khmer empire was a major force in Southeast Asia, its curriculum included literacy in both Khmer and Sanskrit, Buddhist precepts, mathematics, as well as manual arts such as engineering and construction principles and techniques. “Angkor was first and foremost a centre of learning, with numerous monasteries, that had libraries as well as rooms for teaching and accommodation for students” (Hayhoe, 2019: 177, see also Giteau, 1976, Chhem, 1997). Such examples explode the myths, both that the origins of internationalization are uniquely Western, and that internationalization is a quintessentially modern phenomenon. (Welch, 2008). Analysis of contemporary developments in East and Southeast Asian higher education only serves to reinforce this point. Just as the swift economic development of East Asia (as also parts of Southeast Asia) has startled the world, so too, the rise of higher education in the region has been dramatic, not merely in quantitative terms. Of the leading 500 research universities worldwide listed in the well-regarded Shanghai Jiaotong’s Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), fifty-eight are now Chinese (four in the top 100), while Singapore has two in the top 100, and Malaysia one listed in the top 400 (ARWU, 2019a).

MIXED EFFECTS Such impressive developments are changing the face of higher education internationalization. While traditional host countries of international students such as the United States, the UK, and Australia continue to be well represented, the foregoing chapters reveal that major higher education hubs in East and Southeast Asia are now attracting international students in growing numbers. China’s target of having 500,000 international students by 2020, articulated as part of its Medium and Long Term Education Plan, 2010, was reached before the target date (MoE, 2010; MoE, 2019a, b), while around 10 percent (131,154) of Malaysia’s 1.34 million higher education students are now international (Wan and Abdullah, 2019) and the tiny state of Singapore (total population less than 6 million in 2010) attracted 75,000 international students to its few universities in 2015 (Key Facts n.d.; Basilotte, 2016). Zhejiang University, one of China’s leading higher education institutions (HEIs), enrolled more than 7,000 international students alone in 2018, the majority of whom were in degree programs (largely in STEM disciplines) (Zhejiang University, 2018). At the same time, however, East and South East Asia both continue to suffer from brain drain. While China, for example, has long suffered from a haemorrhaging of top talent from Physics and Chemistry departments of its leading universities, this pattern has now changed in a number of ways. First, the disciplinary mix now includes the large cohort of IT specialists that China has been deliberately cultivating since around 2012. The decade from 2009 saw the number of China’s IT specialists grow almost ten-fold: by 2018, they japanese-confucian/, and Anthony Welch, “The Internationalization of Vietnamese Higher Education” in Grant Harman, Martin Hayden, and Pham Van Nghi (eds), Reforming Vietnamese Higher Education (London, Springer, 2010).

150

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

formed close to 25 percent of the world’s total. But a study of acceptances at a prestigious international IT conference (NeurIPS) over the same period revealed that something like three quarters of such Chinese specialists were found to be working outside China, mostly in the United States (Macro Polo, 2019). Second, however, this may well change, both as an outcome of the US–China trade war (now increasingly recognized as a technology war), and as a result of China’s more sophisticated diaspora strategy, which now encourages its overseas talent who remain abroad to collaborate with scientists at home (Welch and Zhang, 2008; Yang and Welch, 2010; Welch and Hao, 2013). Related measures include the proliferation of China’s “Foreign Talent” schemes, which are designed to lure academic talent—many of them highly qualified Chinese—from around the world to work with or in leading departments of Chinese universities (Welch and Cai, 2011). Part of China’s 2017 national artificial intelligence strategy of 2017, for example, involved luring top scientists back home, and there is evidence that the wider strategy of offering competitive salaries and well-equipped laboratories is meeting with success (Macro Polo, 2019; SCMP 2018a, b).2 Whereas in the past as many as 95 percent of Chinese students who had gained an advanced degree abroad chose to stay there, by the end of 2017, 83 percent had chosen to return. As a leading scientist at China’s top-ranked Tsinghua University pithily remarked in late 2018, “The problem of the brain drain no longer exists. One important reason is the salary. Another reason is Trump” (SCMP, 2018a). Among the nations of East and Southeast Asia, however, China is something of an exception. By contrast, smaller, less developed nations, in particular, lack both the scientific capacity to provide leading research facilities, and the economic size and heft to offer internationally competitive salary packages. Nonetheless, as Han and Shen argue (Chapter 5, this volume), the International Institute of Management Development’s (IMD) Brain Drain Index3 reveals that China’s brain drain remains worse than at least some of its Asian counterparts, such as Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Japan.

REGIONALISM IN EAST AND SOUTHEAST ASIA Regionalism forms a growing element within the wider context of internationalization of higher education, including throughout the dynamic and diverse East and Southeast Asian regions (Jayasuriya and Robertson, 2010; Welch, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2018). Of the international student cohorts indicated above, intra-Asian regionalism is important in all the examples cited. It is notable for example, that 59.95 percent of China’s international enrollments are from Asia, with a further 1.27 percent from Oceania (MoE, 2019b). For Malaysia, seven of its top ten source countries are from Asia, with Indonesia alone accounting for 18,816 (Azman and Wan, Chapter 9, this volume).4 According to Seoul’s National Institute for International Education, the 71,000 mainland Chinese students in South Korea form 44.4 percent of the overall international student population (SCMP, 2019). And in Japan, as Table 11.1 reveals, of the total of 298,980 international students registered in 2018, the five largest source countries were, with one exception, all either East or Southeast Asian. The priority accorded STEM disciplines, among other things, has meant less success in luring social scientists. The International Institute of Management Development’s measure of brain drain, by country. 4 This includes nations from outside the region. For some of the complexities of definitions of Asia, and its subregions, see Welch (2019). 2 3

CONCLUSION

151

TABLE 11.1 Japan, origin of international students Country China Vietnam Nepal Republic of Korea Taiwan

No. and % of international students 114,950 (34.4) 72,354 (24.2) 24,331 (8.1) 17,012 (5.7) 9,524 (3.2)

Source: JASSO (2018). Note: International student totals include enrollments in Colleges of Technology, Professional Training colleges, University Preparatory courses, and Language Institutes.

Offering an alternative form of internationalization, branch campuses remain a significant feature of internationalization in parts of East and Southeast Asia. Most such ventures are outposts of English-speaking higher education systems, although China’s well-regarded Xiamen University established the country’s first major overseas campus in Malaysia, in 2015 (XMUM n.d.; Welch and Postiglione, 2020). While it is true that China is host to a number of university branch campuses, such as Nottingham Ningbo (established in 2004) Xian Jiaotong Liverpool (2006), New York University Shanghai (2012), and Duke Kunshan (2013), these generally fall under the rubric of Sino–foreign cooperation universities, with specific conditions.5 Malaysia too, plays host to ten foreign branch campuses, by such universities as Monash, Curtin, and Swinburne, from Australia, and Nottingham, Heriott-Watt, Newcastle, Reading, and Southampton, from the UK (Study Malaysia, 2018; Wan and Abdullah, 2019, Times Higher Education, 2019). But other international higher education initiatives in both East and Southeast Asia are of growing importance. These include regional cooperation schemes among the countries of East Asia, as well as those focused on South East Asia; specifically, member nations of ASEAN. Of growing importance, too, are burgeoning links between China and neighboring countries, notably from ASEAN, as well as sub-regional initiatives, such as the Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV) International Development Cooperation in Higher Education Program, based on nations of the Mekong (Azman and Wan, Chapter 9, this volume; Wan and Sirat, 2018). Lastly, regional relations with Australia, the only substantial English language higher education system in the vicinity, are also of increasing significance.

East Asia Networks Modeled somewhat on the much larger and better-known ERASMUS European academic mobility program, Campus Asia (Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Students in Asia) is a regional (East Asian) student exchange, and dual degree, program, between China, Japan, and Korea (GRIPS, n.d.; SNU, n.d.; University World News, 2013). Launched in 2012 as a top-down initiative comprising credit exchange, dual According to Han and Shen (Chapter 5, this volume), Yanbian University of Science and Technology in 1992 was the first example of this form of Sino–foreign cooperation, albeit of a secondary/subordinate (erji) college. Numbers of such Sino–foreign HEIs have the status of legal persons, or corporate bodies (duli faren), including provisions that the majority of the governing board, for example, must be Chinese. The MoE cut 234 such programs in 2018, in the interests of quality control (ICEF Monitor, 2018).

5

152

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

degrees, and the development of joint degree programs, it was based on three principles: cultivation of a generation of Asian leaders; increased exchange of students; and government leadership. The rise of Asia, the need to develop the next generation of leaders in the region, as well as the promotion of mutual understanding among these three leading East Asian nations were background rationales for the development of the scheme, with an associated aspiration to create an Asian Higher Education Area (AHEA; Chun, 2016; Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010). Between 100 and 150 participating students annually spend a year at a partner university in the region, ultimately submitting a master’s thesis. Some results point to the development of more positive attitudes towards the host country on the part of participating students, and a rise in feelings of East Asian identity (Chun, 2016). Joint projects involving HEIs from all three countries include water resources, developing leading infrastructure Engineers, and the development of an East Asian common law community (SKKU, n.d.).

ASEAN Networks ASEAN forms the locus of another regional internationalization initiative. As its name suggests, the ASEAN University Network (AUN), founded in 1995, comprises a consortium of thirty prominent universities across the ten-member, highly diverse, and dynamic ASEAN region (AUN, n.d. a, b; Welch, 2011: 79–80). The original aims of building greater harmony and an ASEAN identity in the region were reflected in the founding aims of AUN: ●







To develop SE Asian studies interdisciplinary academic programmes, and availability of related academic degrees in at least one major university in each member state To undertake cooperative, regional ASEAN MA and PhD programmes, each involving courses offered by HEIs in at least two member states To undertake joint ASEAN regional research projects, by scientists/scholars from at least two member states, and To institute ASEAN Visiting Professors programs, enabling academics from one member state to lecture for a given period at an HEI of another member state (AUN, n.d., a).

A second program is based on boosting student mobility among ASEAN systems. AIMS (ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS) started as a pilot project in 2009, by the Governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand (M-I-T) and the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization-Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO RIHED). The program ran from 2010 to 2014, and 1,130 students from 23 universities in the region participated in it (Chun, 2016).

ASEAN+3 Within years of its establishment, and in line with the growing trend towards extending regional (or perhaps trans-regional) academic collaboration, 2001 saw the inauguration of the ASEAN+3 network that embraced numerous HEIs from the three East Asian states of China, Japan, and Korea. Of China’s five member HEIs, most were drawn from China’s southern borderlands, which already had well-established relations with neighboring ASEAN HEIs (AUN, n.d., b; Yang, 2012; Wen 2016, Welch, 2011, 2018).

CONCLUSION

153

The six member HEIs from Korea and ten from Japan were drawn from across the country, including leading public and private universities (AUN, n.d., b). HEIs from ASEAN now total thirty, from all ten ASEAN member states. Activities included the ASEAN-China Rectors conference, Roundtable, Joint Research and Training Grants focused on mutual research priorities such as Marine Science and ecology, as well as ASEAN-China Distinguished Professors and Lecturers Exchange Programme.

China–ASEAN Regionalism The AUN+3 example above fits within a wider pattern of growing links between East and South East Asia, particularly in higher education. China–ASEAN links in higher education provide a potent example, which, at a time of growing great power rivalry, is arguably of even greater importance in maintaining sound cultural relations in the region. The grounds for denser regional relations in higher education are numerous. For almost all the countries of ASEAN, China is their largest trading partner. All ten member states have a Chinese ethnic minority, of vastly varying proportions,6 but which, in each case, exercises a disproportionately greater role in the national economy than their share of the population. In addition, China’s southern borderland regions of Yunnan, Guizhou, and Guanxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, fringe southeast Asia, with which each has longstanding relations,7 and in some cases ethnic ties. In partial recognition of Southeast Asia’s growing importance, the three borderlands, formerly seen as luo hou, 㩭ਾ (backward) have now been re-categorized as qiaotoubao, ẕཤ๑ (bridgeheads) into the ASEAN region. These elements all form part of what has been dubbed the six pillars of China–ASEAN relations in higher education: economics, knowledge mobility, historical background, Chinese regional diaspora, regional perceptions of Chinese minorities, territorial disputes (Welch, 2018). As its leaders have often acknowledged, ASEAN’s development is thus increasingly closely tied to China’s rise. As erstwhile Indonesian President Yudhoyono acknowledged, “ASEAN has a lot riding on the success of China’s peaceful development. There is no question that our future, our prosperity, will be strongly linked to China” (Yudhoyono, cited in Welch, 2014). Higher education initiatives include the ASEAN–China Academic Cooperation and Exchange Programme, proposed after meetings between AUN and Madame Chen Zhili, then Minister of Education of the People’s of Republic of China (PRC) in October 1999 and April 2000. More recent networks include examples in science and technology, such as the China–ASEAN Scholar program (SEAMEO RIHED, n.d.), part of the ASEAN– China Network for Cooperation and Exchanges among Engineering and Technology Universities (ACNET-EngTech), administered by Tianjin University (SEAMEO RIHED, n.d.), and also in the social sciences, such as Fudan’s Network of ASEAN–China Academic Institutes (NACAI), focused on “encouraging joint research on the issues related to ASEAN-China relations” (Fudan, n.d.).

Australia and Regional Knowledge Networks With a total population of only around 25 million, Australia’s higher education enrollments are, at 1.5 million, not much larger than that of its near neighbor, Malaysia. And, by any From a minuscule 1.5 percent in Viet Nam, to Singapore’s 60 percent. Chinese rule over Tonkin, for example (part of current Viet Nam) dates back to the period at the end of the Warring States period (c. 220 BCE), when China was first unified, under Emperor Qin Shi Huang.

6 7

154

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

measure, its uneasy status as “Asian” is, at best, that of a “significant other” (Walker, 2019; Teo, 2019). At the same time, however, two elements distinguish it with respect to internationalization. As the only major English language higher education system in the region, with long-established relations with both the nations of Southeast Asia, as well as China, it has proved an enduring attraction to students (and settlers—some 40 percent of migrants are now from Asia) from the region. Indeed, at least 25 percent of overall higher education enrollments are international, among the highest ratio worldwide. Of the 1.5 million referred to above, 398,563 were international students in 2018 (APH, 2019). At 38.3 percent, China formed by far the largest cohort, but all of the top ten source countries were from Asia (APH, 2019). The fact that, of Australia’s 40 universities, 7 are in the top 100 worldwide, constitutes a further attraction to prospective international students, and to academic staff, numbers of whom first take their PhD in Australia, and then move into academic careers. The largest example consists of mainland Chinese, now present in significant numbers at all Australian universities (ARWU, 2019b). But the—highly unequal—student flows between Australia and the region, and the substantial international alumni thereby generated, are by no means the whole story (Welch, 2014). Evolving and richer relations between Australia and the region include growing economic ties (ASEAN is now Australia’s second largest trading partner, after China), major foreign policy initiatives, and, in particular, closer and denser forms of academic collaboration (Australian Government, 2013; APH, 2013; Welch, 2014). The development of leading universities in countries such as China, and Singapore, and rising research output by both China and several ASEAN systems has opened further opportunities for regional research collaboration (The Conversation, 2017), something that is clearly being taken advantage of, as Table 11.2 reveals. As a review of regional research relations pointed out: For ASEAN, too, China is an important knowledge partner. China is Malaysia’s largest international collaborator, while for the Philippines, China is the third-largest (UNESCO, 2010: 443). Interestingly, for both Indonesia and Singapore, Australia is their third-largest international collaborator. Clearly, there is more potential here to develop these existing collaborations into a more fully-fledged regional knowledge network. —Welch, 2014: 159

TABLE 11.2 Australia’s collaborative publications and citations 2000–2011, by country Country Australia with China with Indonesia with Malaysia with Philippines with Thailand with Viet Nam Source: Thomson, InCites 2012.

Total publications (2000–2011)

Total citations (2000–2011)

Citations per publication

512,042 18,465 1,356 1,560 670 2,387 684

5,801,020 256,584 14,287 16,399 12,613 36,354 8,249

11.4 13.9 10.5 10.5 18.8 15.2 12.1

CONCLUSION

155

CONCLUSION: EAST–WEST SYNTHESIS? Clearly, the shift to the East is an event of world consequence, including in higher education. In what is now clearly a multi-polar global knowledge system, both East and Southeast Asian systems have made giant strides and, as a result, are now much more prominent, albeit very differentially. This is proving a magnet for both international students, and staff, and is providing a better base for regional research collaboration. At the same time, virtually all systems within the region still struggle with a longstanding dilemma. The desire to retain the rich patrimony offered by indigenous knowledge forms and pedagogies conflicts with the aim to draw on the best from the West. Most clearly seen in Meiji Japan’s attempt, from 1868, to systematically incorporate the most advanced forms of Western knowledge in the interests of reform and modernization, the dilemma continues to haunt virtually all systems of East and Southeast Asia. Epitomized in the Japanese phrase wakon yosai (઼兲⌻᡽) or “Japanese spirit, Western Learning,” it was a later form of the wakon-kansai (઼兲╒᡽) “Japanese spirit, Chinese learning” tradition, alluded to earlier (Ota, 2012: 148). In China, much the same dilemma is summarized in the idiom zhongxue wei ti, xi xue wei yong (ѝᆖѪփˈ㾯ᆖѪ⭘), or “Chinese Learning as Substance, Western Learning for practical use.” Coined by Zhang Zhidong ᕐѻ⍎ (1837–1909), as part of the SelfStrengthening movement (Yangwu yundong ⌻࣑䘀ࣘ) in the dying days of the sclerotic Qing dynasty, the idea was supported by other major figures such as Liang Qichao ằஏ䎵 (1873–1929), but its subsequent suppression by Dowager empress Cixi led to both Liang’s and his mentor Yang, Kouwei’s ᓧᴹѪ (1858–1927) flight to exile in Japan. The debate continues to resonate strongly among Chinese intellectuals to this day. Decades ago, the renowned scholar of international higher education Philip Altbach pointed out that, while great strides had been made, no Asian system had yet solved the problem of developing an effective synthesis that retained a core of indigenous knowledge values, while incorporating or adapting ideas and forms from the West. There was, he argued, “no Asian academic model emerging” (Altbach, 1989: 27, see also Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989: 12) A more recent summary also pointed to the enduring nature of the dilemma, albeit forcefully illustrating the progress achieved by Asian higher education systems (largely in East and Southeast Asia) (Welch, 2019). Internationalization offers one potential means to begin to resolve the dilemma, but current pressures for greater performativity, particularly intense in Asia, as part of efforts to create “world class” institutions and systems, militate against prospects for East and West meeting on equal terms. This is largely because performance is still overwhelmingly measured according to Western metrics, especially publication in major English language journals. The fact that, as Azman and Wan (Chapter 9), and Han and Shen (Chapter 5) point out in this volume, English remains the dominant platform for internationalization, makes such a resolution harder to achieve. As Ota ruefully concludes, “it does not seem to be possible to adopt foreign culture selectively, and still maintain the local spirit intact” (Ota, 2012: 155).

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) (2019a). China. http://www.shanghairanking. com/World-University-Rankings-2019/China.html (accessed January 3, 2020). Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) (2019b). Australia. http://www.shanghairanking. com/World-University-Rankings-2019/Australia.html (accessed January 5, 2020).

156

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Altbach, P. (1989). Twisted Roots: The Western impact on Asian Education. Higher Education, 18(1): 9–29. Altbach, P.G., and Selvaratnam, V. (eds.) (1989). From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ASEAN Universities Network (AUN) (n.d., a). History and background. http://www.aunsec. org/ourhistory.php (accessed December 20, 2019). ASEAN Universities Network (AUN) (n.d., b). ASEAN+3 UNet Member Universities. http:// www.aunsec.org/membership.php (accessed December 20, 2019). Australia Parliament House (APH) (2013). ASEAN and regional cooperation: Recent developments and Australia’s interests. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/ASEAN (accessed December 20, 2019). Australia Parliament House (APH) (2019). Overseas students in Australian higher education: A quick guide. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/ Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1819/Quick_Guides/OverseasStudents (accessed December 12, 2019). Australian Government (2013). Australia in the Asian century. https://www.defence.gov.au/ whitepaper/2013/docs/australia_in_the_asian_century_white_paper.pdf (accessed December 20, 2019). Basilotte, L. et al. (2016). Singapore’s higher education cluster. http://www.isc.hbs.edu/ resources/courses/moc-course-at-harvard/Documents/pdf/student-projects/Singapore%20 Higher%20Education%202016.pdf (accessed December 12, 2019). Chhem, R. (1997). University and Human Capital in ASEAN Perspectives: The Case of Cambodia. Unpublished PhD, Université de Montréal. Chun, J-h. (2016). Can CAMPUS Asia program be a next ERASMUS? The possibilities and challenges of the CAMPUS Asia program. Asia Europe Journal, 14(3): 279–296. Chronicle of Higher Education (2010). “Campus Asia” project aims to harmonize higher education in the region. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Campus-Asia-Project-Will/65177 (accessed December 20, 2019). Conversation [The] (2017). Indonesia races against its ASEAN neighbours, but science needs more collaboration. http://theconversation.com/indonesia-races-against-its-asean-neighboursbut-science-needs-more-collaboration-83840 (accessed January 3, 2020). Fudan University (n.d.). Network of ASEAN–China Academic Institutes (NACAI). http://www. iis.fudan.edu.cn/en/platform_of_academic_exchanges/list.htm (accessed December 12, 2019). Giteau, M. (1976). The Civilization of Angkor. New York: Rizzoli. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s Universities 1895–1995. A Century of Cultural Conflict. New York: Garland. Hayhoe, R. (2019). The gift of Indian higher learning traditions to the global research university. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(2): 177–189. ICEF Monitor (2018). China announces the closure of more than 200 TNE programmes. https://monitor.icef.com/2018/07/china-announces-closure-200-tne-programmes/ (accessed December 22, 2019). Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) (2018). Result of an annual survey of international students in Japan 2018. https://www.jasso.go.jp/en/about/statistics/intl_ student_e/2018/index.html (accessed December 21, 2019). Jayasuriya, K., and Robertson, S. (2010). Regulatory regionalism and the governance of higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(1): 1–6.

CONCLUSION

157

Key Facts for International Students in Singapore (n.d.). https://www.expat.com/en/guide/asia/ singapore/15831-key-facts-for-international-students-in-singapore.html (accessed December 22, 2019). Macro Polo (2019). China’s AI talent base is growing, and then leaving. https://macropolo.org/ chinas-ai-talent-base-is-growing-and-then-leaving/ (accessed January 2, 2020). Ministry of Education [Beijing] (2010). Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development. https://internationaleducation.gov.au/News/ newsarchive/2010/Documents/China_Education_Reform_pdf.pdf (accessed December 20, 2019). Ministry of Education. (2019a). Statistics of incoming foreign students (in Chinese). http:// www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/201904/t20190412_377692.html?from=timeli neandisappinstalled=0 (accessed December 20, 2019). Ministry of Education. (2019b). Statistical Report on international students in China for 2018 http://en.moe.gov.cn/documents/reports/201904/t20190418_378692.html (accessed December 20, 2019). National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) (n.d.). What is Campus Asia? http:// www.grips.ac.jp/campusasia/en/about/ (accessed December 20, 2019). Ota, N. (2012). Wakon-Yosai ઼兲⌻᡽ and globalization. In Holroyd C., and Coates, K. (eds), Japan in the Age of Globalization. London: Routledge, pp. 148–157. SEAMEO RIHED (n.d.). China–ASEAN Scholar Program. https://rIHEd.seameo.org/ china-asean-scholar-program/ (accessed January 2, 2020). Seoul National University (SNU) (n.d.). Campus Asia Program. https://gsis.snu.ac.kr/campus_ asia_program (accessed December 22, 2019). South China Morning Post (SCMP) (2018a). China’s brain drain ending thanks to salaries and Trump. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2163001/chinas-brain-drain-usending-thanks-higher-salaries-and-donald (accessed January 3, 2020). South China Morning Post [SCMP] (2018b). Why China’s overseas students find things aren’t always better back home. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2162229/ why-chinas-overseas-students-find-things-arent-always-better-back (accessed January 2, 2020). South China Morning Post (SCMP) (2019). In South Korea, Chinese and Korean students are clashing over Hong Kong protests. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/ article/3038795/south-korea-chinese-and-korean-students-are-clashing-over-hong (accessed December 20, 2019). Study Malaysia (2018). Study info and guide. Foreign university branch campus. https://www. studymalaysia.com/education/top-stories/foreign-university-branch-campus-your-route-togetting-a-foreign-degree-right-here-in-malaysia (accessed December 20, 2019). SungKyunKwan University (SKKU) (n.d.). Campus Asia. https://www.skku.edu/eng/ International/InternationalPrograms/CampusAsia.do (accessed December 20, 2019). Teo, S. (2019). Can Australia be one of us? The view from Asia. Australian Foreign Affairs, 5: 77–93. Thomson, Incites 2012. http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/incites/ (accessed December 22, 2019). Times Higher Education (2019). Reading “ignored warning signals” over Malaysia Branch Campus. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/reading-ignored-warning-signalsover-malaysia-branch-campus Tucker, J. (2018). “Japanese Confucian Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-confucian/ (accessed December 21, 2019).

158

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

UNESCO (2010). Science Report 2010. Paris: UNESCO. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/ files/documents/unesco-science-report-2010-the-current-status-of-science-around-the-worlden.pdf (accessed December 20, 2019).. University World News (2013). Can CAMPUS Asia bring a closer East Asia? https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20131125231328776 (accessed December 20, 2019). Walker, D. (2019). “Significant Other”: Anxieties about Australia’s Asian Future. Australian Foreign Affairs, 5: 15–28. Wan, C-d., and Abdullah, D. (2019). Internationalization of Malaysian Higher Education. Policies and Practices for Future Development. UNESCO Forum on Internationalization of Higher Education, Bangkok, November. Wan, C-d., and Sirat, M. (2018). Internationalization of the Malaysian higher education system through the prism of south-south cooperation. International Journal of African Higher Education, 4(2): 79–90. Welch, A. (2008). Myths and modes of mobility. The changing face of academic mobility in the global era. In Byram, M., and Dervin, F. (eds), Students, Staff and Academic Mobility in Higher Education. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 292–311. Welch, A. (2010). The internationalization of Vietnamese higher education. In Harman, G., Hayden, M., and Van Nghi, P. (eds), Reforming Vietnamese Higher Education. London: Springer. Welch, A. (2011). The dragon, the tiger cubs and higher education. Competitive and cooperative China-ASEAN relations. In Jarvis, D., and Welch, A. (eds), ASEAN Industries and the Challenge from China. London: Palgrave, pp. 39–122. Welch, A. (2012). Locating Indonesia within the emergent regionalism of southeast Asian higher education. In Hawkins, J., Mok, K., and Neubauer, D. (eds), Higher Education Regionalization in Asia Pacific: Implications for Governance, Citizenship and University Transformation. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 91–115. Welch, A. (2014). Richer relations? Evolving ASEAN-Australia relations in higher education. Towards a regional knowledge network? In He, B., and Woods S. (eds), The AustraliaASEAN Dialogue. Tracing 40 Years of Partnership. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 145– 166. Welch, A. (2016). Irregular regionalism? China’s borderlands and ASEAN higher education: trapped in the prism. In Robertson, S., Olds, K., Dale, R., and Dang, Q-a. (eds), Global Regionalisms and Higher Education: Projects, Processes, Politics. Cheltenham, UK : Edward Elgar, pp. 166–190. Welch, A. (2018). China’s southern borderlands and ASEAN higher education: A cartography of connectivity. In Meusburger, P., Heffernan, M., and Suarsana, L. (eds), Geographies of the University. Cham: Springer, pp. 567–602. Welch, A. (2019). Higher education in Asia. In Rury, J., and Tamura, E. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 302–315. Welch, A., and Cai, H. (2011). Enter the Dragon: the internationalization of China’s higher education system. In Ryan, J. (ed.), China’s Higher Education Reform and Internationalization. London: Routledge, pp. 9–33. Welch, A., and Hao, J. (2013). Returnees and diaspora as source of innovation in chinese higher education. Frontiers of Education in China, 8(2): 214–238. Welch, A., and Postiglione, G. (2020). Silk Road South. China–Malaysia collaboration in higher education. In van de Wende, M. et al. (eds), The New Silk Road. Connecting Universities between China and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CONCLUSION

159

Welch, A., and Zhang, Z. (2008). Higher education and global talent flows: Brain drain, overseas Chinese intellectuals, and diasporic knowledge networks. Higher Education Policy, 21(4): 519–537. Wen, W. (2016) China’s approach to HE regional cooperation with ASEAN . In Collins, C., Lee, M., Hawkins, J., and Neubauer, D. (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Asian Higher Education. New York/London: Palgrave, pp. 173–182. Xiamen University Malaysia (XMUM) (n.d.). Xiamen University Malaysia. http://www.xmu. edu.my/14674/list.htm (accessed December 22, 2019). Yang, R. (2012). Internationalization, regionalization and soft power. China’s relations with ASEAN member countries in higher education. Frontiers of Chinese Education, 7(4): 486–507. Yang, R., and Welch, A. (2010). Globalisation, transnational academic mobility and the Chinese knowledge diaspora: An Australian case study. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(5): 593–607. Zhejiang University (2018). Zhejiang University Academic Report 2018. Hangzhou, Zhejiang University.

160

SECTION II

Latin America and the Caribbean

161

162

CHAPTER TWELVE

Introduction Higher Education, Internationalization, and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean JOCELYNE GACEL- Á VILA

LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT AND CHALLENGES Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) represents 7.2 percent of the global economy with 8.4 percent (648 million inhabitants) of the world population (United Nations, 2019). In terms of economic growth, after several years (2004–2007) of having an average annual growth rate of 5.1 percent, due to a boom in commodity prices, it began to decrease to below 1 percent (0.84 percent) in 2013–2017 (CEPAL, 2019). By 2018, the regional gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was $16,602 PPP (purchasing power parity) dollars, far below that of the OECD countries of $45,935 PPP, but close to the world average of $17,971 PPP. In terms of national income, LAC countries are somewhere between the Upper Middle Income countries ($19,020 PPP) and the Middle Income countries ($12,966 PPP) (The World Bank, 2019). The main cause of this regional economic weakness is due to several reasons, such as a heavy dependence on the foreign commodity market; lack of an adequate integration to global value chains; low and stagnant labor productivity,1 as well as weak institutions. As far as social inclusion is concerned, despite the fact that poverty decreased significantly during the last decade from 45 percent to 30 percent of its population (OECD, ECLAC, 2019),2 around 40 percent of the population are now at risk of falling back into poverty due to casual jobs and poor social protection. On the matter of equity, LAC has been coined “the most unequal region of the world” (Bárcenas, 2016) due to its high inequality indicators. These economic and social obstacles impinge on the region’s competitiveness, shown by its low competitiveness ranking (57th) below the median global score (60th) (World Economic Forum, 2018). Likewise, LAC countries rank low in the World Competitiveness Index, with Mexico in 46th place, Uruguay 53rd, Costa Rica 55th, Peru 66th, Brazil 72nd, Argentina 81st; except for Chile in 33rd place (World Economic Forum, 2018).

LAC has only 40 percent of the labor productivity of the European Union (OECD, ECLAC, 2019). Mexico is an exception with a poverty rate of 52 percent by 2019.

1 2

163

164

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Additionally, the regional index in the Human Development Index (0.758) is below the OECD average (0.895) (UNDP, 2018). In addition to these economic and social issues, LAC is facing external challenges, as are other regions, such as a complex and volatile global scenario for the forthcoming years, characterized by escalating trade tensions, global financial tightening, growing national inequalities, and the surge of political populism, among other trends (OECD, ECLAC, 2019), (Marginson, 2018). For these reasons, the OECD recommendation for LAC is to strengthen international cooperation as a key strategy for development, in addition to implementing public policies to reinforce education and skills, innovation, productivity, and social inclusion (OECD, ECLAC, 2019).

Higher Education Context One of the major trends in higher education worldwide has been the rise of students’ access with an increase of the World Gross Tertiary Enrolment Ratio (GTER) from 15.6 percent in 1995 to 37.88 percent by 2017 (UNESCO, 2019). In this respect, the most positive feature of the LAC higher education sector has been its massive expansion, in the last two decades, in response to its demographic growth and the increase of population numbers living in cities. The region’s GTER has grown from 20 percent in 2000 to 51 percent in 2017, above world average. In this respect, Argentina (89 percent), Chile (91 percent), and Uruguay (62 percent) have GTERs in line with most OECD countries, except Mexico with a GTER of 38 percent. The private sector has played a significant role in this expansion, since it currently absorbs 54 percent of the higher education (HE) enrollment (Brunner and Miranda, 2016; Ferreira, Ciro, Botero, Haimovich, and Urzúa, 2017). Nevertheless, there is still a deep gap in access for economically disadvantaged sectors: with a bare increase from 4 percent in 2000 to 6 percent in 2013 for HE students from the lowest income quintile (Ferreira et al., 2017). In 2016, only 3.6 percent of this quintile concluded HE against 41.7 percent of the high-income quintile (ECLAC, 2019). In conclusion, when compared with other regions, LAC has shown mediocre progress in reducing inequality in access to HE. There are also concerns and challenges in terms of quality, relevance, financing, efficiency, and program diversity. In terms of public and private expenses for higher education, LAC countries spend on average 1.38 percent of their Gross National Product (GNP) (Ferreira et al., 2017), below the 2.4 percent of Korea, the 1.8 percent of the United Kingdom, and the 1.6 percent of the OECD average (OECD, 2019). Chile is the country with the highest HE expense (2.5 percent) in the region (1.35 percent and 1.18 percent from the public and private sectors), followed by Brazil (2.4 percent) (RICYT, 2019; UNESCO, 2019). The other significant challenge is the high dropout rates in undergraduate programs. The completion rate in most LAC countries is on average 46 percent, with a 22 percent dropout rate. The remaining 32 percent of students are enrolled in coursework but do not graduate on time. Furthermore, LAC students spend 36 percent more time than required to complete their degree (Ferreira et al., 2017). This situation is mostly due to the enrollment of part-time students, and to a traditional curriculum of a five-year duration plus a lengthy thesis. There is also a low enrollment rate at postgraduate level, with 4.9 percent at master’s level and 0.81 percent for PhD studies (UNESCO, 2019). Enrollment is also unbalanced: very high in some areas and insufficient in others, with 40 percent of

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

165

the students in the areas of social science, administration, business and law, in contrast with only 16 percent in scientific disciplines and technological professions (UNESCO, 2019). Additionally, there is a very low number of faculty with doctoral studies: in Chile 10.94 percent, Peru 7.9 percent, Cuba 7.44 percent, and Colombia 7.09 percent, with Brazil as the exception with 41.6 percent (Red Indices, 2019). A further concern is to match the skills demanded from the labor market with the graduates’ profiles, with 36 percent of firms suffering a major constrain on their operation due to an inadequately educated workforce; in sharp contrast to a 21 percent world average and 14.8 percent for the OECD. The closest region to LAC in this respect is SubSaharan Africa (22.3 percent) (OECD, CAF, ECLAC, 2015). From a comparative perspective, in absolute terms, and in proportion to GDP, LAC devotes only 0.69 percent to research and development activities, compared with 2.41 percent in North America and Western Europa. In respect to world knowledge production, LAC contribution in the last two decades was around 4 percent (Santelices, 2010; RICYT, 2019); with 74 percent of the researchers working in HE; 14.5 percent in public or private companies; 11 percent in governmental institutions; and 0.83 percent in private non-profit organizations (RICYT, 2019). Only 43.3 percent of researchers in Chile hold a PhD degree; 38 percent in Brazil, and 34 percent in Argentina. In 2018, LAC has only ten research universities among the top 500 research universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities, which are located in four countries: Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Mexico (Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2018). Additionally, the sector has a limited internationalization with respect to important structural factors that hinder HE development, such as financing, governance, institutional management, high professionalization, and lack of flexibility of the curriculum, as Marmolejo (2018: 54) points out: Without establishing a causal relationship, there is no doubt that the specific characteristics of LAC are directly linked to the current level of the internationalization of higher education. In a system with relevant entanglements between its different components, tertiary education in LAC requires a more effective insertion in the international context. Its performance needs to be submitted to periodic comparison by relevant international peers and, the analysis of its strengths and weaknesses be analyzed from an international perspective in order to act in a more effective way at a system level. In this context, internationalization reaffirms its importance as a transversal axis for the improvement of higher education.

THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Significance and Relevance of Internationalization The 2018 UNESCO Regional Conference re-affirms the principles of higher education as a public good and knowledge production as a social good at the service of humanity. Internationalization is seen as a process rooted in humanism and solidarity, contributing to a better understanding and cooperation between cultures and nations, in order to foster inter-institutional collaboration based on relationships among equals, mutual respect and a win-win situation for all partners. A mercantilist internationalization favoring the hegemonic and denationalizing values of globalization is strongly rejected.

166

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Nowadays, higher education has to transform itself, in order to make its function more relevant to social needs and to enhance the quality of teaching and research to acceptable international levels. This requires state policies and long-term strategies that go beyond the temporal scope of governments. This implies: a wide internationalization of academic programs; mobility of faculty and students; international recognition and accreditation of courses and degrees; a model of internationalization based on solidarity and horizontal cooperation, intercultural dialogue, respect for the idiosyncrasy and identity of all countries and partners; the promotion of interinstitutional projects and university networks; the integration of academic spaces, and the strengthening of national knowledge capacity.

THE MAIN TRENDS OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROCESS While some national reports have been written on the internationalization trends in the different LAC countries, the studies on the region as a whole are very few. Of these, the most important have been the publication of the World Bank (WB) (de Wit, Jaramillo, Gacel-Ávila, and Knight, 2005) and the different editions of the Global Survey on Internationalization Trends of the International Association of Universities (IAU) (Knight, 2003; 2006; Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2010; 2014). A recent study, named the “Regional Survey on Internationalization Trends in LAC,” carried out by the UNESCO Observatory on Internationalization and Networks (OBIRET)3 is the first of its kind, and has been designed for the specific context of the region as a whole (Gacel-Ávila and RodríguezRodríguez, 2018). Its main purpose was to get a detailed panorama of the different characteristics of the internationalization process in the region ten years after the aforementioned WB study, as well as to make a comparison with the global trends reported in the IAU Global Survey. The following section will depict the main findings of the mentioned OBIRET Survey.

Benefits, Risks, and Obstacles of Internationalization The main benefits of internationalization for LAC HEIs are: “Developing students’ international profile”; “Improving the academic quality of educational programs”; “Strengthening the internationalization of curriculum”; “Improving research and knowledge production”; and “Increasing the institution’s international prestige/profile.” The main risks of internationalization for institutions are: “International opportunities only favour affluent students”; “The inequality in benefits in collaborative relations”; “Unequal benefits between partners”; “The prevalence of the center-periphery paradigm”; “Excessive competition among institutions”; and “Overemphasis on internationalization at the expense of other institutional priorities.” In terms of the main risks of internationalization for the countries, “Brain drain” was ranked first, in contrast with the global ranking that put it fifth, while putting first “The commercialization of education” (third for LAC); followed by “Increase in inequality among TEIs of the same country”; “Increase in social inequality”; and “Loss of cultural identity.”

Based at the University of Guadalajara and la Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (BUAP), Mexico.

3

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

167

The main external factors that foster internationalization are: “Government policy”; “Regional policies”; “Availability of international cooperation”; “Search for alternative resources of funding”; “Productive sector demand”; and “Global university rankings.” It is worth pointing out that the region ranked “Productive sector demand” in fifth place, in contrast with the global average, which put it in second place. The main internal obstacles to internationalization are: “Insufficient funding”; “Lack of language proficiency on the part of students and academics” (ranked higher than in other regions); “Administrative and bureaucratic difficulties”; “Lack of information about international opportunities”; and “Lack of strategy or plan to guide the process.” The main reported external obstacles to internationalization are: “Limited public funding for internationalization”; “Lack of national policies and programs to support internationalization”; “Difficulties in recognizing studies and transferring academic credits”; “Visa restrictions imposed by other countries on our students and academics”; and “Visa restrictions imposed by our country on foreign students and academics.” In comparison with the global findings, LAC gives greater weight to the lack of national policies and public funding.

Organizational Structures Internationalization is a key strategy mentioned in the institutional development plan (IDP) of 83 percent of LAC HEIs, with 53 percent considering it “very important” in contrast with 69 percent worldwide. Having a specific institutional plan for internationalization is reported by 47 percent; having it in development stages is reported by 38 percent, and 15 percent report having no plan, in contrast with 53 percent, 22 percent, and 8 percent respectively at the global level (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014). Only 12 percent report having a plan for internationalization at the level of academic units (19 percent in the private sector and 7 percent in the public sector). Having a budget for internationalization activities is reported by 80 percent, with the main sources being: institutional budget; funding from public institutions; and funding from international or private organizations. The private sector stands out for being more active in procuring external funding. With regard to human resource policy, to hire, promote, and renew the contracts of academic personnel, only 56 percent of the HEIs report considering international experience; 61 percent of them do not even offer a program for international sabbaticals. Only 60 percent report having registered the academics who have obtained a degree abroad. In conclusion, 42 percent of the institutions that include internationalization in their IDP, and 38 percent of those reporting that their authorities consider “internationalization as a very important priority,” have not established a human resource policy that fosters the international profile of their academics, which is a crucial factor in the consolidation of an internationalization process. HEIs should take advantage of their own internationalized human resources for the consolidation of the institutional process of internationalization. Only 29 percent of the HEIs have a quality assurance, evaluation, and monitoring system ad hoc to their internationalization process; with 36 percent having it in development stages, while 32 percent have none, which strongly contrasts with the 67 percent at a global level (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2014). In conclusion, 83 percent of the HEIs stating they have an internationalization policy do not link it to an evaluation and quality assurance procedure; 86 percent report having an internationalization office (IO), of which 31 percent are on the highest tier within the institutional hierarchy, as opposed to 60 percent worldwide (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2010). Consequently, most

168

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

IOs in LAC (52 percent) are on the second tier, and 16 percent on the third. Over half of the institutions (54 percent) indicate that they have not set up management and follow-up structures at the level of academic units. Only 26 percent indicate that they have people in charge of internationalization activities in all of their academic units, and 19 percent have them in just some of their units. Having a staff of between one and five people is reported by 72 percent of IOs. With regard to the profile of the heads of IOs, a majority (60 percent) are women with graduate studies (45 percent with master’s degrees), with more PhDs in the public sector (39 percent) than in the private sector (21 percent). In the public sector, the proportion of men and women is 53 percent and 47 percent respectively; while in the private sector, the proportion is 70 percent and 30 percent respectively. With regard to the seniority of the heads of IOs, 36 percent have held the position for only one or two years; 29 percent for four to ten years; and 18 percent for two to four years. Thus, the average seniority in the region is 5.6 years, and is higher in the private sector (6.8 years) compared with 4.4 years in the public sector. Turnover in IOs is very high, especially in the public sector, which raises concerns, as the lack of professionalization in IOs undermines viability and efficiency in conducting internationalization activities. In the private sector, IO heads tend to hold their position longer (average of seven years), which suggests more professionalized management than in the public sector. With regard to financial resources, only 20 percent have a budget, while 26 percent report none. Only 33 percent obtain funding from alternative sources (54 percent in the private sector against 19 percent in the public sector). Even though external communication with potential partners and internal communication with the members of the university community constitute a basic and fundamental tool for ensuring a proactive and comprehensive internationalization process, only half of the HEIs have a website to promote their internationalization process, with over 40 percent of them having none. Additionally, of the websites that exist for this purpose, most are available only in the local language, with a small percentage in English. And even though participating in international education events is highly beneficial for the internationalization process, international visibility, contacts with potential partners, and the updating of staff, most IOs (59 percent) do not participate in any international education events.

Program Structures International Office’s Main Activities These are: student mobility, academic mobility, and participation in cooperation projects, with a low level of involvement observed for curricular internationalization, as well as little initiative for fund raising and recruitment of international students. Academic Collaboration Agreements The top priority regions for collaboration are: Western Europe, LAC and North America, followed by Asia and Eastern Europe. Within the region, the Southern Cone countries, mainly Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, are the most popular destinations. The greatest number of agreements are signed with HEIs from LAC itself, followed by: Western Europe, North America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Oceania. The regions with the fewest agreements are Africa and the Middle East. With regard to intraregional collaboration, the countries with the greater number of agreements are Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, and Brazil.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

169

Faculty Mobility Financial support is offered by 62 percent of the HEIs for the outgoing mobility of their faculty, which means that 34 percent of the HEIs promoting internationalization as a key strategy for institutional development do not offer any financial support for that purpose. The preferred destinations for academics are: The United States, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, France, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Portugal, and Germany. In terms of inbound mobility, the countries of origin of the foreign academics are: Spain, the United States, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, France, Chile, Germany, and Portugal. Outbound Student Mobility At a global level, from 2012 to 2017, the percentage of mobile students increased from 2.05 percent to 2.3 percent. Nevertheless, the increase in LAC has been much smaller: from 1.09 percent to 1.14 percent. LAC is the second region in the world where mobility growth has been the lowest, far from the increases experienced by the countries of Central Asia where the volume has almost doubled, or Southeast Asia where it has grown more than a third (IESALC, UNESCO, 2019). According to an OBIRET Survey, 70 percent of the outbound students are enrolled in undergraduate programs, followed by 17 percent in university upper technical degree programs, 8 percent in master’s, and 5 percent in PhD. With regard to the total enrollment reported in the OBIRET Survey (2014– 2015 academic year), only 0.3 percent of LAC students was engaged in academic mobility at the undergraduate level, and 0.03 percent for postgraduate students. The students’ preferred destinations are: Western Europe, LAC itself, North America, and Eastern Europe. The main countries of destination are: Spain, the United States, Argentina, France, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Germany, Canada, and Colombia. These data are confirmed by the recent IESALC study (2019), which reports that the preferred international destinations for LAC students in 2017 were: 54 percent United States and Europe, 38 percent LAC, and 8 percent other. Of the HEIs, 62 percent offer financial support for student mobility (6 percent grants full support; 43 percent partial support; and 13 percent offer both types). According to Altbach and Engberg (2014), the majority of students who move abroad fully assume the expenses of their education by providing huge sums of money to the main recipient countries and their universities. In Mexico, for example, 48 percent of international student mobility is financed by families (Maldonado, Cortés, and Ibarra, 2016). The main obstacle to student mobility falls under the category of “Lack of language proficiency among students”; followed by “Administrative or bureaucratic difficulties”; “Students’ family and/or job commitments”; “Low level of interest or participation among students” and “Curricular inflexibility.” Inbound Student Mobility LAC is one of the least attractive international destinations, hosting only 3.5 percent of international students. Of the inbound students, 69 percent are enrolled in undergraduate programs, while 14 percent are in university upper technical degree programs, 12 percent in master’s, and 5 percent in PhD programs. They come first from LAC itself, followed by Western Europe, North America, and Eastern Europe. With regard to the countries, inbound exchange students come from: Spain, Mexico, Colombia, the United States, Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru. According to IESALC (2019), the origin of international students in LAC in 2017 was: 12 percent United States and Europe; 69 percent LAC; and 19 percent Other. In terms of intraregional mobility, most inbound mobility comes from Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. LAC is the third region in which intra-regional mobility is, in terms of

170

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

percentage, higher, after North America and Western Europe, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe (42 percent). In all other world regions, intraregional mobility represents one third of the total. Globally, intraregional mobility has been reduced by almost 9 percent in favor of interregional mobility, which seems to be a continuing sustained trend. However, LAC is an exception to this global trend, since its intraregional mobility has continued to grow (IESALC, 2019). In sum, the great majority of exchange students, both inbound and outbound, are enrolled in undergraduate programs. A characteristic of the region is that it sends more students than it receives. There is a difference between sectors: while the private sector has achieved a certain balance between outbound and inbound students, the public sector has not, sending more students than it receives. According IESALC (2019), a mobility deficit indicates that the higher education systems are not attractive enough for international students for different reasons (academic, economic, or social) and that, for the same reason, national and regional students have to study abroad. In the case of Mexico, this deficit is of 20 percent; while Brazil sends 2.5 times more students abroad than it receives; Chile almost three times more and Colombia eight times more. The deficit for the region is estimated of ten to one, meaning that at least ten LAC students go abroad for receiving one foreign student. There are three exceptions to this pattern: Argentina, Dominican Republic, and Costa Rica. In these three cases, there are more ingoing than outgoing students. The countries with the greatest number of outgoing students are, in this order, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru (IESALC, 2019). With the exception of Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, in terms of academic mobility, the Caribbean island states are configured as a group with a differential dynamic with respect to the rest of the region. Its peculiar geographical and linguistic characteristics explain it, but its offer is also decisive, which, due to its close ties to the United States, makes some of these countries more attractive destinations internationally compared with the rest of Latin America. According to this study, if we compare this group of Caribbean island countries with the countries of Latin America, three fundamental features stand out: a limited offer of higher education that encourages the transfer of students abroad; its configuration as an internationally attractive destination for higher education students; and, finally, the low mobility existing between these same countries and the practically nonexistent link with respect to Latin America (IESALC, 2019). The Internationalization of the Curriculum Of the HEIs, 51 percent declare they do not have any policy for the internationalization of curriculum. The most frequent activities carried out are the traditional ones like: “Outgoing student mobility” (87 percent); “Inbound student mobility” (75 percent); and “Inviting foreign professors to engage in academic activities at the institution” (73 percent); 72 percent do not offer massive open online course (MOOCs), and 82 percent no virtual mobility program. The main reported obstacles are: administrative or bureaucratic difficulties, like credit transfer, differences in academic calendars, inflexible institutional regulations, and lack of institutional policies; 39 percent report offering international joint and/or dual degree programs; with a majority of dual-degree programs (34 percent), against 14 percent for joint degrees. A breakdown by sector shows that the private sector is more active (47 percent) than the public sector (34 percent). Compared with the results of the 2014 IAU survey, which reported a world average of 41 percent for joint degrees and 44 percent for dual degrees, LAC lags behind in this regard, and has shown no progress in recent years.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

171

Of the joint degree programs, 47 percent of are offered at undergraduate level, followed by master’s degrees (26 percent) and PhDs (23 percent). In the case of dual degrees, 37 percent are offered at undergraduate level, followed by 33 percent for master’s, and 22 percent for PhDs. For university upper technical degrees, the majority are double degrees and offered by public institutions. For undergraduate and master’s degrees, most programs are double degrees offered by the private sector. Most collaborative PhD programs, both joint and double degrees, are offered by public institutions. The greatest number of institutions offering collaborative programs are in: Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Chile. The Dominican Republic and Peru also stand out for their relatively high number of institutions offering this type of program. Mexico leads the list in the number of programs offered, followed by Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina. The countries that collaborate the most with LAC in joint degree programs are: Spain, France, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Portugal, Germany, and Italy. In the case of dual-degree programs, LAC’s major partners are: France, Spain, Italy, the United States, and Germany. The greatest number of joint and dual-degree programs at LAC institutions are offered in the fields of Social Science and Engineering and Technology.º The field of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences has the fewest collaborative programs in the region, in both modalities. Institutional Language Teaching Policy Of the participating institutions, 79 percent report having an institutional language teaching policy in place, with 41 percent having proficiency in a foreign language as an admission and/or graduation requirement for all their academic programs. In recent years, significant efforts towards the improvement of the level and quality of foreign language teaching are reported. However, this area still persists as one of the categories in which the region lags behind. According to the Interamerican Dialogue Education Program: “the region lacks developed national policies for language learning. This combined with the general low level of teachers, does not help to improve the levels of bilingualism, despite the efforts that have been made in the region for several decades” (El Espectador, 2017). Furthermore, a report released by the Centre for Analysis of the Inter-American Dialogue reports that LAC is 3.8 points below other world regions in the English Knowledge Index of the Education First Institute (EF), although the “new generations are demonstrating a higher level.” The aforementioned study indicates that the lack of English limits employment opportunities in the region and their competitiveness, in addition to their ability to attract foreign investment (El Espectador, 2017). Consequently, more than in any other region, language proficiency constitutes one of the biggest limitations to the consolidation of internationalization and to the graduates’ international profile, which without a doubt hobbles the region in terms of competitiveness at the global scale. A solution to this problem calls for, on the one hand, wider-ranging public policies, and on the other, a good quality instruction starting at the basic levels of the educational system. To achieve this, the ministries of education of the entire region must expand their foreign language teaching programs and improve the quality of their teachers, programs, and methods. The disciplinary or professional areas of joint and dual-degree programs have been classified according to the latest edition of the Frascati Manual of the OECD, which includes six areas of knowledge (OECD, 2015). As in the manual, this chapter capitalizes the words representing these OECD disciplinary areas.

4

172

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The Training of Graduates with Global Citizenship Skills Another point of concern is what Madera (2018) points out as essential for the region, which is to train citizens to be able to act with relevance in complex scenarios and effectively insert themselves into global dynamics based on knowledge. Educational systems need reconfiguration to be more inclusive, to improve quality, and to train graduates able to interpret the world stage, its trends and requirements, as well as to address new educational needs for sustainable development. This implies paradigmatic transformations in educational models, in articulation with local-regional-global dynamics, in educational institutions and their main functions, and in the profile of academics. This implies a deep transformation of the traditional ways in which teachers are trained, as education has become a global profession, which requires highly competent educators who are knowledge managers with technological skills and a vocation for cooperation; who are creative and innovative leaders with a prospective vision, committed to their local reality and who are able to interpret a changing world; who would be motivating professionals, capable of promoting meaningful learning in their students and accompanying them to critically and proactively build their life projects in a plural and complex scenario (Imbernón, 2005; Reimers, 2009; cited by Madera, 2018: 96). Unfortunately, there is common agreement among experts and education stakeholders that LAC education is failing in this respect. Poor teaching standards; ineffective pedagogical practices; a weak use of information and communication technologies, among others, are constantly reported in the Region (Burns and Luque, 2014; cited in Madera, 2018: 92). Therefore, according to Madera (2018), it is crucial for LAC to design academic policies, strategies, and programs that promote innovative teacher training oriented towards national development, that consider global trends and that integrate international best practices. Teacher educators need to adopt a global perspective, assume international standards, modernize instructional processes, and broaden the perspectives of students. Internationalization of Research and Knowledge Production Although the internationalization of research is on the agenda of all countries, from an integral perspective, there are no explicit policies for its promotion. In general, traditional international cooperation activities continue to be managed through ministries, councils, and institutions, which are usually insufficiently articulated with the units responsible for the design and implementation of the scientific policies either at national or institutional levels (Sebastián and Barrere, 2018: 145). The scientific production of LAC amounted, in 2014, to 117,996 publications indexed in Scopus, which represents 4.15 percent of the world production of this database. The radiography of the internationalization of research in LAC shows an intensity that can be considered moderate and heterogeneous in all countries, with some islands of greater intensity in countries with a higher level of research development, like Brazil, Mexico, and Chile. Internationalization processes have generally followed induced dynamics, more by the scientific communities themselves, than by explicit policies to promote internationalization. Internationalization has sometimes been accelerated by initiatives outside the Region, like the European Union (Sebastián and Barrere, 2018: 149). According to the same authors, a good part of the LAC scientific communities was generated from training experiences abroad, and the influence of external environments historically marked the orientation of fields and lines of research. To pursue doctoral studies in a foreign country has been a generalized scheme based on the fact that the

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

173

supply of national programs is insufficient, of poor quality, or, simply, because there is a lack of a doctoral offer. As long as LAC countries have been acquiring capabilities, training abroad has become less dependent. Although the offer of doctoral study programs is still limited in more than half of the LAC countries, some have implemented in the last few decades public policies to promote studying abroad as a way to accelerate the capacity building and diversify the thematic specialization of national scientific communities. Considering the current scenario of the region, qualitative changes in internationalization processes are not envisioned, and a continuity of the current pattern is expected. An increase in internationalization of research requires its incorporation as an objective in national scientific policies as a tool to improve the quality, relevance, productivity, and visibility of research. According to the OBIRET Survey, 56 percent of the HEIs do not have in place an institutional program to promote collaboration in research projects. The main obstacles to the internationalization of research reported are, in order of importance: “Lack of funding”; “Administrative or bureaucratic difficulties”; “Little experience and knowledge, or low international profile of academics”; “Lack of language proficiency on the part of academics”; and “Low level of interest or training of academic personnel.” Of the institutions, 65 percent report a program to promote the publication of scientific articles in indexed journals. In terms of patents obtained, 86 percent report not knowing the information or not having international patents. Only 4 percent report having at least one international patent in the last five years, while 6 percent report between two and nine international patents.

PUBLIC POLICIES TO FOSTER THE INTERNATIONALIZATION PROCESS IN LAC Like the World Bank report in 2005 (de Wit et al., 2005) the participating HEIs in the OBIRET Survey urge LAC governments to make a stronger commitment to the internationalization of the sector and promote more energetically national policies that provide the framework to make more efficient institutional processes. The great majority of institutions report that governmental programs lack continuity and do not provide sufficient financial support. There is an urgent need for more and wider public policies and regulatory frameworks for the promotion of student and faculty mobility, research collaboration, program quality assurance, and recognition of international degrees. A study conducted in 2016 by the British Council (BC) in twenty-six countries of different regions of the world showed that the four participating countries from LAC: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, are among the ones that obtained the lowest scores, along with Ethiopia, Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, in terms of governmental policies promoting internationalization. In contrast, other emerging countries such as Malaysia, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Vietnam obtained the highest scores (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). With regard to openness and international mobility, the level of government support provided in Brazil reached the score of “high,” while Chile and Colombia reported “low” and Mexico “very low” (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). For quality assurance of academic programs and recognition of international qualifications: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico reached a score of “very low,” positioning themselves in last place (Ilieva and Peak, 2016).

174

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In 2019, the BC made a new study to assess policy environment for international higher education (Usher, Ilieva, Killingley, and Tsiligiris, 2019), with twenty countries from different regions, including the same four Latin American countries. The study pointed out that national strategies for international higher education in LAC are notable mostly for their absence, or for being relatively weak on substance. According to the study, the government of Colombia does not have an internationalization strategy, though its accreditation council does (it deals mostly with improving quality assurance so Colombian institutions can be attractive to international partners). The Brazilian and Mexican governments do not have independent internationalization strategies, though internationalization does rate at least a passing mention in their most recent sectorial strategic plans. The Chilean government does not have an internationalization strategy either, though it does contribute funds to institutional internationalization plans and also contributes to LearnChile, which is a joint effort of several universities to raise the country’s profile as an education destination, but is not a “national strategy” per se (Usher et al., 2019). Regarding comprehensive international education strategies, from 1 (highest) to 0 (lowest) criteria: Brazil reaches 0.6, Chile and Colombia 0.6 and Mexico 0.3; while the UK, Netherlands, Germany, and France obtained the score of 1 (Usher et al., 2019). Regarding research collaboration, the BC points out that research expenditures are very low in the four Latin American countries and, consequently, the amounts devoted to international collaboration are also very small (Usher et al., 2019). In regard to funding for academic and research collaborations: Brazil got 0.6, Chile 0.1, Colombia 0.6, and Mexico 0 (Usher et al., 2019), although a specific analysis of Scopus data shows that there is a strong positive relationship between international research collaborations and the quality of the research produced, in terms of field weighted citation impact (FWCI). The more international the research, the higher its impact citation and, therefore, its quality (BC analysis. Scopus/Scval) (Usher et al., 2019). Globally, the BC study finds that the countries identified as having the most supportive “funding for academic mobility and global research” are: Australia, Germany, and Ireland, while the less supportive countries are: Mexico, Chile, and Russia. According to the BC, countries that attract a substantial proportion of international students (more than eight international students for every 100 students) have a combination of a developed international education strategy and robust funding for tertiary education (Usher et al., 2019). Furthermore, the study points out that there is clear evidence that government expenditure on tertiary education, as a percentage of GDP, and the concurrent existence of a well-developed international education strategy, is linked with higher ratios of inbound mobility (Usher et al., 2019). Therefore, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico are reported as zero net education exporters in IHE terms. In all four cases, the number of outbound students exceeds the number of inbound students by a factor of at least two to one (Usher et al., 2019). Quality assurance of students’ enrollment, and maintenance of standards of education provision, are best developed in countries with an established track record for hosting international students. On this point, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico scored 0 out of 10; Colombia 0.2; India 0.2; United States 0.6; Canada 0.5; France 0.5; and UK 0.8 (Usher et al., 2019). For “Recognition of foreign qualifications” and “Program and provider mobility”: Colombia and Mexico obtained 0.3; Brazil 0.4, and Chile 0.7 out of 10. The BC study points out that Latin American countries’ ability to attract foreign students is diminished both by the lack of “prestige” institutions and by the fact that very few courses are available in English (Usher et al., 2019).

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

175

The British Council’s final conclusions are that the low scores obtained by Latin America in different aspects concerning internationalization, mostly reflect the fact that these countries are still developing their HE systems and are less focused on internationalization as a policy issue. Consequently, it is a lower-priority policy area than in developed countries. Many LAC institutions declare that they would like to invest more in research and international collaboration, but they do not do so because it is not a national priority and monetary resources are scarce (Usher et al., 2019).

LAC ACADEMIC INTEGRATION: A GOAL IN COMMON? ENLACES 5 The general statement of the 2008 UNESCO Regional Conference on Higher Education (CRES) stated that “Latin American and Caribbean academic integration is an urgent and necessary task for the future of the region,” stressing that it needs its own regional approach (IESALC, 2008: 24). As a result, there was the creation of ENLACES, conceived as a regional platform for integration in higher education, under the coordination of IESALC. Ten years later, no solid and permanent governance scheme has been achieved and the question of membership has been left unsolved; that is, whether it will be acquired on an institutional basis or through national networks and councils (Thelier and Rodríguez, 2018). Nevertheless, it is a fact that the ideals of integration find very important rhetorical support among LAC higher education leaders, who often express their highest interest in promoting intra-regional cooperation, based on solidarity.

Main Intra-regional Initiatives In the absence of an integration initiative from governments of the region, the main promoters of intra-regional programs have been some university associations like the Asociación de Universidades Grupo Montevideo (AUGM); Unión de Universidades de América Latina y el Caribe (UDUAL); Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior (ANUIES); Asociación Colombiana de Universidades (ASCUN); Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo (CINDA), to name just a few. Their main programs are: the Degree Student Scale Program of AUGM (2001); the Student Mobility Program of the Interuniversity Development Centre (REDCINDA) (2003); the UDUAL Academic Mobility Academic Program (PAME) (2006), the Student Mobility Program of the Council of Rectors for the Integration of the Central West Sub-region of South America (CRISCOS) (1998), the Argentina-Mexico Youth Exchange program (JIMA) (2005) between the National University Council of Argentina, (CIN) and ANUIES; the BRACOL program (2011), between the Coimbra Group of Brazilian Universities and ASCUN; the Colombia-Argentina Academic Mobility (MACA) program (2013); the MACMEX program, between ANUIES and ASCUN (2013); and the BRAMEX program (2016) between the Coimbra Group of Brazilian Universities and ANUIES, just to give some examples (Theiler and Rodríguez, 2018). As far as intra-regional mobility of academics and staff is concerned, it is mainly financed by the HEIs themselves and receives little support from governments. However,

ENLACES stands for Espacio Latinoamericano y Caribeño de Educación Superior (Latinamerican and Caribbean Higher Education Space).

5

176

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

again some regional networks, like AUGM, CIN, and ANUIES have launched programs for this purpose: Teaching Scale program; the Mexico-Argentina Academic and Staff Mobility (MAGMA) between CIN and ANUIES; and the AUGM Manager and Administrative Scale Program (Theiler and Rodríguez, 2018).

LAC Integration: A Lack of Political Will? Although a significant number of regional actors are strongly committed to regional academic integration, the lack of governmental will of most LAC countries is evident. Consequently, the integration initiatives have not been provided with the necessary economic support and the corresponding organizational bureaucracy. Therefore, the whole process of integration looks uncertain, and no important progress towards it has been achieved. Although the volume of regional cooperation and intraregional programs has increased, its level of success and impact is uneven and not up to expectation. Additionally, existing intra-regional alliances, programs, and networks are mainly subregional and are of limited scope, given the small amounts of individuals moved in relation to the size of the higher education systems of the Region. In sum, no integration policy has yet emerged at the level of the entire Region, as is the case in other regions like Europe, of course, but even in Asia and Africa. LAC lacks a supranational regional organization that promotes, coordinates, and supports integration efforts. Efforts, development, and continuity are strongly influenced by the political and economic fluctuations that prevail in the different countries of the Region. Furthermore, the organizations working towards this end have limited or almost null dialogue or coordination with each other, causing a superposition of actions, and a great dispersion of efforts and energies. It looks that, instead of favoring development as a collective aspiration, the different parties and stakeholders end up attending sectorial or circumstantial interests. It is also possible that the imbalances among the capacities of the different parties prevent the construction of a unified vision for the entire Region. Although an advantage of the region is apparently its linguistic and cultural homogeneity, its higher education systems are characterized by a high level of heterogeneity (Theiler and Rodríguez, 2018).

CONCLUSION This chapter has attempted to depict some of the most relevant features of the present internationalization process of the region. First, it must be acknowledged that the current characteristics, gaps, and challenges of the HE sector have a direct impact on the state of development of LAC internationalization process. For example, the strong demand for the expansion of enrollment has not allowed sufficient attention to be given to the development of global citizenship skills in students, which ultimately limits the competitiveness of the Region in a globalized economy. Likewise, the low level of R & D financing greatly limits the ability of researchers to interact with their international peers and to carry out work with greater global relevance. The main findings of the OBIRET Survey conclude that progress has been made in the region’s internationalization efforts, especially thanks to the institutions’ initiatives. Internationalization is now a priority on the agenda of institutional development, and management structures have been adjusted accordingly. There has been a significant increase in the number of programs and activities, especially in terms of the international

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

177

formation of human resources at graduate level; undergraduate student mobility; faculty mobility; participation in international networks; and important efforts have been made to improve the proficiency of foreign languages. Intraregional cooperation has also made significant headway. However, in order to achieve a comprehensive internationalization process, our region needs to improve significantly in certain aspects. Indeed, although the region has multiplied its international activities in the past decades, they have generally been mainly based on individual initiatives, isolated actions, and a great dispersion of efforts. Although the internationalization process needs carefully crafted, institutionalized, and professionalized organizational structures, in reality it is mainly managed without planning, evaluation, or institutionalized policies, but basically in reaction to contingencies. As a result, internationalization activities are still largely marginal to institutional development. Therefore, LAC institutions need to build capacity, especially in terms of their organizational structures (institutional policies, planning, financing, evaluation and management of internationalization activities) as well as their program structures (broadening student and academic mobility and offering stronger support for the internationalization of research and international cooperation, and in particular in programs of Internationalization at Home). The main conclusions of the OBIRET findings basically reflect the same ones as the 2005 WB report: Internationalization is frequently mentioned in the speeches and official statements of educational authorities [. . .]. In spite of this recognition, there is still a lack of explicit policies on the matter. Very few institutions have developed broad policy initiatives on the process of internationalization; at best, the internationalization strategy is expressed in the institutional development plan. Few institutional documents describe the process of internationalization thoroughly, or its fundamental principles, priorities, objectives, programs, regulations, and quality evaluation and planning procedures [. . .] International activities seem to be managed and organized on the margins. They are not integrated into the core of institutional development or into the main thrust of the institution’s substantive functions [. . .]. HEIs do not yet plan their own international activities systematically, with objectives based on their needs, requirements and financial resources in the short, medium and long term. —de Wit et al., 2005: 360–361 The OBIRET findings reveal differences between the private and public sectors. In the private sector, there is more planning, quality assurance, and monitoring of the internationalization process, as well as a higher level of professionalization in the management structures and staff working in the International Offices. As reported in the World Bank report (Gacel-Ávila et al., 2005: 359), the OBIRET survey points out that the internationalization of the curriculum continues to be the most overlooked strategy, as mobility programs receive the most attention. The presence of guest professors and virtual mobility programs as methods for non-mobile students to experience internationalization are practically non-existent. Furthermore, only a small number of institutions have the budget to support faculty mobility in order to enhance their international profile, as well as the internationalization of the curriculum and research. Furthermore, LAC needs more public policies to facilitate and promote the process of institutional internationalization, and involvement from the business sector is almost nonexistent.

178

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

RECOMMENDATIONS It is important to stress that declaring internationalization an institutional priority requires a series of adjustments and reforms to the institution’s day-to-day work and practices, such as integrating the international dimension into the regular institutional planning, budget, and evaluation systems; as well as creating operational plans for internationalization in alignment with institutional priorities, with clear identifications of the financial and human resources required in order to ensure their feasibility and sustainability. Additionally, if the participation of the academic sector is critical to the internationalization process, then policies must be formulated to promote and reward academics’ involvement in internationalization activities, and databases must be created to keep track of the international experience of the academics that could spearhead this process, as it is essential for HEIs to take advantage of their own resources and the means at their disposal. Another urgent task is to improve the communication and international visibility strategies at the national, regional, and institutional levels in order to enhance the appeal of LAC higher education systems. With regard to the management structures for international activities, there has been an upgrade in terms of their position in the institutional hierarchy; nevertheless, these structures have not yet achieved the level of recognition enjoyed in other regions. It is also imperative to promote a higher level of professionalization of the staff working in the internationalization offices, by favoring experience over continuous turnover of personnel in response to the shifts in successive administration, as the lack of experience undermines the efficiency of the process. Management must also become more participatory, and involve the different actors of the university community, as only a minority of institutions have set up decentralized operations at the level of academic units. As for the internationalization of the curriculum, efforts need to be redoubled to establish international academic programs for the students who do not have the chance to study abroad through international dual-degree and virtual mobility programs. The internationalization of research should be promoted more systematically with wider national and institutional policies, as well as larger allocations of financial resources, so that the region can make more relevant contributions to the international production of knowledge. In other words, the process of internationalization of higher education in LAC has to be more comprehensive and less reactive. Another urgent area to attend to is the design and development of public policies to promote internationalization, an aspect in which the Region has been ranked last of the world regions. The internationalization of teacher training is also a pending task for the Region, as it is a strategic imperative to promote relevant and quality learning in the twenty-first century. Educational systems must be committed to offer students an education that enables them as competent citizens and professionals, involved in the development of their communities, their country, and the world at large. LAC needs to develop new competencies in students at all academic levels, in accordance with international standards, which in turn require substantive transformations in the ways and means of teaching, learning, and training. Regarding research, it is necessary to deepen the international dimension of national scientific policies, as a strategic tool for improving the quality, relevance, productivity, and visibility of research. Likewise, it is imperative that the governments of the Region support international cooperation more significantly as a means to create capacity building and to increase support for the mobility and exchange of scientists. The benefits that each country can derive from scientific and technological cooperation and integration depend on the presence of a capacity (financial and infrastructural) to develop activities around

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

179

these areas, and on the political will to create it; that is, political recognition of the role that sciences and technology play in development. Likewise, it is necessary to broaden the link between the main agents of innovation—business, technological infrastructure, and higher education—around competitiveness strategies. Scientific and technological cooperation can certainly contribute significantly to generate these links through the construction of joint capacities. The new concept that emerges is that integration serves to drive innovation processes (Aguirre-Bastos, 2018). Finally, it is key for LAC to strengthen regional integration. Although some internationalization and integration programs have been implemented at the sub-regional level, their development and continuity are strongly influenced by the political and economic fluctuations that prevail in the different countries of the Region. Organizations involved in integration efforts usually have limited dialogue and coordination among themselves, causing a lack of synergy. There are still no clear and consistent commitments regarding integration from national governments of the region, and consequently no integration policy has emerged at the level of the whole Region. As a conclusion, for internationalization processes to contribute more significantly to the transformation and improvement of the region’s educational sector, the international dimension must be assumed through public and institutional policies in order to enhance the institutionalization of the corresponding programs and structures in all university activities and at the three levels of the educational process: the micro level (the teaching– learning process in the classroom); the meso level (curricular structure and content), and the macro level (the formulation of institutional policies on teaching, research, and dissemination). Only then will LAC be able to reap the benefits of the internationalization and globalization of the educational sector, with the goal of perceptibly improving its educational systems, international competitiveness, and, consequently, the quality of life of the populations.

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities. (2018). ARWU ranking. Retrieved from www. shanghairanking.com Aguirre Bastos C. (2018). Integración y Cooperación Regional e Internacional de América Latina y el Caribe en Ciencia y Tecnología: Pasado, presente y futuro. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (Coord.), CRES 2018. La educación superior. Internacionalización e Integración Regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina: UNESCO IESALC , pp. 155–186. Altbach, P.G., and Engberg, D. (2014). Global student mobility: The changing landscape. International Higher Education, 77: 11–13. Bárcenas, A. (2016). World Economic Forum. Global Agenda. Retrieved from http://www. weforum.org Brunner, J.J., and Miranda, D. (eds). (2016). Educación Superior en Iberoamérica. Informe 2016. Santiago de Chile: Universia-CINDA . CEPAL (2019). Anuario Estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago: CEPAL . De Wit, H., Jaramillo, C., Gacel-Ávila, J., and Knight, J. (eds) (2005). Higher Education in Latin America. The International Dimension. Washington: The World Bank. ECLAC (2019). Social Panorma of Latin America. Santiago: ECLAC . Egron-Polak, E., and Hudson, R. (eds) (2010). Internationalization of Higher Education: Global trends, Regional Perspectives. IAU 3rd Global Survey. Paris. International Association of Universities.

180

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Egron-Polak, E., and Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing Expectations, Fundamental Values. IAU 4th Global Survey. Paris: International Association of Universities. El Espectador (2017). América Latina, por debajo del índice mundial de nivel de inglés. October 4, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.elespectador.com/noticias/educacion/america-latinapor-debajo-del-indice-mundial-de-nivel-de-ingles-articulo-716417 Ferreira, M., Ciro, A., Botero, J., Haimovich, F., and Urzúa, F. (2017). At a Crossroads. Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington DC : The World Bank Group. Gacel-Ávila, J., y Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2018). Internacionalización de la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe: un balance. Guadalajara: UNESCO-IESALC . Gacel-Ávila, J., and Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2019). The Internationalization of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. An assessment. Guadalajara: UNESCOIESALC , Retrieved from: http://obiret-iesalc.udg.mx/sites/default/files/publicaciones/an_ assessment_ebook.pdf Gacel-Avila, J., Jaramillo, C. I., Knight, J., and de Wit H. (2005). The Latin American way: Trends, issues and directions. In de Wit, H., Jaramillo, C., I., Gacel-Avila, J., and Knight, J. (eds), Higher Education in Latin America. The International Dimension. Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. 341–368. IESALC (2008). Declaration and Action Plan of the Regional Conference on Higher Education in Latin América and The Caribbean. Caracas: IESLAC . Retrieved from https://www.uv.mx/ cuo/files/2014/06/CRES-2008.pdf IESALC-UNESCO (2019). La Movilidad en la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe: Retos y Oportunidades de un Convenio Renovado para el Reconocimiento de Estudios, Título y Diplomas. Caracas: IESALC . Ilieva, J., and Peak, M. (2016). The shape of global higher education. Retrieved from: https:// www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/f310_tne_international_higher_education_report_ final_v2_web.pdf Knight J. (2003). Internationalization of Higher Education Practices and Priorities: 2003 IAU Survey Report, IAU 1st Global Survey. Czech Republic: UNITISK s.r.o. Knight J. (2006). Internationalization of Higher Education: New Direction New Challenges, 2005 IAU Global Survey Report, IAU 2nd Global Survey. International Association of Universities. Madera, I. (2018). Educación y desarrollo sostenible al 2030: internacionalización de la formación docente en América Latina y el Caribe. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (ed.), CRES 2018. La educación superior. Internacionalización e integración regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina: UNESCO IESALC , pp. 89–110. Maldonado, A., Cortés, C., and Ibarra, B. (2016). Patlani. Encuesta mexicana de movilidad internacional estudiantil. México: DF.ANUIES . Marginson, S. (2018). The New Geo-politics of Higher Education. London: Centre for Global Higher Education. Marmolejo, F. (2018). La Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe en el contexto global. In Gacel-Ávila J. (ed.), CRES 2018, La educación superior. Internacionalización e Integración regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina, UNESCO IESALC , pp. 41–56. OECD (2019). Education at a Glance 2019. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD, ECLAC (2019). Latin America Economic Outlook 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD, CAF, ECLAC (2015). Latin American Economic Outlook 2015. Education, Skills and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

181

Red Indices (2019). Red Iberoamerican de Indicadores de ES . Retrieved from http://www. redindices.org Regional Conference on Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (2008). RICYT (2019). Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Iberoamericana e Interamericana. Retrieved from http://www.ricyt.org/indicadores Santelices, B. (ed.) (2010). El rol de las universidades en el desarrollo cientifico y tecnológico. Santiago: CINDA . Sebastián, J., and Barrere, R. (2018). Internacionalización de la Investigación en América Latina y el Caribe. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (ed.), CRES 2018, La Educación Superior, Internacionalización e Integración regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina: UNESCO IESALC , pp. 111–154. The World Bank (2019). The World Bank World Development Indicacators. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/ Thelier J.C., and Rodríguez M.S. (2018). La cooperación e integración universitaria en América Latina y el Caribe. Principales acciones y tendencias. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (ed.), CRES 2018, La Educación Superior, Internacionalización e Integración regional de América Latina y el Caribe. Córdova Argentina: UNESCO IESALC , pp. 187–250. UNDP (2018). Human Development Indices and Indicators. Statistical Update. New York: UNDP. UNESCO (2019). UNESCO Statistics. Retrieved from data.uis.unesco.org/ United Nations. (2019). World Population Prospects 20190. Highlights. New York, NY: United Nations. Usher A., Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., and Tsiligiris, V. (2019). The Shape of Global Higher Education: The Americas. Retrieved from: https://www.britishcouncil.org/education/IHE/ knowledge-centre/global-landscape/shape-global-higher-education-vol-5 World Economic Forum (2018). The Global Competitiviness Report 2018 (K. Schwab, ed.). Geneva: World Economic Forum.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Internationalization of Higher Education in Brazil REN É E ZICMAN

THE BRAZILIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM Ranked the ninth largest economy in the world, the fourteenth largest producer of research publications globally, fifth in territorial size, and with a population of more than 210 million, Brazil has a relatively new and highly diversified higher education (HE) system. Although Brazilian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) share the same legal principles, they are extremely diverse and often differ from each other, depending on the kind of institution, level of maturity, administrative nature, and geographical location (Righetti and Gamba, 2019). In Brazil, there are different types of HEIs, classified according to their administrative category, operation, and academic entitlements. Public institutions are funded by the federal, state, and municipal governments while private institutions are independent from public funding. The private ones can be not for-profit, including communitarian, confessional or philanthropic institutions, and for-profit or profit-making institutions, established and maintained by one or more individuals and/or legal entities. Depending on their operation and corresponding academic entitlements, HEIs can be classed as: Universities, covering all areas of knowledge and whose mission includes teaching, research, and extension/outreach activities; University centers, educational institutions covering all areas of knowledge, with no explicit requirement to undertake research; Colleges, educational institutions covering some areas of knowledge, with no explicit requirement to undertake research; and Federal Institutes, a set of federal institutions, focused on vocational training, for secondary and higher education.

The Largest System of Higher Education in Latin America Brazil is home to the largest system of higher education in Latin America and is among the fifth largest in the world, with 2,537 HEIs. The private sector makes up 88.2 percent of them all. The 199 universities represent 7.8 percent of the total number of HEIs and account for 52.9 percent of undergraduate degrees enrollment. The Colleges represent 81.5 percent of HEIs. The most common broad field of study at tertiary level in Brazil is business, administration, and law, which accounts for 33 percent of recent graduates. The second most popular is education, with 20 percent of graduates. Most HEIs are small institutions, located far from the urban centers, and offer undergraduate courses. Public 182

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

183

and private not-for-profit universities have the best rankings and are the most internationalized institutions. They also offer postgraduate programs in most areas of knowledge. The six public universities of São Paulo state are responsible for almost half of Brazilian Science. Public institutions do not charge tuition fees for domestic or international students, whereas private universities charge a wide range of tuition fees (INEP, 2019). In 2017, only 15 percent of 20–29-year-olds were enrolled in tertiary education in Brazil, compared with an average of 22 percent in OECD countries. About 18 percent of adults (25–64-year-olds) in Brazil have attained tertiary education, similar to the attainment rate in Mexico but well below other Latin American countries such as Argentina (36 percent), Chile (25 percent), Colombia (23 percent), and Costa Rica (23 percent). In OECD countries, the average tertiary attainment rate is 39 percent, over twice that of Brazil. Over the past decade, however, there has been a considerable increase in tertiary attainment among the younger generation (25–34-year-olds), from 11 percent in 2008 to 21 percent in 2018 (OECD, 2019). Only 33 percent of students who enter a bachelor’s program in Brazil graduate within its theoretical duration (four or five years, depending on the program) (OECD, 2019).

Opportunities for Access to Higher Education Brazil offers 37,962 undergraduate programs to 8,451,748 enrolled students, with 75.4 percent (6,373,274) of these registered in private institutions (INEP, 2018). Brazil is home to the biggest educational conglomerate of private for-profit institutions in the world, which account for one in eight of all higher education students in the country. The dominance of fee-paying private provision, and the limited number of places in free public institutions, create a complex environment for policymakers seeking to ensure that access to tertiary education is not hindered by students’ socio-economic status. In a bid to expand opportunities for access to higher education in Brazil, the government provides the University for All Program (PROUNI) and the Higher Education Student Loan Fund (FIES). The FIES was created in 2001 and gives priority to low-income students enrolled in private higher education institutions that join the program, in courses with the Education Ministry’s seal of approval. It operates by providing financing/loans governed by specific conditions related to the loan and its repayment on more favorable terms than the standard banking market (FIES, 2019). The PROUNI was set up in 2005 and has already benefitted over 2.5 million high school students from the public or private system who have received full grants (69 percent) or partial grants to study in higher education institutions. To qualify for a full grant, the student’s per capita household income must amount to a maximum of three minimum wages. Affirmative action quotas are also available for people with disabilities, self-declared black and indigenous people, and teachers from the public institutions taking bachelor’s degree courses. In 2017, 46.3 percent of those enrolled in undergraduate courses in the private system received some kind of loan/grant (PROUNI, 2019). Since 2012, the public federal higher education institutions—Universities and Federal Institutes of Education, Science and Technology—have a guaranteed reserve of 50 percent of places in undergraduate courses for students who have received their entire high school education in the public system. This also takes into consideration the proportion of the population, which is black, of mixed race, or of indigenous origin in each state, according to the Brazilian population census (Lei de Cotas, 2012). The state institutions followed

184

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

the example of the federal public higher education institutions and also introduced affirmative actions. This has been done through internal regulations and/or laws passed in a number of Brazilian states. The private higher education institutions regulate their own racial and social quotas systems in the distribution of places in undergraduate courses (INEP, 2019).

An Impressive Postgraduate Education System Brazil is home to one of the most impressive postgraduate education systems among developing countries, providing master’s, doctorate, and post-doctoral studies. There has been a sharp increase in postgraduate studies in recent decades in all areas of study, with the main emphasis on agricultural sciences and multidisciplinary courses and, to a lesser extent, on engineering, and natural and earth science courses. Only 0.8 percent of 25–64-year-olds in Brazil have attained a master’s degree and only about 0.2 percent a doctorate (OECD, 2019). Most of the postgraduate expansion in the country has occurred in the public sector, which was responsible for the qualification of an average of over 30,000 new master’s degrees and 10,000 new doctorates a year between 2000 and 2016. The private sector has grown at a slower rate and awarded less than 20 percent of the master’s degrees and 13 percent of the doctorates in 2016 (CAPES, 2017). Postgraduate courses and activities are highly concentrated in public institutions (84.5 percent) and the more developed regions (44 percent in the Southeast). In 2018, the 4,175 programs, in 49 areas of knowledge, amounted to 173,671 master’s degree students and 114,867 doctorates, with 65,000 new master’s degrees and 23,000 doctorates awarded (CAPES, 2019). Between 2013 and 2018, Brazil appeared as the fourteenth largest producer of scientific publications in the world (SJR, 2018) and has increased its impact on the area of science by 15 percent. If this current trend is maintained then by 2021 Brazil will have reached the global average of 1.0 (Clarivates Analytics, 2018). The public higher education institutions were responsible for 91.54 percent of the 142,840 articles indexed in the Web of Science in the 2017–2019 period. There are eighteen public universities in Brazil that publish 1,000 studies every two years (equivalent to at least one publication per lecturer in this period) and which are highly active on the international stage. This group includes twelve federal universities in the large centers, particularly from the two most developed regions of the country, and all the six public universities in São Paulo state.

UNIVERSITY RANKINGS A Brazilian university entered the group of the 200 best universities in the world for the first time in 2011 in the ranking of the Times Higher Education (THE), created in 2004 (VEJA, 2011). In 2019, Brazil increased the number of universities that entered the THE list, with forty-six institutions. This boosted Brazil’s position from ninth in 2018 to the seventh country with most universities in the list, overtaking countries like Chile, Italy, and Spain (THE, 2019). Six Brazilian universities appeared among the fifteen best in Latin America in the QS Latin America University Rankings 2019, which classify around 400 higher education institutions in the region. Of these, three were state institutions from São Paulo, two federal, and one private (QS, 2019). The Brazilian newspaper, the Folha de S. Paulo, has been promoting an annual Folha University Ranking (RUF) since 2012. It focuses on two main products: the Ranking of

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

185

Universities, which classifies the 197 Brazilian universities, public and private, based on five indicators—research (42 percent), teaching (32 percent), market (18 percent), innovation (4 percent), and internationalization (4 percent); and the Ranking of Courses, which assesses the forty undergraduate courses with the largest number of entrant students in the country (according to the latest Higher Education Census available), based on two aspects—teaching and market (RUF, 2019). In the Ranking of Universities, the internationalization indicator takes two components into account—the average of international references by lecturer/researcher and the percentage of publications in partnership with foreign researchers in the Web of Science database (RUF, 2019). The university rankings and official evaluations do not take into account elements that are strongly associated with the higher education institutions in Brazil and Latin America, such as local social impact, inclusion and diversity, assessing their local, national, and international actions in a regional context (Righetti and Gamba, 2019).

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HE IN BRAZIL The Brazilian government’s longest-established international cooperation initiative is the Exchange Program for Undergraduate Students (PEC-G). It was created in 1965 and provides the opportunity for students from developing countries with which Brazil has cultural and/or educational cooperation agreements to take undergraduate courses at Brazilian higher education institutions. In 1981, the Exchange Program for Postgraduate Students (PEC-PG) was also created and offers study grants to students from developing countries in master’s and doctorate courses in Brazil. There are currently 62 participant countries in the PEC-G—from Africa (26), Latin America and the Caribbean (25), Asia (8), and Europe (3). The program has 109 participant Brazilian higher education institutions, and 291 undergraduate courses are offered. Over 9,000 students were selected for undergraduate courses from 2000 to 2019, 76 percent from Africa, and over 3,000 for postgraduate studies, 68 percent from Latin America and the Caribbean. The six members of the Portuguese-Speaking African Countries accounted for 85 percent of the places in the PEC-G (PEC, 2019). Even though the Brazilian government does not systematically follow up the trajectory of the returning students and their insertion into the labor market in their home countries, these programs have contributed to the education of highly qualified people who occupy positions of leadership and prominence in their own countries and who know Brazilian culture and maintain links with the country. The internationalization of higher education started to gain a more central and strategic dimension in the development of Brazilian higher education institutions in the 1980s. Besides the isolated, personal initiatives of teachers and researchers, carried out in an unsystematic way with their partners abroad, the higher education institutions began to establish structures and create administrative teams to manage international activities. These were undertaken in the form of International Offices, in line with each institution’s policy and organizational structure (Stallivieri, 2004).

BILATERAL COOPERATION PROGRAMS Until the launch of the Science without Borders program (SwB) in 2011, governmental actions aimed at the internationalization of Brazilian higher education were almost exclusively undertaken by the two national funding agencies created by the government in 1951. These were CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education

186

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Personnel, part of the Ministry of Education) and the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, part of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications). In 1953, CAPES sent its first fifty-four scholars to further their specialized education abroad. Along with the Funding Research Agencies (FAPs) in some states, the international cooperation programs were organized based on bilateral agreements between the Brazilian agencies and their counterparts abroad (Alves and Zicman, forthcoming). The CAPES-COFECUB program (French Committee for the Evaluation of Academic and Scientific Cooperation with Brazil) was started in October 1978 and is still the biggest CAPES cooperation program. It has been involved in around 900 projects in the four decades since then and supervised almost 4,500 doctorates across a broad spectrum of areas of study (CAPES, 2019). The PROBRAL program, developed jointly by the CAPES in Brazil and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) in Germany, which got underway in 1994, has already developed over 500 joint projects involving more than 8,000 researchers. Other initiatives besides these, such as the CAPES-MECD program for projects carried out in Spain, were important tools in strengthening university cooperation between Brazilian HEIs and those in other countries. Almost all these programs were geared to internationalization initiatives focused on postgraduate studies, with doctorate and post-doctorate levels favored, through financing grants for studying abroad. There were only a few programs, including the CAPES/FIPSE (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education), in cooperation with the United States, and UNIBRAL with Germany, which were driven by initiatives involving student mobility at the undergraduate level. Support for these came mainly from the initiatives of a few Brazilian higher education institutions through actions that were limited in scope and financing (CAPES, 2019). Until the Science without Borders program (SwB) got underway in 2011, the visibility and publicizing of Brazilian higher education at world level was limited to countries with the longest tradition of bilateral cooperation with Brazilian government agencies. These were led by the United States, France, and Germany, followed by Canada, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, to a lesser extent, besides a few other initiatives.

THE SCIENCE WITHOUT BORDERS PROGRAM As a result of Brazil’s higher profile on the international stage, the government set up the Science without Borders program (2011 to 2017). This was one of the largest scale nationwide scholarship programs in the world. The program sought to strengthen and expand the initiatives of science and technology, innovation and competitiveness through the international mobility of undergraduate and postgraduate students and researchers, mostly in STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). It focused on the undergraduate, level which accounted for 79 percent of the student mobility. From 2012 the number of mobility grants for students and researchers going abroad grew significantly at unparalleled rates in such a short time. This was accompanied by the mobility of young talents and researchers visiting Brazil but on a much smaller scale. Although the overwhelming majority of the student mobility grants financed by the SwB program were still for institutions in Brazil’s traditional partner countries, including the United States (27,821) and Canada (7,311), in North America, and the UK (10,740), France (7,279), Germany (6,595), and Spain (5,025), in Europe, the doors opened by the program increased their range. A large number of students went to institutions in

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

187

geographical areas that had been little exploited until then, such as countries in Oceania and the East Asia (CSF, 2019). Brazil’s favorable economic outlook at that time allowed an investment of over US$ 4.5 billion in the SwB program. Around US$ 2.3 billion was in grants and US$ 2.2 billion in payments to foreign higher education institutions that received the Brazilian students from 2012 to 2016. Despite this, the program faced difficulties as the period when the greatest number of students was abroad coincided with the appreciation of the US dollar (SBPC, 2017). The SwB program promoted the mobility of 92,880 students and researchers in 54 countries on the five continents. These included 182 of the 200 best universities in the Shanghai Ranking (ARWU, 2017). However, 89.4 percent of these were concentrated in ten countries, seven of which were members of the European Union (Brasil, 2017). The number of Brazilian students quadrupled in some countries, while others, with which Brazil had had virtually no contact or exchange program until then, started receiving large numbers of Brazilian students (Alisios, 2017). The results achieved by the SwB program put Brazil on the map of international education as an important player on the global stage. Brazil increased the international mobility of students and researchers from an average of around 5,000 a year to over 40,000 in 2015 at the height of the program (Mcmanus and Nobre, 2016). It also strengthened new models of international cooperation in higher education by creating and establishing double degrees, cotutelles, research projects, and academic cooperation. The new fronts of cooperation opened by the SwB and the recognition of the academic quality of the Brazilian students created a strong interest among the program’s partner institutions. This had a positive outcome and stimulated potential initiatives and partnerships with Brazilian higher education institutions. A survey carried out by the agencies and universities of the European countries, which took part in the SwB to measure the impacts of the program in Europe showed that 35 percent of the respondents developed more in-depth partnerships with the Brazilian institutions through the program and 85 percent said they would like to establish more partnerships in Brazil (Alisios, 2017). Even in countries with a strong tradition of university cooperation with Brazil, such as France and the UK, the SwB program led to important changes in the profile of Brazilian students’ mobility in those countries in terms of numbers, level of study, area of knowledge, and the institutions involved. There was also an increase in the number of co-authored articles and impact factor (Universities UK, 2015). In the United States, the country that received the greatest number of students financed by the SwB program (almost 30 percent), the Brazilian students received a number of recognitions and awards (Mcmanus and Nobre, 2017). In Canada, the University of Toronto, the institution that received most SwB scholarships in the world (1,218), highlights the program’s outstanding role in increasing cooperation with Brazil (Taylor, Ledger, Falk, Baichwal, Anderson, and Morris, 2015). The visibility given to the SwB program in China, Russia, India, and South Africa and the mutual understanding of the growth potential of initiatives aimed at the internationalization of higher education among the BRICS led to the creation of the BRICS Network University in 2017. This was intended as a platform for university cooperation in education, science, and innovation. A similar situation also occurred in Oceania, with higher proportions in this case. Australia hosted more than 7,000 students in 50 different institutions and was the fifth

188

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

destination for SwB grants. Until the launch of the SwB program, Australia, like New Zealand, only had initiatives with Brazil related more to the promotion of offers and recruitment of Brazilian students to their higher education institutions. This situation was significantly altered with a large number of partnerships and cooperation agreements. Assuming that international mobility should not be an objective in its own right and without overlooking the failures and need to improve many aspects of the SwB program— such as the non-involvement of the Brazilian higher education institutions in the conception of the program, the slight contact with the institutions abroad, the difficulties in recognizing the periods of study abroad, and the lack of an assessment of the impact of the investment—the SwB’s results continue to echo internationally even after it ended (Freire and Spadaro, 2017; Marques, 2017). Despite the challenges faced in the management, financing, and evaluation of the program, the SwB allowed the country to promote its potential and win recognition for the quality of its higher education and the excellence of the research produced in Brazil. This can make a positive contribution to the internationalization of Brazilian higher education and the country’s scientific and technological development (Guimarães-Iosif, Mendonça De Oliveira, Pollom Zardo, and Veiga Dos Santos, 2016). The recognition of the quality of Brazilian higher education and the excellence of the research carried out in the country generated by the mobility promoted by the SwB program led renowned foreign institutions to start looking for Brazilian institutions as foreign strategic partners, with interests beyond international student mobility. The Science without Borders program also led to the establishment in 2012 of the national Language without Borders program (LwB). This was an additional languages teaching scheme led by the Ministry of Education to improve proficiency levels in English and other languages, training teachers from language departments in public federal and state higher education institutions. In a bid to promote initiatives on linguistic policy for the internationalization of Brazilian higher education and help higher education students learn foreign languages to have access to mobility programs and provide specialized training for foreign language teachers, the program paid for language courses and proficiency exams of over 800,000 students, faculties, and researchers between 2014 and 2018. Since the federal government announced in July 2019 the ending of public funds for the LwB program, the Brazilian higher education institutions have been discussing ways of ensuring the continuity of the actions, whether within the governmental framework or through their own organization and resources (OESP, 2019).

PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION Internationalization also features in the National Education Plan, approved in June 2014, which was applied to the whole education system in Brazil and establishes guidelines, goals, and strategies to be in place by 2024. Internationalization is referred to in passing in three goals and five strategies related to higher education. This is particularly so in the strategy, which aims to “consolidate and expand programs and initiatives to encourage student and faculty mobility in undergraduate and postgraduate courses at domestic and international level with the aim of enriching the Brazilian higher education” (PNE, 2014).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

189

In 2017, CAPES carried out a survey of Brazilian higher education institutions offering master’s and doctorates to find out their internationalization plans for the setting up of a new program. The survey asked questions on the internationalization strategies and goals for 2020 and received answers from 320 institutions (CAPES, 2017). The answers to the survey indicated that the internationalization process of the Brazilian higher education institutions is no longer at an early stage. Even with a strong national trend towards passive internationalization (outgoing student and faculty mobility) and low rates of attraction of international professionals, there is no doubt that the process is taking off sharply and attracting visiting professors is already appearing as a priority of the institutions’ internationalization process. When asked to describe their position based on three alternatives—low level of internationalization, medium level of internationalization, and high level of internationalization—most said low or medium (70.3 percent). Only eight regarded themselves as being highly internationalized. Among those with low or only medium internationalized levels, 52.5 percent had no internationalization plan within the Institutional Development Plan. In terms of global geographic distribution, the Brazilian higher education institutions mentioned agreements with different countries worldwide although the priorities remained North America and Europe. China, which it is the priority target of other countries in terms of student mobility, did not appear among the first ten countries referred to as priorities for agreements promoting internationalization. The PhD mobility and visiting professors appear as priorities. This points to a strategic change by the institutions as most of the individual grants from the SwB program were offered to undergraduate students (CAPES, 2017).

THE INSTITUTIONAL INTERNATIONALIZATION PROGRAM In 2017, the Brazilian government launched a new program for the internationalization of higher education called Capes/PrInt—the Institutional Internationalization Program. The intention is to make Brazilian higher education institutions more proactive in their internationalization processes, promote the construction and consolidation of strategic plans for the internationalization of higher education institutions, and increase the competitiveness and visibility of the country's scientific production. It is targeted on postgraduate programs in all areas of studies knowledge and focused on increasing the academic and social impact of Brazilian science (Capes-PrInt, 2017). Every higher education or research institution, taking into account its own levels and needs of internationalization, should identify its main skills and ways of enhancing them through cooperation agreements with foreign institutions. They would receive support to build cooperation networks, financing postgraduate activities and grants for studying abroad for researchers and students linked to the aims of each institution. The higher education institutions should decide on their domestic and international partners and present their proposals for internationalization. The program will mostly finance the mobility of Brazilian PhD students abroad, as well as faculty mobility, to and from Brazil. The actions proposed in each of the selected projects must contribute to the transformation of institutions in an international environment. Capes/PrInt has been designed to support the development and implementation of the Strategic Internationalization Plans created

190

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

by the selected HEIs. It will act to foster the internationalization of academic areas chosen by the awarded institutions. The selected Brazilian HEIs will manage all the processes (including the financial aspects). To participate, international HEIs must offer some cofunding and partnership with national institutions. The Capes-PrInt program got underway in 2019 and will last five years. It has an annual budget of US$ 80 million. It proposes a new model for internationalization of higher education in Brazil to increase the number of institutional partnerships and sustainable approaches for cooperation. Over 100 proposals were received, from which 36 HEIs were selected to participate in the program (31 from public and 5 from private institutions). This will lead to the construction, implementation, and consolidation of the institutions’ strategic plans in the areas of knowledge they prioritized, encouraging the formation of international research networks to improve the quality of academic production linked to postgraduate studies. One of the main contributions of the Capes-PrInt was the requirement that the applicant institutions draw up an Institutional Internationalization Plan. This would highlight priority subjects and areas of postgraduate study for the internationalization initiatives to be developed in line with the skills and priority areas laid down, encouraging the establishment of a culture of planning in the Brazilian higher education institutions (Capes-PrInt, 2017).

THE FUTURE-SE PROGRAM In July 2019, the Brazilian government launched the FUTURE-SE Program, which was drawn up by the Ministry of Education to expand the sources of financing for the federal universities and institutions and increase fundraising possibilities. The program is voluntary and the Ministry of Education believes it will allow the federal universities and institutes to increase their own revenues by promoting fundraising, giving them greater flexibility in spending and making them less dependent on the government budget (ABMES, 2019). The program has three pillars—Research, technological development and innovation; Entrepreneurism; and Internationalization. Its main aim in terms of internationalization is to promote the Brazilian higher education institutions abroad and improve Brazil’s standing in the international rankings. Its aims are: to create solid partnerships with foreign universities to encourage the continuous exchange flow of faculties and students, with the focus on applied research; to promote the recognition of foreign degrees by high-performing Brazilian public and private institutions; to provide mechanisms for facilitating the transfer of credits by institutions of excellence on online platforms; to promote foreign language courses for faculties and researchers through partnerships with private institutions for publication in foreign periodicals (replacing Languages without Borders); to encourage cooperation with partner singular institutions abroad and bring renowned Nobel Prize winners as visiting professors; and to provide the opportunity to offer grants in foreign institutions to high-performing students in academic studies and sports. The FUTURE-SE Program has been debated inside and outside the academic community and in the Brazilian Congress. It has been criticized mainly because it still contains few details and could bring risks to the institutions’ financial independence, particularly against a backdrop of cuts in grants and the contingency resources.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

191

THE BRAZILIAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION Founded in 1988, the Brazilian Association for International Education (FAUBAI, n.d.) is dedicated to improving the management of international cooperation and plays a fundamental role in the expansion of the internationalization of higher education process. It has over 240 members and represents the diversity of the Brazilian higher education system in terms of the kind and nature of the institutions present in all regions of the country. Along with the representation by kind of institution—public federal (38 percent), public state and municipal (16 percent), private communitarian (20 percent), and private (26 percent), the FAUBAI members are distributed in Brazil’s five regions: North (6 percent), Northeast (20.5 percent), Midwest (17.1 percent), Southeast (31.2 percent), and South (25.2 percent). The FAUBAI not only provides an efficient cooperation of government bodies and agencies involved in the internationalization of higher education, which is recognized in Brazil and abroad, but also develops capacity-building initiatives aimed at ensuring strategic planning and long-term sustainable actions (FAUBAI). Through the initiative of FAUBAI, and with the support of the Ministry of Education and the Brazilian Tourism Institute (Embratur), Brazilian higher education institutions have taken part in the Brazilian booth at the annual conferences of the Association of International Educators (NAFSA) and the European Association for International Education (EAIE). These are the two largest global events in the international education area and had around 10,000 and 6,000 participants, respectively. A partnership between the FAUBAI and Brazilian embassies abroad has been promoting University Cooperation Seminars and Study and Research in Brazil Fairs, which have been held since 2016 in Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Lima, Quito, and Bogotá. The aim is to promote Brazil as a destination for international students and researchers. Brazil’s importance in international higher education has grown considerably. It has been an important global player in the field of international education and has played a significant part in the Network of International Education Associations (NIEA). From 2016 to 2018, FAUBAI was responsible for the general coordination of this network bringing together the world’s largest international education associations, such as NAFSA (Association of International Educators), EAIE (European Association for International Education), IAU (International Association of Universities), and IIE (Institute of International Education), amongst others. Also through the auspices of the FAUBAI, Brazil played an active part in the Global Dialogue (in South Africa in 2014 and Mexico in 2017), a forum that brings together associations from around the world, including North and South America, Australia, Africa, and Europe. The aim of the event is to actively work to make internationalization more inclusive, more collaborative, equitable, and ethical, as stated in the Nelson Mandela Bay Global Dialogue Declaration on the Future of Internationalization of Higher Education (Nelson Mandela Bay Global Dialogue Declaration, 2014). This declaration was signed by twenty-three associations in 2014, in accordance with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (2015).

CHALLENGES FOR STUDENT MOBILITY The Brazilian tertiary education system is one of the least internationalized of all OECD and partner countries. Only 0.2 percent of tertiary students in Brazil are foreign, compared

192

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

with the total of 6 percent of mobile or foreign students across OECD countries. Between 2010 and 2017, the share of international or foreign students increased in nearly all OECD countries but remained stable in Brazil. In 2018, 45.6 percent of the foreign students at undergraduate courses in Brazil were from the American continent while 27.3 percent were from Africa (INEP, 2019). Moreover, only about 0.6 percent of Brazilian tertiary students is enrolled abroad, less than half the OECD total of 1.6 percent (OECD, 2019). The Brazilian higher education institutions have followed a global trend seen over the last twenty years and made international students more welcome in terms of opportunities— with courses and activities in foreign languages, short-term courses, and courses of Portuguese as a foreign language. They have also upgraded the welcoming infrastructure and activities, favoring the implementation and expansion of the “internationalization at home” and “internationalization of the curriculum.” The Guide to English as a Medium of Instruction in Brazilian Higher Education Institutions 2018–2019 provides, for the first time in Brazil, information about more than 1,200 programs, courses, and other activities offered in English and other foreign languages (Spanish, French, German, and Italian) as well as Portuguese for Foreigners— the eighth most spoken language in the world—by more than seventy public and private higher education institutions from across Brazil in all areas and levels of studies. The initiative aims to promote the country as a destination for international students and researchers and represents a big incentive for Brazilian institutions to become more internationally minded, attracting more international students to its campuses (British Council-FAUBAI, 2019). Overcoming the barriers of language, and enabling more academics to join international research and teaching networks form a fundamental part of the drive towards internationalization underway in Brazil. The data presented in the guide can be used by students, researchers, and institutions interested in studying and doing research in Brazil and reflect the sustained growth in activities offered in foreign languages to boost academic mobility to and from Brazil. Full information is hosted on a digital portal that serves as a search engine for students and institutions seeking a specific course or program by category, discipline, or region. A pilot study carried out in Brazil in 2017 by the Institute of International Education (IIE), with support from FAUBAI and CAPES—the IIE Survey of Higher Education and Student Mobility—aimed to expand the capacity of HEI and national-level agencies to gather and report mobility data, as part of the larger Project Atlas initiative (IIE, 2017). This is a joint global research platform, which collects timely, comprehensive, and universal institutional and national-level data on student mobility flows in twenty-five countries (Robles and Bhandari, 2017). The survey aims to map and assess the state of international student mobility and discover the level of internationalization of the Brazilian higher education institutions, provide subsidies to draw up an agenda for the internationalization of Brazilian higher education, and establish growth goals and frameworks for discussing and deciding public policies. It also intends bringing about the monitoring of the student mobility flow from and to Brazil compared with other countries. Brazil was chosen as a country partner for this project mainly due to its rising key role as a player in the field of international education. Brazil’s extensive work in recent years to internationalize its higher education includes its significant investments in projects that support student mobility such as the Science without Borders program. The 158 respondents (47 percent public and 53 percent private HEIs) reported some key findings regarding the

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

193

15,492 outbound Brazilian students and the 20,523 international students enrolled in degree and non-degree programs in Brazil: low outbound mobility (0.6 percent of Brazilian students study abroad, which is relatively low when compared with the outbound mobility ratios of other Latin American countries); greatest outbound student flow at the undergraduate level (77 percent) in STEM fields (29 percent); the United States (18 percent) and Portugal (13 percent) are top destinations for Brazilian students who study abroad; metropolitan regions attract international students (64 percent), greatest inbound flow (representing 0.8 percent inbound international students) at the undergraduate level (83 percent) with a majority classified as full-degree students (74 percent); more international students and partnerships overall at public federal (36 percent) and private not-for-profit HEI (30 percent); the majority of the institutions (64 percent) provide language policies as part of institutional strategies for internationalization and offer programs and courses taught in English, dual degree programs (63 percent), and international long-distance learning (58 percent); absence of financial resources for internationalization (47 percent) and not known if funding existed at the institution (31 percent) (Robles and Bhandari, 2017).

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Brazil’s political scenario has been marked, particularly over the last fifteen years, by many initiatives to bolster HE internationalization addressing the challenges of enhancing quality and professional management. The IAU 5th Global Survey, held recently by the International Association of Universities, shows that internationalization is an institutional priority in the Brazilian HEIs. Almost all (94 percent) of the 52 HEIs from Brazil which replied mention internationalization in their strategic plans, a percentage similar to the one at global level (91 percent) and higher than in Latin American and the Caribbean-LAC (84 percent) (Marinoni, 2019). A higher percentage (84 percent) of HEIs in Brazil have elaborated a policy/strategy for internationalization than at global level (72 percent) and in LAC (64 percent). Internationalization strategies at Brazilian HEIs are rather new, with almost half of institutions having elaborated a strategy less than one year ago (43 percent), mostly institution wide. Internationalization of the curriculum/internationalization at home is considered important by 84 percent of Brazilian HEIs (47 percent considering it important and 37 percent very important), similar to the results in LAC and at global level. The general institutional budget and external public funds are the two main sources for internationalization at Brazilian HEIs, as in LAC and at global level (Marinoni, 2019). Although advances have been made in statistical surveys and indicators on the internationalization of higher education processes, the lack of data to assess and measure the effectiveness of internationalization strategies has prevented more proactive governance in Brazilian higher education institutions. This data is also useful for institutional-level and national-level decision making. Financing also remains a challenge to ensure the effectiveness of national and institutional policies in the internationalization of Brazilian higher education. The risk remains of not overcoming the situation that is still common among Latin American HEIs, which promote internationalization in policy and discourse but lack or have inadequate financial resources to support it in practice (De Wit, Jaramillo, Gacel-Ávila, and Knight, 2005).

194

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

This is particularly the case due to the huge budgetary limits the institutions have faced in recent years. Another contributory factor has been contingency cuts in spending on universities and research institutions, which have particularly affected the federal funding agencies with a long track record of supporting international cooperation. The internationalization of HE in Brazil reflects its diversified context and is widely recognized as an important key measure of the institution’s success and competitiveness locally and globally. Given the diversity of the Brazilian higher education system, the national assessments and policies should take into consideration the specific conditions and the different missions of the higher education institutions, including the level of internationalization, at the risk of interpreting and taking the wrong decisions on the country's higher education (Righetti and Gamba, 2019). Despite political and economic shifts and uncertainties over the last few years, the advancements in the development of internationalization show that Brazil has continued to make strides towards further internationalizing its HE sector (Robles and Bhandari, 2017). Brazilian higher education institutions are expected to become more active and focused on proposals with a greater impact for the country. This will ensure an internationalization process that is more horizontal, inclusive, sustainable, strategic and longer term, promoting greater international cooperation and integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into Brazilian higher education.

REFERENCES ABMES (2019). Future-se—Universidades e Institutos Empreendedores. 2019. Available at: http://abmes.org.br/public/arquivos/apre_future_se09082019.pdf ALISIOS (2017). Documentos de trabalho do projeto ALISIOS . 2017. Available at: http:// www.alisios-project.eu Alves, F., and Zicman, R. (forthcoming). Divulgação da Educação Superior Brasileira no Mundo. ARWU (2017). Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2017. http://www.shanghairanking. com/ARWU2017.html CAPES (2017). Brasil. Coordenação do Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes). A internacionalização na Universidade Brasileira: resultados do questionário aplicado pela Capes. Editing and composition: Diretoria de Relações Internacionais Brasília, DF: CAPES Available at: https://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/ diversos/A-internacionalizacao-nas-IES-brasileiras.pdf CAPES (2019). Brasil. Coordenação do Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes). Geocapes: Sistema de Informações Georeferenciadas: banco de dados: Distribuição de discentes de Pós-Graduação no Brasil. Brasília, DF: CAPES . Available at: https://geocapes. capes.gov.br/geocapes/ British Council-FAUBAI Guide to English as a Medium of Instruction in Brazilian Higher Education Institutions (2019). Available at: http://faubai.org.br/guideemi/ Capes-PrInt (2017). Programa Institucional de Internacionalização, 41. Available at: http:// www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/editais/10112017-Edital-41-2017Internacionalizacao-PrInt-2.pdf Clarivates Analytics (2018). Research in Brazil: a report for CAPES by Clarivate Analytics. Available at: https://www.capes.gov.br/images/stories/download/diversos/17012018-CAPESInCitesReport-Final.pdf CSF (2019). Brasil. Painel de controle dos bolsistas do programa Ciência sem Fronteiras. CSF. Available at http://www.cienciasemfronteiras.gov.br/web/csf/painel-de-controle

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL

195

De Wit, H., Jaramillo, I., Gacel-Ávila, J., and Knight, J. (eds) (2005). Higher education in Latin America—the international dimension (English). Directions in development. Washington, DC : World Bank. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/857841468091483395/Higher-education-in-Latin-America-the-international-dimension FAUBAI (n.d.). Brazilian Association for International Education. Available at: http://faubai. org.br/en-us/ FIES (2019). Brasil. Ministério da Educação (MEC). Fundo de Financiamento Estudantil— FIES . Available at: http://sisfiesportal.mec.gov.br/ Freire Junior, J.C., and Spadaro, P. (2017). Beyond Science Without Borders: Brazil Retools Its Internationalization Strategy. 18 September 2017. Available at https://wenr.wes. org/2017/09/beyond-science-without-borders-brazil-retools-its-internationalization-scheme Guimarães-Iosif, R., Mendonça de Oliveira, L., Pollom Zardo, S., and Veiga Dos Santos, A. (2016). Programa Ciência sem Fronteiras: a tradução da política de internacionalização brasileira no Canadá. Interfaces Brasil/Canadá. Canoas, 16(1): 16–39. INEP (2019). Brasil. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (INEP). Censo da Educação Superior 2018: Notas Estatísticas. Ministério da Educação, Brasília, 2019. Available at: http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_superior/censo_superior/ documentos/2019/censo_da_educacao_superior_2018-notas_estatisticas.pdf Lei de Cotas (2012). Brasil. Lei 12.711/2012. Presidência da República. Available at: http:// www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL_03/_Ato2011-2014/2012/Lei/L12711.htm Marinoni, G. (2019). IAU 5th Global Survey—Internationalization of Higher Education: An Evolving Landscape, Locally and Globally. DUZ Medienhaus and IAU, 2019. Available at: https://www.iau-aiu.net/Internationalization?lang=en Marques, F. (2017). Experiência Encerrada. Revista Pesquisa Fapesp. June 2017. Available at: http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/020_financiamento_256-1.pdf Mcmanus, C., and Nobre, C. (2016). Internacionalização e inclusão social no Ciência sem Fronteiras. Valor Econômico, June 21, 2016. Nelson Mandela Bay Global Dialogue Declaration on the Future of Internationalization of Higher Education, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, January (2014). Available at: http://www. aieaworld.org/assets/docs/Press_Releases/nelson_declaration.pdf OECD (2019). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. September 2019. Available at: http:// download.inep.gov.br/acoes_internacionais/eag/documentos/2019/Country_Note_ EAG_2019_Brasil.pdf OESP (2019). Idiomas sem Fronteiras será encerrado pelo MEC. O Estado de S. Paulo—OESP. July 19, 2019. Available at: https://educacao.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,idiomas-semfronteiras-sera-encerrado-pelo-mec,70002927793 PNE (2014). Brasil. Lei No 13.005/2014—Plano Nacional de Educação. Available at: http:// pne.mec.gov.br/18-planos-subnacionais-de-educacao/543-plano-nacional-de-educacaolei-n-13-005-2014 Prouni (2019). Brasil. Ministério da Educação (MEC). Programa Universidade para Todos— Prouni. Available at: http://prouniportal.mec.gov.br/o-programa PEC (2019). Brasil. Programa de Estudantes-Convênio. Ministério de Relações Exteriores. Available at: http://www.dce.mre.gov.br/PEC/PECG.php and http://www.dce.mre.gov.br/ PEC/PECPG.php QS (2019). QS Latin America Ranking 2019. Available at: https://www.topuniversities.com/ university-rankings/latin-american-university-rankings/2019 Righetti, S., and Gamba, E. (2019). Categorização do Ensino Superior no Brasil: Diversidade e Complementaridade. Repensar a Universidade II: Impactos para a Sociedade. Jacques

196

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Marcovitch (org.). Com-Arte and Fapesp. 2019. Available at: http://www.livrosabertos.sibi. usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/download/411/362/1459-1?inline=1 Robles, C. and Bhandari, R. (2019). Higher Education and Student Mobility. A Capacity Building Pilot Study in Brazil. IIE . September 2019. Available at: https://www.capes.gov.br/ images/stories/download/diversos/23112017-High-Education-and-Student-Mobility-BrazilPilot-2.pdf RUF (2019). Ranking Universitário Folha 2019. Available at: https://ruf.folha.uol.com.br/2019/ ranking-de-universidades/principal/ SBPC (2017). Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência. O fim do Ciência sem Fronteiras depois de R$ 13 bilhões investidos em bolsas no exterior. June 30, 2017. Available at: http://portal.sbpcnet.org.br/ noticias/o-fim-do-ciencia-sem-fronteiras-depois-de-r-13-bilhoes-investidos-em-bolsas-noexterior/ SJR (2018). Scimago Journal and Country Rank. Available at: https://www.scimagojr.com/ countryrank.php?year=2018 Stallivieri, L. (2004). Documento marco de lançamento dos resultados do planejamento estratégico aplicado ao Fórum das Assessorias das Universidades Brasileiras para Assuntos Internacionais. April, 2004. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/304216362 Taylor, A., Ledger, B., Falk, D., Baichwal, A., Anderson, S., and Morris, C. (2015). U of T’s World Wide Web. Retrieved May 20, 2015. UofT Magazine. Available at: http://www. magazine.utoronto.ca/ feature/u-of-t-s-world-wide-web-globalcollaboration-university-of-toronto/ THE (2019). Times Higher Education World University Ranking 2019. Available at: https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking Universities UK (2015). Ciência sem Fronteiras Reino Unido: Impact of the Brazilian Scientific Mobility Programme 2012–2015, August 1, 2015. Available at: http://www.universitiesuk. ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/International/swb-brochure-2012-15.pdf VEJA (2011). Pela primeira vez, USP está entre as 200 melhores do mundo. VEJA. 5 out 2011. Available at: https://veja.abril.com.br/educacao/pela-primeira-vez-usp-esta-entre-as-200melhores-do-mundo/

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean ANNETTE INSANALLY AND LUZ INMACULADA MADERA

INTRODUCTION The Caribbean is one of the most diverse, pluri-racial, multi-cultural, and vulnerable areas on the planet. Pursuing the sustainable development goals—comprehensively reflected in the 2030 Agenda (United Nations, n.d.)—and addressing new Caribbean realities are major challenges for its small countries (ECLAC, 2017). Global trends and dynamics need Caribbean citizens who can understand and engage with the environmental, social, economic, political, and other challenges of today and tomorrow, and university graduates who possess critical thinking skills and global competencies. In this scenario, the internationalization of higher education becomes a strategic element to enhance the local and regional competences needed in order to respond to those challenges and the internationalized performance of educational systems, institutions, and actors (GacelÁvila and Rodríguez, 2019). As institutions identify how best to improve their international education to address the global realities that Caribbean students and citizens confront in this century, they must also globalize their understanding and abilities to reach across borders and boundaries to share knowledge to enhance cooperation and well-being (Jibeen and Asad Khan, 2015).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The existing higher education internationalization theories and approaches developed in the global North have tended to be the primary references for the sector worldwide. However, internationalization strategies, mechanisms, and practice will reflect the differences in circumstances, philosophy, and ideology of the regions internalized in the sector (Mihut, Altbach, and de Wit, 2017). The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the particularities of the Caribbean, identify common challenges faced by its higher education sector, and give an overview of internationalization strategies and examples of impactful results. The three principal data sources used are a bibliographic review of texts and reports, a survey, and an opinion poll, in order to obtain primary information from the relevant academic institutions and actors. The survey instrument utilized to capture current 197

198

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

information on internationalization practices in the Caribbean higher education sector was a questionnaire (in English), modelled on that used by the Regional Observatory of Internationalization and Networking in Tertiary Education (OBIRET) (Gacel-Ávila and Rodríguez, 2019). The views of members of the region’s academic leadership, management staff, researchers, professors, and students (hereinafter regional academic experts and actors) were also canvassed.

CARIBBEAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION: SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS The diversity of Caribbean countries, with their combined natural resources, human talent, diverse political systems and funding access, cultural affinities and diversities, multiple languages, and different educational models, accords the region a significant potential for regional development. Yet, its regional economy, primarily tourism- and agriculture-based, is affected annually by climatic phenomena that undermine its sustainable development, especially in the smaller islands (Lam, Arenas, Brito, and Liu, 2014). Increasingly, the Higher Education sector is being challenged by governments to be more competitive and responsible, build strong public–private partnerships, foster jobs and opportunities, and master technology and innovation to advance the sustainable development of their nations. The sector is exhorted to educate to mitigate the negative impact on the human and economic resources of countries brought about by their vulnerabilities to natural disasters, food insecurity, excessive crime and threatened security, high energy costs, and inadequate social infrastructure, all of which undermine human development potential.

CARIBBEAN CONTEXT AND REALITY With a global population of 42 million inhabitants (89.6 percent concentrated in the Greater Antilles), the Human Development Index of Caribbean countries ranges between high and medium, with few exceptions. There are large differences in terms of the regional economy: Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic represent 76 percent of regional gross domestic product (GDP); Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Bahamas, Suriname, Barbados, and Guyana 21 percent and the rest of the territories only 3 percent (MEPyD, 2016). Over the past two decades, despite the improvements shown by Caribbean countries’ human development indicators, poverty and its social sequels continue to be major challenges, with solutions requiring the joint effort of civil society, governments, productive sectors, NGOs, and academia. Even in those Caribbean countries with better macroeconomic performance, until more recently—Barbados, Bahamas, Dominican Republic; and good social indicators—Cuba, social and economic transformation continue to be urgent (Rampersad, 2017). The political organization and government systems also reveal the heterogeneity of the region that integrates thirteen sovereign states and nineteen overseas departments and dependencies: Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, the Commonwealth Caribbean (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago and also continental Suriname, Belize and Guyana), the French Overseas Departments, the Dutch Antilles, and

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

199

remaining British and American dependencies. Given the small scale of Caribbean societies and economies, there is no doubt that the combination of the parts would be advantageous for sustainable development. The reality is that, despite multiple initiatives and efforts, to date regional integration has been elusive (MEPyD, 2016). Several regional organizations have been created to promote the regional integration agenda but, in practice, they constitute a network of overlapping interests, without greater results in terms of integration: The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Forum of the Caribbean Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (CARIFORUM), the Association of Caribbean States (ACS), the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), among others. Despite the difficulties in achieving Caribbean integration, for multiple reasons, higher education, global and regional societies and institutions find ways to develop global understanding, solidarity, and acceptance through internationalization (Mihut et al., 2017).

HIGHER EDUCATION, INTERNATIONALIZATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Global and Regional Dynamics Over the past decade, Caribbean higher education institutions (HEIs) have sought to develop their capacity, resilience, and competitiveness to ably respond to the developmental needs of the governments and people that they serve, and to position their institutions as an attractive partner and higher education destination. Yet the scenario is still one where the overall participation rates in higher education remain low, the education offer is limited, quality assurance in the sector is highly variable, and there are few formal accreditation systems (Botero, 2017). Some governments and institutional heads have been slow to develop policies to create accessible quality higher education systems, to promote global human, professional competences, and facilitate the degree of regional cross-fertilization that is necessary to participate successfully in a complex planetary context. Regional academic experts and actors attribute the shortfalls in integrated action for sustainable development to the inconsistency of action as a regional community and see internationalization as a key factor for the promotion of regional integration and development, since no university can fully develop and transform society without international cooperation. Universities are in an optimal position to interact in multiple contexts and these must be aligned with the global dynamics to maintain their relevance to the communities they serve. Trust, recognition of degrees and programs, and joint action among institutions and actors are necessary elements for a collaborative academic culture that will unlock the human potential of the Caribbean and enhance action for the sustainable development of its countries. Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, Vice Chancellor of The University of the West Indies, emphasizes that a nation’s human capital endowment— the knowledge and skills embodied in individuals that enable them to create economic value—can be a more important determinant of long-term success than virtually any other resource (Beckles, 2017). Current dynamics in higher education require HEIs to develop strategic initiatives and innovative programs that will increase the attractiveness of their offer both at home and abroad. The challenge of achieving this is heightened by the current reality of diminishing state funding and the persistent lure of HEIs to attract and retain the talent available in

200

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

developing countries in the Caribbean (Beckles, Perry, and Whitely, 2005). The responsibility of the state is to invest adequately in education and training: “Investment in education is important, enabling the development of each person’s full potential and consequently creating a competitive workforce. Education is therefore a social indicator of a country’s economic development and the stock and quality of its human capital” (Vision 2030, Jamaica, 2009: 4).

Challenges and Opportunities for Internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean In a region historically fragmented by colonial cultures, a consistently regional integrated approach, based on complementarity of knowledge, joint developmental research, and combined scientific and technological advances would be transformational for the sector. The mobilization of skills through internationalization strategies and mechanisms can help Caribbean peoples optimize the capacity to work with others, to define a common future, benefit from cultural diversity, and prepare citizens for effective participation in a globalized environment. Intra- and extra-regional mobility, language learning, diversity studies, Caribbean interculturality, academic networks, and partnerships become relevant (Madera, 2011). The UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC) continues to support the internationalization efforts of Caribbean HEIs. In June 2018, its 3rd General Conference on Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean, CRES 2018, issued a Declaration followed by an Action Plan 2018– 2028, intended to assist governments, HEIs, academic networks, and international agencies in this endeavor. The documents address the pillars of internationalization including the recognition of studies and degrees to promote academic mobility, appropriate legislation, sound accreditation systems, enabling policies on science and technology and alignment of curriculum content with social demands and the needs of the labor market. Potentially, they serve as a roadmap and include indicators for performance measurement. The CRES 2018 Action Plan encourages governments to adopt the legal regulations included in the New Convention for the Recognition of Studies, Degrees and Diplomas, within a progressive internationalization framework by 2021 (IESALC, 2018a,b). While the implementation of the 2030 Agenda rests on governments, the responsibility for achieving the goals rests with all sectors. Caribbean universities, recognizing the importance of partnering for the region’s resilience, must invest in intercultural education and multilingual programs, exchange of teachers, students and non-academic staff, and an internationalized curriculum. The barriers that prevent international exchanges in the region must be eliminated. This requires effort from the universities (academic flexibility), governments (visa, immigration status, recognition of degrees), and the private sector (international internships). There are risks and challenges associated with these aspirations, specifically the fundamental mismatch that can occur between international aspirations, local needs, and institutional resources; the very real potential for poor planning and execution of misguided internationalization strategies; the risk of further cleavages between wealthier and poorer individuals, institutions, and countries, all approaching internationalization on an inherently uneven playing field; and new opportunities for corruption and exploitation. —Rumbley, Altbach, and Reisberg, 2012: 23

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

201

Universities in the Global North, and to some extent in the South, have been tempted to make the commercialization of education one of the primary components of their internationalization thrust, in search of alternative sources of funding, and to boost their ranking. The question is how can HEIs in the Caribbean guarantee sustained international good practice, generate viable solutions, cultivate beneficial partnerships, develop the capacity for policy change, and drive sectoral integration for optimal management of national and combined regional resources, without the full support of their governments and societies who must share these responsibilities? What opportunities does internationalization provide to Caribbean HEIs to develop the human capacity that can effectively manage the energy sector, for example, to enhance production and environmental protection, and develop the vast resources of the Caribbean Sea for enhanced Energy and Food Security? Consulted regional academic experts and actors are convinced that an internationalized higher education system is the strategy that can best serve to enhance the local and regional competences that will contribute to responding to these needs. This will require urgent action in the area of mutual recognition of qualifications and common accreditation systems to enable labor mobility both regionally and globally and student mobility across the multilingual Caribbean.

THE STATUS OF CARIBBEAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION: SURVEY FINDINGS The responses of Caribbean universities provide useful information to determine the scope of their internationalization practices. The organization of the information received follows the format used in the 1st Regional Survey of Internationalization Trends in Tertiary Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (from now on OBIRET 2016 LAC survey). A total of twenty-eight HEIs (sixteen public and twelve private non-profit) from the Spanish-, French-, English- and Dutch- speaking Caribbean responded to the questionnaire. Table 14.1 shows the HEIs participating in the survey, country and type of institution, followed by the main findings of the survey.

Survey Main Results Education Offer of Participating Universities Educational level: 39.29 percent of the participant institutions offer University upper technical level (AA/AS); 92.86 percent offer bachelor’s degrees (BA/BSc, first cycle); 92.86 percent offer master’s degrees (second cycle), and 64.29 percent offer PhDs (third cycle). Campus size: based on the number of students, the institutions surveyed correspond to HEIs of small size (fewer than 5,000 students) and medium size (from 5,000 to 13,000 students), except for the State University of Haiti (UEH), which has a total of 36,500 students, and the regional University of the West Indies with a total of 50,000 students.

Benefits, Risks, and Obstacles to Internationalization in the Caribbean The main benefits of internationalization reported by HEIs consulted are: “Strengthened research and knowledge production,” “Improved academic quality of educational programs.” For the HEIs of the Caribbean, the internationalization of higher education

202

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 14.1 Participants HEIs, country, and type Institution Country – Type Universidad Agraria de La Habana “Fructuoso Rodríguez Pérez”, UNAH Universidad de Camagüey “Ignacio Agramonte Loynaz”, UC Universidad Central “Marta Abreu” de Las Villas, UCVL Universidad de Ciego de Ávila “Máximo Gómez Báez”, Cuba UNICA 7 public HEIs Universidad de las Ciencias de la Cultura Física y el Deporte “Manuel Fajardo”, UCCFD Universidad de Cienfuegos “Carlos Rafael Rodríguez”, UCF Universidad de Holguín “Oscar Lucero Moya”, UHo University of Curaçao Dr. Moises da Costa Gomez, UoC

Curaçao, Dutch Antilles – 1 public HEI

Barna Management School Instituto Superior de Formación Docente Salomé Ureña, ISFODOSU Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo – INTEC Dominican Republic Universidad APEC, UNAPEC 7 private non-profit HEIs Universidad Central del Este, UCE 1 public HEI (ISFODOSU) Universidad Dominicana O&M Universidad Iberoamericana, UNIBE Universidad Nacional Pedro Henríquez Ureña, UNPHU Université des Antilles, UA

Campuses in Guadeloupe and Martinique, public HEIs

The University of Guyana, UG Guyana – 1 public HEI Ecole Supérieure d’Infotronique d’Haïti, ESIH Haiti Université d’État d’Haïti, UEH 3 private non-profit HEIs Université INUFOCAD 1 public HEI (UEH) Université Quisqueya, uniQ University of Technology, UTech Jamaica – 1 public HEI Puerto Rico Universidad Interamericana, INTER – Recinto Metropolitano 1 public HEI (UPR) University of Puerto Rico, UPR 1 private non-profit HEI (INTER) Anton De Kom Universiteit van Suriname, AdeKUS Suriname – 1 public HEI University of Trinidad and Tobago, UTT

Trinidad & Tobago – 1 public HEI

Regional public HEI providing education services The University of the West Indies, UWI to 17 Countries in the Anglophone Caribbean Source: Survey results.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

203

constitutes a key factor for the institutional, academic, and scientific development of the region. The main risks of internationalization are, in order of importance: “Unequal benefits between partners,” “Overemphasis on internationalization at the expense of other institutional priorities,” and “Excessive competition among institutions.” Of the main risks of internationalization for the country, “Brain drain” was ranked first in the region, followed by “The commercialization of education,” and “Increase in inequality among HEIs of the same country.” The risks prioritized are linked to socio-economic reality, scientific and academic fragility, inequality factors, and the limited financial resources that characterize the region. The main external factors that encourage internationalization are: “Search for alternative resources of funding,” “Availability of international cooperation.” “Strengthening the international visibility of the University” was mentioned as an external factor. The financial aspects and securing resources are highlighted as critical priorities in the international academic dynamics of the region. The main internal obstacles to internationalization were, in order of importance, “Insufficient funding,” “Limited institutional leadership/vision,” “Insufficient information on international opportunities,” “Lack of strategy or plan to guide the process,” and “Lack of language proficiency on the part of students and academic.” Prioritized internal obstacles reveal the need to strengthen the financing, focus, and management of internationalization in HEIs in the region. The main external obstacles to internationalization included, in order of importance, “Limited public funding for internationalization,” “Lack of national policies and programs to support internationalization,” “Visa restrictions imposed by other countries on students and academics,” “Difficulties in recognizing studies and transferring academic credits,” and “Difficulty in finding foreign partners.” As was reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey, in comparison with the global average, the Caribbean gives more weight to the lack of public funding and the lack of national policies and programs to support internationalization. Another obstacle reported is the United States blockade.

Organizational Policies, Structures, and Strategies In terms of organizational structure, strategic planning, internationalization policies and strategies, 78.57 percent indicated that internationalization is integral to the mission statement and/or strategic plan/institutional development plan and 21.43 percent reported that it is mentioned. No institution said the mission of the institution does not address the international dimension. The level of importance the authorities give to internationalization was rated to be 68 percent “Very important,” and 25 percent “Important.” Of participating HEIs, 68 percent reported having an institutional plan for internationalization in place and with specific objectives and goals; 25 percent reported that such a plan is in the development stages, while 7.14 percent reported not having such a plan. At the level of academic units, only 18 percent of the HEIs reported having a plan for internationalization and 46 percent indicated that some academic areas have their internationalization plan. In the Caribbean, the favorable percentages are higher than those reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. Regarding the institutional structures and policies to communicate and disseminate the internationalization process, 61 percent of the participating HEIs reported having a website exclusively for the internationalization dimension. Of these, 39 percent do not

204

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

have a website, only four non-Anglophone institutions indicated having a website available in the local language and in English, and no Anglophone institution reported having a website available in another language. In relation to having an internationalization office (IO), 89 percent answered affirmatively and 76 percent of IOs report having a staff of between one and five persons; 50 percent are on the highest tier within the institutional hierarchy compared with 31 percent reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey, and 43 percent are on the second tier. In 46 percent of the cases, the office responsible for internationalization is “always” considered when proposing, programming, and developing initiatives, projects, and international actions, 39 percent “Usually,” and 14 percent indicated that it is “Sometimes” or “Rarely” considered. With regard to financial resources, 64 percent indicated that they had a budget for internationalization activities at the institutional level, but only 37 percent of HEIs reported having the resources to carry out activities and just 7 percent said they had a budget assigned to the IOs. The HEIs’ main sources for internationalization activities are the institutional budget, funding from international or private organizations, and external public funding. Other sources of resources are international funding projects, international grants, partnerships with foreign institutions, national public funds, sponsorship and tuition, cooperation projects, and student funding. The participation in international calls for funds reported: frequently 29 percent, sometimes 39 percent, rarely 18 percent, and never 14 percent. The most noted source of cooperation resources are European funds with local programs, e.g., Erasmus, others. In 83 percent of cases, cooperation funds are accessed through inter-institutional networks. HEI participation in international academic cooperation associations membership is as follows: 43 percent Universities Caribbean (UC), formerly UNICA; 36 percent Inter-American Higher Education Organization (OUI/IOHE); 32 percent Union of Universities of Latin America and the Caribbean (UDUAL); 28 percent International Association of Universities (IAU); 25 percent Association of International Educators (NAFSA). Other associations mentioned were the Ibero-American Postgraduate University Association (AUIP), European Association for International Education (EAIE), Association of Caribbean University, Research and Institutional Libraries (ACURIL), l’ Agence Universitaire Francophonie (AUF), and the Conference of Rectors, Presidents and Directors of Caribbean Universities (CORPUCA), among others. Most of the HEIs do not participate in any international education events (31 percent). Only 35 percent attend the fair organized by the Association of International Educators, NAFSA (without stand), followed by the European Association for International Education (EAIE) (15 percent without stand). In terms of quality assurance, evaluation, and monitoring systems for their internationalization process, 46 percent reported having one and 31 percent reported that the system is in its development stages. Regarding having a program to evaluate the results of faculty mobility, 42 percent reported that such a system is in the development stages, while only 23 percent reported having one. With regard to a program to evaluate the results of student mobility, 35 percent reported in the affirmative and 31 percent have it in progress. Public universities have greater advances in that aspect than private universities.

Program Structures The main internationalization strategies and activities are, in order of importance: academic mobility (96 percent), student mobility (93 percent), participation in cooperation

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

205

projects (86 percent), management and funding of international research projects (82 percent), internationalization of the curriculum and development of joint or dual programs (68 percent). A low level of involvement is observed with the recruitment of international students and offering their own programs to international students on campus, abroad, or online.

Academic Collaboration Agreements The top priority regions of the world for collaboration with the Caribbean are, in order of importance: Latin America and Western Europe, followed by North America and Asia. For LAC, it is the Caribbean, Andean Zone, and Southern Cone. The main regions and countries for collaboration agreements reported by participating institutions are, in decreasing order: Latin America (Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Panama); Caribbean (Dominican Republic, Guadeloupe-Martinique, Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, Puerto Rico, Suriname, Aruba, Barbados, Belize, French Guyana, and St. Maarten); Western Europe (Spain) and North America. The regions with which there are the fewest academic collaboration agreements are Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania. The priority intra-regional link and with Latin America is noteworthy.

Internationalization of Curriculum Most of the institutions (59 percent) report having a policy for the internationalization of curriculum compared with 51 percent not having a policy as indicated in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. The most frequent activities are: “Outgoing student mobility” (91 percent), “Inbound student mobility” (76 percent), and “Courses taught in collaboration with foreign institutions” (76 percent), followed by “Programs/courses taught in a language other than the local one” (62 percent), and “Co-advisories” (57 percent). Of the participating institutions, 69 percent do not offer massive open online courses (MOOC). Other activities mentioned are short-term courses on specific topics taught by foreign professors, virtual teaching mobility, and participation in networks. The main obstacles to the internationalization of curriculum reported are: “Indifference or lack of information of academic personnel” (50 percent), “Administrative or bureaucratic difficulties,” such as the transfer of credits, differences between academic calendars (36 percent), “Lack of institutional policies” (31 percent), and “Inflexible institutional regulations” (14 percent). Other obstacles proposed are “Deficiencies in curriculum design,” “Absence of culture and lack of resources for internationalization of the curriculum,” “Lack of empowerment by academics and managers,” “Language barriers,” “Recognition of academic credits,” and “No funding for curriculum development and accreditation of programs.”

Joint and/or Dual-degree Programs The offering of joint and/or dual degree programs in collaboration with foreign institutions was reported by 59 percent of the HEIs vs. 39 percent reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. Most of the joint degree and dual-degree programs are offered at the undergraduate level. The countries that collaborate the most with the Caribbean in joint degree and dual-degree programs are, in order of importance, Spain, the United States, France, Canada, Belgium, and China. In Latin America, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama,

206

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and intra-regional Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Haiti. The greatest number of jointdegree and dual degree programs at the Caribbean are offered in the fields of Engineering and Technology (77 percent HEIs), Humanities (50 percent), and Social Science (46 percent). The field of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences has the fewest collaborative programs in the region, in both modalities.

Institutional Language Teaching Policy Proficiency in a foreign language(s) is reported by 32 percent as an admission and/or graduation requirement for all their academic programs, while 36 percent report that this applies only to some of their academic programs. Having a specialized center, which is an independent entity, to teach the local language to foreign students is reported by 68 percent of the institutions vs. 57 percent reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey.

Internationalization of Research Regarding academic research activities, 77.78 percent of participant institutions stated that their academics engage in academic/research activities abroad; 66.67 percent have a program or mechanisms to promote the publication of scientific articles in indexed journals; 59.26 percent have a scholarship or economic support program for faculty mobility; 51.85 percent consider international experience for the hiring, promotion, and contract renewal of academic personnel and only 37 percent have an institutional program of funding for international research projects. The main obstacles to the internationalization of research reported were, in order of importance, “Lack of funding,” “Little experience and knowledge, or low international profile of academics,” followed by “Administrative or bureaucratic difficulties” and “Lack of language proficiency on the part of academics.” Other obstacles reported are: “Political instability,” “USA blockade,” “Little institutional incentive.” On comparing these results with those of the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey, it would seem that the Caribbean needs to develop mechanisms to promote the internationalization of teaching and funding to support researchers.

Academic Mobility The number of hosted foreign academics in 2018–2019 for 67 percent of the participating HEIs was between zero and 25 individuals; 16.5 percent received between 26 and 50 and two Cuban HEIs reported receiving between 195 and more of 300 academics (16.5 percent). The main countries outside Latin America and the Caribbean for inbound and outbound academic mobility are, in order of importance: Spain (13 mentions), United States (13), Canada (10), France (6), Belgium (3), Germany (3), the Netherlands (3), and the United Kingdom (3). It is of interest to note that countries such as Angola, India, Korea, and Nigeria featured among the five main countries of inbound mobility in the region. Regarding Latin America, the main countries reported for academic mobility are: Mexico (14 mentions), Colombia (12), Ecuador (6), Argentina (1), Brazil (1), Chile (1), and Venezuela (1). For intraregional academic mobility, the countries reported as a priority target for other Caribbean countries are: Cuba (4 mentions), Dominican Republic (4), Jamaica (4), Guadeloupe-Martinique (2), Barbados (1), French Guyana (1), Guyana (1), Haiti (1),

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

207

Puerto Rico (1), Suriname (1), and Trinidad and Tobago (1). This data indicates significant intra-regional academic mobility.

Inbound and Outbound Student Mobility Main modalities of international mobility among participant intuitions, in decreasing order: research stays (81 percent), academic trips (77 percent), taking courses (73 percent), professional internships (65 percent), graduate study scholarships (50 percent), language courses (42 percent), and medical rotations (27 percent). Other modalities mentioned are semester abroad and dual-degree programs. In the Caribbean, most exchange students, both inbound and outbound, are enrolled in undergraduate programs, coinciding with results reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. One exception is the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus (UPRRP), which reported a very high flow of outbound mobility for doctoral students. University upper technical programs represent 16 percent, bachelor’s degree 36 percent, master’s degree 14 percent, and PhD 32 percent (UPRRP mobility students represent 55 percent of mobility flows of doctoral students). A comparison of the numbers of outbound and inbound mobility reported by the HEIs shows that the Caribbean sends more students than it receives, similar to the flows reported in the OBIRET 2016 general survey. Inbound mobility students come from, in order of importance: Western Europe (17.48 percent), Latin American and the Caribbean (16.56 percent), North America (15.65 percent), followed by Asia (11.96 percent), Eastern Europe (9.20 percent), and Africa (5.52 percent). Inbound mobility from the Middle East and Oceania seems to be very low in the Caribbean. Outbound mobility students go, in order of importance, to Latin America and the Caribbean (24.69 percent), North America (22.22 percent), Western Europe (19.70 percent), followed by Asia (11.11 percent), Eastern Europe (9.87 percent), and own country (4.90 percent). Outbound mobility to Africa, the Middle East, and Oceania seems to be very low in the Caribbean. Training for mobility: 54 percent of the HEIs surveyed report preparing some of the students for an international academic experience and only 39 percent indicated preparing all their students for international exchange. The absence of prior preparation can reduce the success of the international and intercultural experience of the students. The main obstacle to student mobility falls under the categories of “Students’ family and/or job commitments,” “Limited number of agreements and spaces,” and “Lack of language proficiency among students.” Other obstacles mentioned are, in order of importance: lack of funding and scholarships, cost of living abroad, visa process, too rigid curriculum, lack of assessment of mobility results. Comparing these results with those of the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey, the Caribbean as a region shows greater competences in the management of foreign languages but experiences greater difficulties for mobility due to family and labor reasons, and the lack of inter-institutional agreements that support exchange. The financial factor was highlighted as a major obstacle for mobility in the region. In terms of economic support, 53.85 percent of the participating institutions do not offer their students any type of support for international mobility compared with the 38 percent reported in the 2019 LAC survey, while 34.62 percent of the institutions indicated that they provide partial support. Only 11.54 percent provide scholarships or financial support or both. Regarding virtual mobility, 74 percent of the HEIs reported that they do

208

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

not offer modality of virtual mobility for students, a lower percentage than reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey (82 percent).

Liaison Offices and Campuses Abroad Seven, or 26 percent, of the participating institutions report having a liaison office abroad. Three of the participating institutions report having a campus abroad (11.11 percent), one in Puerto Rico, one in Haiti, and one in the Dominican Republic—all private institutions. Four, 15 percent, are offering courses that do not lead to a degree (continuing education, certification courses, etc.); five, 19 percent, offer complete academic programs, and three, 112 percent, offer both. The UWI has centers in seventeen Caribbean countries and one center in each continent, except for Europe and Australia.

Global University Rankings Only twenty-five of the Caribbean participating HEIs answered this question. The highest score was 36 percent, corresponding to “They are not an accurate description of the regional reality” and 28 percent consider these rankings to be “An important factor for institutional decision-making,” compared with the 38 percent reported in the OBIRET 2016 LAC survey. The same percentage corresponds to “Unknown” while “They are of no interest to our institution” scored 0 percent and “Other” scored 8 percent with no specifications indicated.

Caribbean Voices on Higher Education Internationalization in the Region Regional academic experts and actors were consulted for their views on internationalization and whether they considered it a critical tool for enhancing local and regional capacities for quality higher education and sustainable development in countries such as those of the Caribbean. The considerations presented below capture the consensus in responses. Relevance of Internationalization of Higher Education in the Region It is a common idea that higher education is an engine for development, trade in services, job creation, and poverty reduction and that internationalization can be a vehicle to foster economic and social growth, through the achievement of global and regional development imperatives, while minimizing negative social, cultural, and environmental impacts. In all cases, internationalization of higher education in the Caribbean is considered an integrative regionalization force of collaborative action among parties, allowing countries to bridge educational gaps and share the knowledge created through networking and cooperation projects. Regional academic experts and actors also were in favor of the ongoing networking for the launch of a Caribbean and Latin America common space for higher education, science, and technology, which would relate to other regional spaces worldwide. This way, students and academics will surpass the insular or sub-regional and think globally. Internationalization as a Key Factor for Academic and Institutional Quality HEIs were considered instrumental in providing guidance to identify opportunities and planning actions that the sector can include in their program cycles. In order to achieve this, an active institution-wide internationalization culture and measurement of its developmental impact through continuous quality assessment were essential. Critical issues to be resolved

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

209

included adequate institutional funding for capacity-building of staff and students through study abroad, a globalized curriculum, participation in regional and international conferences, targeted research output on issues related to the region’s vulnerabilities and development, and meaningful and enhancing partnerships, A comprehensive, regional approach that focuses and deploys limited resources effectively, that is based on attracting greater numbers of international students in subject areas in which public HEIs have a good reputation and that leverages the results of research and the considerable technical expertise of HEIs will strengthen the reputation of the region in the international higher education sphere and enable it to forge its brand of internationalization. Another pressing issue to be addressed on behalf of institutional sustainability in a global environment is to provide the assurances of quality, technological platforms, and the transferability of credits to attract potential international students, faculty, and business organizations. Sustainable Development and Internationalization in the Caribbean Context The sustainable development of a society requires inclusive, equitable, and quality education and learning opportunities for all. The rhetoric must be replaced by action which contemplates, for example, an increase in the number of scholarships available to developing countries for higher education studies by 2030, and an increase in the offer for training teachers in developing countries, through international cooperation. This cooperation will strengthen the capacity of the State to drive social transformation, equity, and regional identity, and contribute to the understanding and overcoming of the inequalities that characterize the region. Internationalization of Caribbean Higher Education: Policies and General Practices It was felt that the internationalization of higher education, to be meaningful and effective, should not be limited to the academic domain but should involve other sectors. The suggestion was the creation of a public–private partnership for the purpose, focusing on the quadruple approach of the Helix network (university-business-society-government), integrating the social dimension where character, goals, responsibility, and ethical values become integrators of efficiency, prudence, and justice. Mentorships, emphasizing the value-added entrepreneurship, innovation, and problem-solving capacities among our youth, would be important elements of their training in preparation for their effective participation in a globalized world. Internationalization of Higher Education: North and South Approaches Regional academic experts and actors were asked to identify differences between the approach and dynamics of internationalization in the North and in the South. They were of the view that it was treated as a financial academic and scientific hegemonic strategy by institutions in the North. For the South, it represented more of an opportunity to improve academic and scientific quality, access funds, share high-level knowledge, and contribute to driving development. They considered research to be critical for the enhancement of the entire education system and to increase local capacity to offer high value-added services, as well as the institution’s capacity to attract funding. Given that there are more opportunities available for researchers in the Global North, they felt that focus should be placed on developing more local research capacity in order to be able to participate in large-budget projects with foreign partners in developed countries.

210

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

INTERNATIONALIZATION AND STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS The trend has been for HEIs to focus on partnership arrangements with overseas institutions in North America, Europe, and Asia for the franchising and joint development of programs, and the joint establishment of research centers where choice of partners would be guided by common language. Over the past decade, several universities in the region have been engaging in greater south–south cooperation, in some cases propelled by their governments, the private sector, and multilateral agencies engaged in regional commercial arrangements. The European Union has been an effective partner for Caribbean ACP (Asia, Caribbean, Pacific) governments, under the umbrella of CARIFORUM, and the higher education sector has benefited consistently over the past decade from its Development Fund (EDF) arrangements for student and staff mobility programs for professional development and research projects targeting solutions to common regional challenges and needs. Individual HEIs in the South have developed strategic partnerships with institutions in the North and, in some cases, with Latin American universities, such as the experience of Cuba with Mexico. The Dominican Republic, followed by Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Haiti, have joint and double degree programs with foreign universities. The University of the West Indies (The UWI), the Université des Antilles (UA—Poles Martinique and Guadeloupe), and Po Bordeaux (France) offer a joint Master’s Programme of Excellence in Political Sciences. The four-year program comprises a one-year rotation at each institution and the final year at Po Bordeaux. The program educates young researchers in the political and legal systems of the Caribbean. Graduates tend to secure jobs with international agencies and regional organizations.

The Caribbean as an International Provider of Educational Services An assessment of the Caribbean higher education situation will show that the financial forces loom large. This can be viewed from two perspectives: the fiscal constraints faced by governments and the inability of students to pay for their programs. With the low level of growth in some territories and correspondingly the inability to secure jobs, students are reluctant to take up loans or have difficulty in repaying. Institutions are pressed to expand their financial resource base. The success of offshore institutions, for example, the medical training facilities of St. George’s University in Grenada and Ross University in St. Kitts, and in the Dominican Republic, in providing university level education to foreign students (mainly from the United States), is evidence that the export of higher education from developing countries in the Caribbean is financially viable (Bernal, 2019). Cuba has the largest number of foreign students in the region and exports its educational services in long-standing South–South cooperation arrangements. The prospect for this activity is enhanced by increased virtual delivery of higher education programs. If done on a sufficient scale, with vigorous international marketing and strategic coordination, a Trans-Caribbean cluster of higher education institutions could emerge with the potential to be a new export sector for the small developing economies of the Caribbean catering to foreign students and to cyber-students (Bernal, 2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

211

ACADEMIC COOPERATION STRATEGIES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL Since 2000, the region has been experiencing the manifestations of internationalization undertaken by universities in the global community. These include, in particular, the entry of transnational providers of higher education (Gift, Thurab-Nkhosi, and Alleyne, 2017). These foreign institutions are more flexible in their admission policies than local tertiary institutions and tend to be more entrepreneurial in marketing themselves and their programs. This development has sparked some concern about the relevance of these institutions’ objectives to the vision of the Caribbean (Williams, 2006).

THE ANGLOPHONE COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN The public higher education sector in the Anglophone Caribbean includes a regional university, The University of the West Indies (The UWI), national universities, and community colleges. The UWI responds to the higher education needs of seventeen island states and is making maximum use of its multinational reach to take advantage of the opportunities provided by internationalization in order to serve its constituents more effectively. Much progress has been made despite numerous challenges, not least of which is the high cost of making accessible a full range of learning options and opportunities to the seventeen small states it covers (Rampersad, 2017). The UWI Open Campus plays a significant role in this endeavor and is likely to become a more dominant player as the institution expands its global outreach. Many Anglophone Caribbean universities network actively with colleague institutions in the Spanish, Dutch, and French Caribbean within Universities Caribbean (UC), formerly UNICA (with official languages English, French and Spanish), which seeks to be an integrative force and to provide “One Caribbean Solutions.” The Association aims to maintain a persistent lobby among all stakeholders, including multilateral agencies and the business sector, on the important role that universities play in developing innovative entrepreneurship in the Caribbean and their need to partner for the sustainable development of the region by contributing their expertise and resources. (Moïse, 2019). Also, many institutions, particularly from the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), are members of the Association of Caribbean Tertiary Institutions Network (ACTI). With the recent creation of the Hemispheric University Consortium by eleven university leaders from the Americas, including The UWI, pressing regional challenges such as public health, climate change and urban resilience, crime and corruption, and entrepreneurship with inclusive innovation will be addressed, an important component being shared online courses for members of the Consortium (University of Miami News, 2018). Examples of effective partnerships and networking are the research networks addressing regional environmental and social challenges, created by The UWI and national Universities. The UWI was accorded global leadership by the International Association of Universities (IAU) in the mobilization of research and advocacy for the achievement of a climate-smart world. Subsequently, a global cluster of universities has been set up to assist in the task of achieving SDG 13 (UN Sustainable Development Goal 13—Climate action). Additionally, there is the Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies; The Centre for Marine Sciences (CMS), which networks with the GEF-funded Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem and Adjacent Areas (CLME) project;

212

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and The Climate Research Centre. There are several national, regional, and international institutions that have been partnering with UTECH (Jamaica) in its Co-op Ed Programme since 2012 and with the activities of its Caribbean Sustainability Energy and Innovation Institute (CSEII) and the Caribbean Procurement Training and Consultancy Centre (CPICC). Anglophone Caribbean universities have multiple cooperation agreements with universities in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the United Kingdom, which facilitate scholarships and research grants. Several participate actively in the short-term exchange opportunities for staff and students to study or conduct research at the undergraduate and graduate levels, such as the Canada-CARICOM Leadership Scholarships Program and the Emerging Leaders in the Americas Program (ELAP). There is also a growing number of bilateral agreements with universities in Latin America providing primarily for language exchange and teacher training. Several universities have also engaged in partnerships with new players in the world economy, China and India, in particular. Confucius Institutes exist on the campuses of many institutions, providing training in language and culture primarily to undergraduate students, many of whom subsequently migrate to mainland China, as English teachers. Individual universities have student exchange programs in diverse areas. The University of Guyana’s internationalization thrust will be boosted when it partners with Arizona State University to implement research programs in sustainable management and preservation of the country’s ecosystem, funded through significant investments negotiated between Conservation International-Guyana (CI-G) and the ExxonMobil Foundation for education (Guyana Chronicle, 2018: 14).

THE DUTCH CARIBBEAN The diversity in culture, language, colonial heritage, and higher education systems of the small islands in the Dutch Caribbean makes regional cooperation in higher education more difficult than on bigger continents (de Wit, 2017). While this is so, the national universities of Curacao and Aruba and St Martin, islands with primarily tourism-based economies, have increasingly been networking with institutions in diverse linguistic Caribbean territories, while maintaining a Dutch accreditation system. Both the University of Curacao and the University of Aruba are historically active members of UNICA (UC). The University of Suriname, a former Dutch colony on the South America continent, has diverse collaborative arrangements, including student and staff exchange, with Poland, China, Canada, and Brazil; joint projects and programs with France and French Guyana, The UWI, the University of Trinidad and Tobago, and the University of Guyana; as well as a multinational project on mangrove rehabilitation in coastal areas funded by local and international partners. It also has its own accrediting body (NOVA).

THE FRANCOPHONE CARIBBEAN France: Guadeloupe-Martinique Student and staff mobility at the Université des Antilles (UA), Poles Martinique and Guadeloupe, are normally funded through the Erasmus staff mobility (European) program, the Collectivité Territoriale de Martinique, and industry–academic partnerships

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

213

with private local Foundations. The Centre Nationale pour la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the Horizon 20-20 EU-funded program provide research funding and individual fellowships. UA is an Associate member of the OECS and participates in joint projects in Health Administration, for example. UA, The UWI, the University of Havana, and UNAPEC (DR) collaborate on the AUF-CORPUCA Chair project in Caribbean Studies (Moïse, 2019).

Haiti The higher education system in Haiti has an important participation of private HEIs. Besides the Université d’État d’Haïti, with the intention of regionalizing the higher education system in Haiti, ten public universities were established in rural provinces in 2014. These HEIs are engaged in an intensive lobby for the adoption of legislation with a view to modernizing the higher education ecosystem. Haitian academic experts and actors see internationalization as an opportunity to compare the reality of Haiti with that of other countries and this is essential for the education of young students and professionals. Internationalization strategies include agreements with foreign universities and university associations providing, for exchange of professors and students, joint research projects, training and research grants; student scholarships offered by foreign universities; collaboration in governance; and affiliation with regional and international organizations and networks. In 2011, the Collège Doctoral Haïtien, CDH, was established with research laboratories at three HEIs—The State University, UEH, Quisqueya University, uniQ, and the Ecole Supérieure d’Infotronique d’Haïti, ESIH (Lumarque, 2018). Several Haitian HEIs have been providing institutional financial support for PhD students and junior researchers despite very limited financial capacities. The Haitian Association for the Advancement of Science and Technology is a public–private university initiative to create cross-border activities with research networks in the Americas. There is also a Consortium of five public and private HEIs and EU partners for a project to promote a Quality Assurance culture, funded by the EU ERASMUS PLUS facility. The mobility experience in the MBA program, organized by the University of Notre Dame of Haiti, in partnership with HEIs in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, has generated in students the confidence for Haiti to attain the economic and social achievements of other Caribbean countries. Other cooperation programs include Jamaica, in the field of financial statements and Cuba, mainly in health education. To counteract the colonial production model established in Haiti, which has contributed to its environmental deterioration, new models in regional academic exchanges have made it possible for Haiti to assess its own environmental sustainability. The Haitian diaspora is set to play an important role in the development of internationalization and progress in Haiti once the current resistance to their efforts at the country level is removed.

THE SPANISH CARIBBEAN Cuba The Cuban higher education system is composed only of public HEIs, where great importance is attached to internationalization and academic cooperation, even when mobility and other strategies have been limited for decades due to a political and economic blockade. Collaboration with the socialist bloc allowed Cuba to open its door

214

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

to other countries, including the rest of the Caribbean and Latin America, and to be involved in the region’s internationalization and academic cooperation processes. Internationalization is now a significant part of the strategic planning of Cuba’s Ministry of Higher Education and is considered a transversal axis for the management and development of university processes, and for the creation and transfer of knowledge from scientific research activity. Cuba has public and institutional policies that support internationalization and it stands out as the country with the greatest results in international academic cooperation, despite the hostile international environment that limits its strategies. Villavicencio and Montero (2019) indicate that significant achievements in academic cooperation in Cuba include: a. More than 2,093 (2018) interuniversity and ministerial agreements with more than 100 countries to enhance mobility, joint research, and publications. Approximately 253 (2018) international cooperation projects in diverse areas. b. Cuban universities, professors, and researchers participate in more than 387 (2018) international academic and scientific networks and are members of 44 international associations. c. Annually, more than 3,178 (2018) Cuban academics, researchers, and students participate in mobility programs. This includes the annual more than 450 international scholarships, mainly at the doctoral level. More than 75 percent of the scholarships in the area of teaching and scientific research were in developed countries and institutions of excellence. d. The participation of Cuban HEIs in European Union funded projects and individual cooperation projects has had great impact. Cuba also participates in regional networks, such as UDUAL, AUGM, CSUCA, UC, and AUFCORPUCA.

The Dominican Republic This country has an education system where private HEIs represent about 50 percent of university enrollment. The involvement of the public and private sector in the promotion of joint academic programs, internships, student mobility, international accreditation, and internationalization of the curriculum is noteworthy. Dominicans pursuing master’s and doctoral degree programs at universities in Latin America and Europe have also strengthened the capacity of the local profession, largely supported by the international scholarship program sponsored by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology (MESCyT, 2016). For several decades, students have chosen the Dominican Republic to pursue degrees in Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Studies, and Agronomy, with US Federal loans or funded by the European Union. There is a significant presence of Haitian students in national universities, almost 10 percent of total enrollment. The articulation between international cooperation agencies (JICA, Korea, AECID, EU, others), with the needs of local development and the internationalization of higher education, has led to the development of projects of capacity building, innovation, and technological development, in which Dominican universities play an important role. There are policy provisions supporting human resource training (scholarships, exchanges, hiring academics of excellence), the teaching of foreign languages, and scientific-technological cooperation.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

215

Even when advances in internationalization and academic cooperation are evident, it is expected that the new law on Higher Education, Science and Technology and the New Convention for the Recognition of Studies, Degrees and Diplomas of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (IESALC-UNESCO) will challenge universities and the national higher education system to advance in the processes of accreditation and international recognition of their programs and HEIs.

Puerto Rico As a US Commonwealth country in the Caribbean, Puerto Rico has been included in this study based on the Caribbean outreach of its higher education sector. This regionalization process started in 1968, when the leadership of the University of Puerto Rico, UPR, and The University of the West Indies founded UNICA. The Inter-American University of Puerto Rico is also an active member, since this country has a higher education system with a high participation of private HEIs. Regional cooperation between the UPR and other Caribbean Universities includes Faculty Exchange visits between UPR Campuses and the Anglophone and francophone Caribbean, and the Dominican Republic to develop collaborative initiatives, including seminars mounted by the Institute of Caribbean Studies, Rio Piedras Campus, to seek solutions to common challenges, and participation in significant research projects relating to HIV/AIDS, Agriculture, Food Security, and Climate Change. Mobility is also considered a relevant internationalization activity for HEIs in this country. The Puerto Rico Board of Education has launched the Puerto Rico Campus strategy to attract students from Latin America and the Caribbean and Hispanic students from the United States and their territories (CEPR, 2014).

CONCLUSION Trends in Caribbean universities, based on the information garnered in the Survey and from the comments of regional academic professionals, indicate that all Caribbean universities are taking steps, in varying degrees, to consolidate and widen their scope of internationalization action in mobility, quality, relevance, innovation, and partnerships, mainly through research, capacity-building, technical cooperation, and marketing. Applying a SWOT approach, the following are some of the conclusions reached.

Strengths Caribbean HEIs are increasingly partnering with the public and private sectors to enhance the level of participation of the countries they serve in the global thrust for sustainable development. The survey responses speak to the strategic action undertaken for the development of their systems and the development of the potential of their staff and students. The shared circumstance of limited resources, environmental vulnerabilities, and developmental challenges faced by Caribbean developing countries makes it necessary to embrace a culture of cooperation. However, while the Caribbean University has the capacity to influence the intellectual and socio-economic development of future generations, it was felt that governments must take responsibility for leading and managing the development process in their countries.

216

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Weaknesses Both government and academia need to pay more attention to solutions-oriented action applying a multi-stakeholder approach. Greater internal and external support and activism for transformational change in socio-economic and political arenas are necessary to expand the opportunities for innovation, creativity, and purpose for Caribbean youth, for active engagement with the sustainable development goals.

Opportunities Academic experts were of the view that the construction of global competences to support the transformation that the region requires will afford higher education institutions the opportunity to bridge educational gaps and share the knowledge created through networks and cooperation projects where results become articulators of the integration of our HEIs. They felt that future professionals who study in institutions that have established comprehensive internationalization policies and strategies graduate with a multicultural identity that better equips them for a borderless labor market. Equally, through internationalization, academic staff and researchers are provided with the opportunity to upgrade their scientific qualifications and professional degrees and have their research recognized. For administrative staff, it is an important vector for institutional development.

Threats The threat of brain drain from developing countries to developed countries is a real one. Youth unemployment in the Caribbean is a serious issue and unless governments and academic leadership engage with international development agencies and the private sector to attain the growth of new emerging sectors to provide employment prospects and decent jobs for their youth, the situation will not be reversed. Additionally, the internationalization policies of HEIs in the developed world do not necessarily target “global citizenship” among their students. Frequently, the objective is to increase their international positioning for ranking purposes and, in many instances, there is interest in the high economic benefits of opening campuses in developing countries with wealth potential. Another threat identified by the experts is that the benefits of internationalization are accessible to only the privileged few who are able to undertake mobility costs. This exclusionary practice can only be eliminated if there is increased recognition of quality higher education as a human right and the definition of policies regarding quality assurance.

RECOMMENDATIONS The consensus of regional academic experts and actors is that the internationalization of higher education is critical for sustainable development in Caribbean countries, but it must overcome the North–South model and promote South–South cooperation to be effective. In a globalized environment, HEIs must partner with international networks and associations to mobilize talent to engage in global research and knowledge transfer. They must advance policies for increasing investment and measuring impact; drive innovation in the public and private sectors, moving the focus from an exclusively academic view towards society; contribute to cultural, social, organizational and scientific

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

217

innovations through knowledge transfer; and foster international relations. Action in this regard is essential to support the Caribbean Higher Education Internationalization sector, for effective participation in the emerging, global knowledge economy. Finally, there is consensus on the need to strengthen the region as an articulated multicultural community. At present, the Caribbean remains a space under construction and yet our education system, culminating in the University, contributes little to the construction of our “Caribbean space.” It is desirable that the internationalization of higher education, its strategies and its processes, contribute to defining a base of common knowledge on the Caribbean, regardless of national and local choices. There is also a need to develop and implement transnational policies to disseminate this shared knowledge. The process is necessarily based on a strong political will and especially on the involvement of university networks (Universities Caribbean, UDUAL, CORPUCA Interuniversity Chair etc.) who could give some direction (Reno, 2019). This would result in mandatory cross-university and inter-university education in partner universities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The views of Caribbean university academic experts and actors helped to shape this study and provide an authentic Caribbean perspective of Higher Education. The institutional information contributed by survey respondents is useful both for an assessment of current resources and strategies available to the sector, as well as to update the earlier OBIRET study. The authors of this article are grateful to all parties for their time and willingness to contribute to this study. The authors wish to highlight the collaboration of the director and authorities who completed the institutional survey, as well as the academic experts, professors, and students, representatives of AUF, CORPUCA, IUO, OEI, UC, Nicolas Guillén Foundation, Ministry of Higher Education of Cuba, Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of DR, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of DR, COPRUHA, ADRU, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo, UASD and Instituto Tecnológico de las Américas, ITLA, who answered the opinion poll, becoming “the voices from the Caribbean.” The authors also recognize the efficient contribution of Eng. Altagracia Pozo, Quality Manager of UNAPEC, in the preparation and management of the computer platform of the survey.

REFERENCES Beckles, H., Perry, A., and Whitely, P. (2005). Brain Train—Quality Higher Education and Caribbean Development. Jamaica: Pearl Tree Press. Beckles, H. (2017). Rekindling the Caribbean Renaissance. The University of West Indies website/Home/Featured Story. Available online: https://www.uwi.edu/featured-story/ vc-black-history.asp (accessed August 19, 2019). Bernal, R. (2019). The globalization of higher education: The imperative for a Caribbean regional cluster. Caribbean Journal of Education, 41(1): 2. Botero, J. (2017). The current landscape of policies and institutions for Higher Education. In Ferreyra, M. et al. (eds), At a Crossroads. Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC : World Bank Group, pp. 231–262. CEPR, Consejo de Educación de Puerto Rico (2014). Internacionalización de la Educación Superior: Campus Puerto Rico. Available online: https://cp.prasfaa.org/documentos/

218

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Internacionalizacion%20de%20la%20Educacion%20Superior%20-%20Campus%20 Puerto%20Rico.pdf (accessed August 29, 2019). De Wit, H. (2017). The challenges of international HE in a small country. International Higher Education, 99. ECLAC, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean; ECLAC sub regional headquarters for the Caribbean (2017). Report of the eighteenth meeting of the Monitoring Committee of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee. United Nations. Available online: https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/41995 (accessed August 19, 2019). Gacel-Ávila, J., and Rodríguez, S. (2019). The Internationalization of Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. An Assessment. México: Universidad de Guadalajara. Available online: http://erasmusplusriesal.org/sites/default/files/an_assessment_ebook.pdf (accessed August 15, 2019). Gift, S., Thurab-Nkhosi, D., and Alleyne, R. (2017). Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Anglophonic Countries in Latin America. Quality Assurance Unit, St Augustine: UWI . Guyana Chronicle (2018). Exxon to invest US$10 M in training locals. Available online: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_new_york_ edition_e_2f185ab813c2a5 (accessed September 15, 2019). IESALC (2018a). Declaration of the III General Conference on Higher Education on Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/ higher-education/iesalc (accessed September 15, 2019). IESALC (2018b). Action Plan 2018–2028 III General Conference on Higher Education on Higher Education for Latin America and the Caribbean. Available online: https://drive. google.com/file/d/1jLtlpTkJaNFphmOuz_KRzzBu5AiPnirN/view (accessed August 15, 2019). Jibeen, T., and Asad Khan, M. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: Potential benefits and costs. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 4(4): 196–199. Lam, N., Arenas, H, Brito, P., and Liu, K. (2014). Assessment of vulnerability and adaptive capacity to coastal hazards in the Caribbean Region. Journal of Coastal Research, 70 (1), Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Westville: University of KwaZulu-Natal. Lumarque, J. (2018). Collège doctoral d’Haïti. Le Nouevelliste. Available online: https:// lenouvelliste.com/article/156841/college-doctoral-dhaiti-jacky-lumarque-appelle-letat-ajouer-sa-partition (accessed September 25, 2019). Madera, L. (2011). Promoviendo la Internacionalización en la Región del Caribe. In Claves y Herramientas para la Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en el Caribe, EUCANET Project, EDULINK Program. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, pp. 13–28. MEPyD, Ministerio de Economía, Planificación y Desarrollo de la República Dominicana (2016). El Escenario Geopolítico de las Economías de los países del Caribe. Santo Domingo: MEPyD. Available online: http://economia.gob.do/wp-content/uploads/drive/UEPESC/ Informes/Escenario_geopol%C3%ADtico_pa%C3%ADses_Caribe.pdf (accessed August 22, 2019). MESCyT, Ministerio de Educación Superior, Ciencia y Tecnología de la República Dominicana (2016). Informe General Sobre Estadísticas de Educación Superior 2013 y 2014 y Resumen Histórico 2005–2014. Available online: http://www.educa.org.do/wp-content/ uploads/2016/11/Estadi%CC%81sticas-de-Educacio%CC%81n-Superior-2013-y-2014.pdf (accessed August 15, 2019). Mihut, G., Altbach, P., and de Wit, H. (eds) (2017). Understanding Higher Education Institutionalization. Insights from Key Global Publications, vol. 39, Rotterdam: Sense

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN

219

Publishers. Available online: https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/3322-understandinghigher-education internationalization.pdf (accessed August 16, 2019). Moïse, Myriam (2019). One Caribbean: For an integrated university sector. UNESCO-IESALC Educación Superior y Sociedad, Higher Education in the Caribbean, 31(31), 178–182. Available online: http://www.iesalc.unesco.org/ess/index.php/ess3/issue/view/14 (accessed September 9, 2019). Rampersad, D. (2017). The internationalization of Higher Education in the Caribbean. In de Wit, H., Gacel-Ávila, J., Jones, E., and Jooste, N. (eds), The Globalization of Internationalization. Emerging Voices and Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 89–98. Reno, F. (2019). L’ignorance partagée, obstacle à la construction caribéenne. In UNESCOIESALC Educación Superior y Sociedad, Higher Education in the Caribbean, 31(31): 104–113. Available online: http://www.iesalc.unesco.org/ess/index.php/ess3/issue/view/14 (accessed September 2, 2019). Rumbley, L., Altbach, P., and Reisberg, L. (2012). Internationalization within the higher education context. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298633161_ Internationalization_within_the_higher_education_context (accessed August 18, 2019). United Nations (n.d.). Transforming our world. The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20 Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf (accessed August 10, 2019). University of Miami News (2018). Seeking synergy in university collaboration. Available online: https://news.miami.edu/stories/2018/04/seeking-synergy-in-university-collaboration.html (accessed September 12, 2019). Villavicencio, M., and Montero, A. (2019). Educación Superior e Internacionalización en Cuba. La Habana: Ministerio de Educación Superior, Las Villas: UCVL . Vision 2030, Jamaica (2009). Education Sector Plan 2009–2030. Education draft Sector Plan Final Draft. Available online: https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2009/vision-2030-jamaicanational-development-plan-education-draft-sector-plan-plan-final-draft-5183 (accessed August 26, 2019). Williams, H. (2016). Some Key Forces Impacting on Higher Education—The Caribbean Perspective. Jamaica: University of Technology. Available online: https://www. acheacaribbean.org/sites/default/files/Horace%20Williams%20.doc (accessed August 20, 2019).

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Internationalization of Chilean Higher Education Research, Innovation, and Human Capital Formation in a Globalized Era1 JAVIER GONZ Á LEZ, ANDR É S BERNASCONI, AND FRANCISCA PUYOL

INTRODUCTION Internationalization has played a key role in Chile’s national development strategy, especially since the 1990s. The promotion of international agreements led by the state has played a critical role in Chile’s insertion in the global economy and geopolitical arena. Internationalization has been key to gain competitiveness and to allow the flow of technology, capital, and human talent, promoting the exchange of ideas, knowledge, and innovation. The higher education system has also experienced this process, although at a slower pace when compared with other sectors. For this reason, the capacity of the country both at the macro (national) and micro (institutional) level to promote a coherent higher education internationalization strategy capable of inserting Chile in global knowledge and innovation networks will play a key role in shaping its future economic and social development path. A general assessment of the performance of the Chilean higher education system shows mixed results. On the one hand, in the last few decades, it has drastically expanded to incorporate a progressively growing number of students. As a result, Chile has achieved high gross enrollment rates by any international standard. Nevertheless, the Chilean strategy has had noticeable costs: massification of enrollment was obtained at the cost of the emergence of an initially loosely regulated private higher education sub-system, which allowed the entrance of low-quality institutions, which usually targeted students from low-income families, and operated with inadequate staff and infrastructure. Only in the past fifteen years has Chilean higher education seen stronger quality assurance pressure from accreditation.

We thank the support provided by the Ministry of Economy, through the Millennium Scientific Initiative and its nucleus on Higher Education hosted at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. We also thank funding provided by project CONICYT PIA CIE#160007.

1

220

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

221

Moreover, the funding model for the entire system (public and private) has rested on private contributions in the form of high tuition fees—relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita—which until recently were mainly borne by families. These are some of the underlying factors that drove the 2006 and 2011 student movements, which eventually led to free tuition for poorer students and tougher accreditation requirements, among other reforms. Moreover, although Chile has successfully consolidated a community of high-quality researchers in a handful of universities, its size is still insufficient to address the country’s economic and social development needs. The situation is unlikely to be reversed in the short term due to the relatively weak public and private investment levels in research and development (R & D). To tackle this state of affairs, internationalization could be used as a critical lever for upgrading and expanding the capacity of the tertiary education system to train effectively technicians, professionals, and scientists, and also insert itself in firstclass regional and global collaborative research and innovation networks, where additional funding is more abundant. Notwithstanding the said shortcomings, the country has come a long way with regards to internationalization during the last decades both at a national and an institutional level. Indeed, from a national, or top-down perspective, state-led policies have gained traction since the mid-2000s. Several funds and programs were put in place to promote the attraction of foreign advanced human capital to Chilean universities, the development of global collaborative research and innovation projects, and greater international mobility of students. The Chilean government has been especially active in this area. In fact, in 2008 it launched a unique and bold initiative (Becas Chile), which became one of the largest programs of its kind in the world—relative to a country’s population. Moreover, it was later followed by other countries in the region, like Brazil, with its “Science Without Borders” program, in which Chile aimed to send postgraduate students, technicians, medical doctors, and school teachers to study abroad. To achieve this goal, considerable public resources were invested, international agreements with universities and vocational institutions were promoted, and an extensive program to teach foreign languages (English, German, and French) was implemented. An interesting characteristic of the program was its progressiveness, as it allowed many young talented Chileans from low-socioeconomic backgrounds to study abroad and pursue a postgraduate program at top-level universities. These young scholars, together with their newly formed international networks, are currently returning to Chile and many of them are being hired at national HEIs. The impact of this program in terms of internationalization is still to be assessed. From an institutional or bottom-up perspective, higher education institutions have also increasingly taken internationalization into their own hands. They have extended this phenomenon to different dimensions, such as institutional planning, evaluation, generation of networks, student and staff mobility, curriculum design, development of joint/double degrees, research, and innovation activities, among others. While before the 1990s less than 5 percent of HEIs formally included “internationalization” as part of their institutional development plans, by the mid-2000s more than 70 percent did so (Ramírez, Delgado, and Espitia, 2004). This chapter is structured as follows, after this introductory section. The second section characterizes the Chilean higher education system. The third reviews the situation of the higher education system in terms of its level of internationalization. The fourth describes state-led policies to promote internationalization, taking a closer look at Becas Chile, an important program fostering student international mobility. It then analyzes the

222

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

main strategies used by meso-level organizations and HEIs to globally insert themselves. Finally, the last section offers concluding remarks and highlights options to move forward.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN CHILE: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CRITICAL ISSUES Structure, Funding, and Institutions Chilean higher education is composed of 150 institutions, including 61 universities and 89 non-university tertiary institutes (SIES, 2019a). Only eighteen universities are public, underscoring one of the salient features of Chilean higher education: its degree of privatization, ostensible not just in the breakdown of institutions, but also in enrollment patterns. Private higher education has a long tradition in Chile, with the founding of the first private university, the Universidad Católica de Chile, dating back to 1888. Private institutions have outnumbered public ones since the 1920s, and are now responsible for 84 percent of total enrollments, making Chile one of the world’s leaders in private matriculation in higher education. Until recently, all the non-university postsecondary sector was private. In 2016 Congress passed an act mandating the creation of a national network of fifteen public technical training centers (postsecondary, two-year vocational schools). Currently, the government is in the process of establishing these state vocational schools by 2022, the first of which are now beginning to operate, one in each region of Chile, but still with very small numbers of students. Unlike private universities, private IPs and CFTs are allowed to operate for profit, but to participate in the free tuition program (described below), institutions must be non-profit. Moreover, only 40 percent of the funding for higher education comes from the government. The rest comes from private sources, mostly in the form of tuition payments made by students and their families. And of the part of the overall funding that comes from the state, 70 percent is spent in financial aid for students, in the form of scholarships, free tuition, or subsidized loans. Both private and public institutions charge tuition, although students coming from the lower deciles of family income are eligible for scholarships and loans. Since 2016, moreover, lower-income students have qualified for free tuition at both state and private institutions. In 2018, some 30 percent of undergraduate students were enrolled in the free tuition program (Bernasconi, 2019). During the last twenty years, Chilean higher education has experienced a boom in enrollments, which plateaued in 2015. In 2016, seven out of ten students were the first from their families to access higher education. From 1990 to 2017, the gross higher education enrollment ratio increased by more than 400 percent. In terms of raw numbers, total enrollments have increased from about 249,482 students in 1990 to almost 452,325 in 2000. By 2019, the number stood at 1,268,000 (SIES, 2019b). The breakdown of enrollments by type of institution is as follows: 16 percent in public universities, 43 percent in private universities, and 41 percent in the vocational and technical sector (SIES, 2019b). The rate of completion of high school is high in Chile, compared with the rest of Latin America. Some 83 percent of youths in the age cohort finish high school on time, and the net enrollment rate in higher education is 53 percent. Moreover, the country has made great strides in expanding access for lower-income students. In 1990, students coming

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

223

from families in the highest income quintile were represented at a ratio of 9 to 1 compared with those coming from the lower income quintile. By 2015, that ratio was 2 to 1.

International Standing of Chilean Universities One way of assessing the international prestige and academic position of national institutions is using international higher education rankings. In the global rankings, which consider an array of indicators, the performance of the Chilean system seems far from outstanding. The best three Chilean universities rank 132 (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), 208 (Universidad de Chile) and 511–520 (Universidad de Santiago) in the 2019 QS ranking, and 401–500 (Universidad de Chile), 501–600 (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), and 801–900 (Universidad Andrés Bello and Universidad de Concepción) in the 2019 Shanghai Ranking (ARWU). Although the position of Chilean universities is not favorable at the global level, it seems much better at the regional level. Indeed, among the top ten Latin American universities in the 2019 QS ranking, two are Chilean, including the top one university of the region (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile). This is remarkable since the Chilean population is considerably smaller than that of Mexico and Colombia, which also have two universities within the top ten (Argentina, appears only once, despite having a population three times larger than Chile’s). Therefore, Chile constitutes a relevant and prestigious regional player in higher education. These rankings are also useful to assess the level of internationalization of top national universities. The Times Higher Education (THE) ranking and the QS ranking include two indicators to evaluate this dimension. The THE ranking measures “international outlook” considering the ability of a university to attract international students and staff, and undertake international collaboration in research. On the other hand, the QS indicator, “international research networks,’ indicates the diversity of an institution’s research collaboration with other institutions in different locations of the globe. If we focus specifically on these indicators and consider the resulting sub-ranking, the position of Chilean universities in the Latin American context is quite favorable, as shown in Table 15.1. In fact, in the

TABLE 15.1 THE World international ranking—Latin America international outlook2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

University of San Francisco, Quito Pontifical Catholic University of Chile Adolfo Ibáñez University Federico Santa María Technical University Monterrey Institute of Technology Buenos Aires Institute of Technology University of the Andes, Colombia Torcuato Di Tella University University of Chile University of the North, Colombia

99.7 92.3 88.8 87.6 87.4 84.9 81.6 81.6 80.6 79.6

Source: authors’ elaboration based on THE (2019).

THE-International Outlook: (1) Proportion of international students: 2.5%; (2) Proportion of international staff: 2.5%; (3) International collaboration in research: 2.5% of overall ranking scores. https://www. timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology

2

224

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

“international outlook” of the 2019 THE ranking for Latin America, Chilean institutions rank relatively high. They occupy four positions within the first top ten universities in the region.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Student Mobility: Inbound Student mobility is a key factor in understanding the level of internationalization of higher education. From a comparative perspective, the presence of international students in the Chilean higher education system is paltry but growing. The share of international students as a percentage of total higher education enrollment (ISCED 5-8) reached 0.4 percent in 2016 (OECD, 2019). This situation positions Chile at the bottom of the OECD countries, well behind nations such as New Zealand (19.8 percent) and the UK (18.1 percent). On the other hand, Chile is above other Latin American countries, but below Argentina, which exhibits relatively high numbers of inbound international students (see Table 15.2). Indeed, while in Brazil, international students represent only 0.2 percent of total tertiary enrollment; they reach 0.3 percent in Mexico. Moreover, the number of international

FIGURE 15.1: Student mobility in Chile: Inbound by country of origin. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on global flow of tertiary-level students. UNESCO (2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

225

higher education students in Chile has been growing over time. According to the Information System of Higher Education (SIES), between 2014 and 2017 enrollment of international students in Chilean higher education increased by 36 percent and that of foreign exchange students by 24 percent (SIES, 2019c). The level of internationalization, however, tends to be higher in postgraduate studies. In master’s programs, the percentage of international students in Chile reaches 1.4 percent, which doubles Mexico’s share (0.7 percent) and is higher than Brazil’s (1 percent). Nevertheless, it is lower than in New Zealand (26.1 percent), Australia (46.3 percent), and the UK (36.1 percent). Similarly, while in Chile, foreign PhD students represent 8 percent of enrollment at that level; this share is much lower than the level observed in developed OECD countries (New Zealand, 48.1 percent; Australia, 33.8 percent; UK, 43.2 percent), but higher than in other comparable Latin American countries such as Mexico (2.7 percent) and Brazil (2.5 percent). Most international students enrolled in Chile come from Latin America and the Caribbean. The region contributed 90 percent of international higher education students in Chile in 2017 (UNESCO, 2019). As shown in Figure 15.1, the most frequent countries of origin are Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Argentina, in that order. This distribution by country, roughly matching patterns of recent immigration, suggests that the presence of international students in Chile is related to families’ relocation, rather than individuals’ mobility for study.

Student Mobility: Outbound In contrast to the situation involving inbound student mobility, where the attraction of students to Chile is weak, the country tends to display a higher number of Chilean students studying abroad. Indeed, while the number of international students entering the country reached 4,708 in 2016, the number of students leaving the country is almost three times higher (14,122), according to UNESCO (2019). The percentage of Chilean students studying abroad is 0.8 percent of total local enrollment, which is below some OECD (2019) countries such as New Zealand (2.5

TABLE 15.2 Outbound and inbound students Total number of mobile students Outbound Germany France United States Brazil Colombia Greece UK Mexico Chile Australia Luxemburg Argentina New Zealand

119.021 90.717 72.830 52.515 36.626 35.505 34.025 33.854 14.122 12.731 10.243 8.371 5.580

Total number of mobile students Inbound 244.575 245.349 971.417 19.996 4.550 23.734 432.001 25.125 4.708 381.202 3.268 75.688 52.678

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on global flow of tertiary-level students. UNESCO (2019).

226

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 15.2: Student mobility in Chile: Outbound by country of destination. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on global flow of tertiary-level students. UNESCO (2019).

percent) and the UK (1.7 percent), somewhat higher than the United States (0.4 percent) and Brazil (0.5 percent), and similar to Australia (0.8 percent) and Mexico (0.8 percent). In terms of country destination, Chilean students tend to choose Argentina (39 percent), which could be explained by a higher preference for culturally similar societies and also for tuition-free systems. Additionally, the United States (18 percent) has the secondhighest share of students, followed by Spain (10 percent), Australia (6 percent), and the United Kingdom (6 percent), as shown in Figure 15.2.

Research and Development: Expenditure and Advanced Human Capital The ability of countries to successfully collaborate and participate in global networks of innovation and knowledge creation depends on the existence of adequate minimum conditions and capabilities to promote research and development (R & D). Among many key conditions and capabilities, expenditure in R & D and human capital are most critical. These two factors are analyzed next. Chile invests 0.36 percent of GDP in R & D, which is the lowest among OECD countries (OECD, 2019). While South Korea invests 4.55 percent, the highest on the list, countries such as Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK spend 3.34 percent, 1.37 percent, 1.88 percent, and 1.66 percent, respectively. Chile’s level of investment is lower than other developing countries such as South Africa (0.82 percent), Mexico (0.49 percent), and Argentina (0.54 percent).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

227

FIGURE 15.3: Expenditure in R & D as percentage of GDP (2017). Source: Authors’ elaboration based on OECD (2019).

Some could be tempted to argue that the low level of investment in Chile could be explained by its relatively lower level of economic development. Nevertheless, when Chile’s R & D investment levels are compared historically with those incurred by OECD countries in the past when those countries shared the same level of economic development as Chile—in terms of GDP per capita—the data show that Chile suffers from a historical lag. Indeed, Figure 15.3 shows the level of investment (2005 million US$ in PPP) in R & D made by countries when they had a GDP per capita of US$17,000 (Chile’s GDP per capita in 2014). For example, Chile invested US$1.290MM in 2014, which is approximately a third of the amount invested by Canada in 1968 when it had a GDP per capita of US$17,000. In other words, Chile is underinvesting in knowledge and innovation compared with historical trends. This has an impact on the capacity of the country to contribute to benefit from global research networks. With regards to advanced human capital formation, expressed in terms of the number of full-time equivalent researchers per 1,000 thousand total employees, Chile has relatively disappointing performance (Figure 15.4). From a comparative perspective (OECD, 2019), Chile ranks almost last with 1.1 researchers per thousand employees, just over Mexico (1.02), but below Argentina (2.88) and all other developed OECD countries such as Denmark (15.48), South Korea (14.43), New Zealand (7.94), and the UK (9.04).

Research and Development: Compared Productivity and International Collaboration Chile ranks 45 out of 239 countries in terms of scientific production, measured in terms of total publications in 2018, according to the Scimago Journal and Country Rank. According to this ranking, Chile produced a total of 14,618 papers in one year, which is much lower in absolute comparative numbers than the world top leaders, such as the United States (683,003), China (599,386), the UK (211,710), and Germany (180,608). Compared with countries with a similar GDP per capita, Chile is also surpassed by countries such as Poland (49,488), Turkey (45,582), Portugal (26,611), and the Czech Republic (24,401). However,

228

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 15.4: Investment in R & D when countries had the same GDP per capita (US$17,000). Source: Díaz (2015), in CNID (2016). Values are expressed in 2005 million US$ (PPP).

FIGURE 15.5: Total researchers (FTE) per thousand total employees (2017). Countries with current similar GDP per capita. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on OECD (2019).

when compared with other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Chile ranks fourth out of forty-eight countries in the region. It is only surpassed by Brazil, México, and Argentina, all countries with much larger populations than Chile. When a fairer comparison is made, examining the number of publications per researcher (FTE), the results are reversed. Chilean researchers are considerably more

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

229

FIGURE 15.6: International collaboration in research (2018). Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus (2019).

productive than their counterparts in rich OECD countries. Indeed, while in Chile the number of papers published per researcher reached 1.63 in 2018, the productivity in other leading countries such as the United Kingdom (0.75), Germany (0.45), and the United States (0.50) was less than half. Moreover, when the quality of scientific production is taken into account, Chile’s relative position also improves. When countries with at least 1,000 papers a year are taken into account, Chile ranks 39 out of 95 countries concerning number of citations per publication. This is higher than the United States (40), China (48), and South Korea (59). Also, considerably higher than regional peers such as Argentina (57), Peru (74), Colombia (77), Mexico (82), and Brazil (83). As shown by the data, Chile’s research community seems to be small but quite productive and high quality in comparative terms, which should provide a relatively good position to insert itself in global research networks. Indeed, internationalization of research in Chilean higher education is strong. The country leads the Iberian American region in international cooperation, as measured by Scopus publications in co-authorship with scholars from other countries. In 2018, the figure for Chile was 62.4 percent, followed by Portugal (54.9 percent), and Spain (49.8 percent). The lowest score was Brazil’s, with 33.9 percent. In fact, Chile seems to be highly inserted in the international community, even compared with world leading countries such as the United States (36.3 percent), the UK (56 percent), and Australia (56.4 percent). This has been a growing trend, as shown in Figure 15.6.

NATIONAL POLICIES: MAIN INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Internationalization of higher education is promoted at the national level by several ministries and public agencies. There are two main ministries involved in this task: the Ministry of Education—especially through the MECESUP program—and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—via the International Cooperation Agency for Development (AGCID). Additionally, there are autonomous state agencies involved in this task: the National

230

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) and the National Accreditation Commission (CNA). We briefly describe the main programs promoted by each of these institutions. We also analyze one of the largest programs in this area: Becas Chile. This program is interesting to examine not only because of its size but also because of its innovative approach towards internationalization. It should provide important lessons to be taken into account by other developing and developed countries striving to promote advanced capital formation abroad.

Key Institutions at the National Level Ministry of Education: MECESUP program. The Ministry of Education—specifically its Higher Education Division—is in charge of establishing the national policies to promote better access, higher quality and equity, and internationalization of the Chilean higher education system. These policies have been promoted via, among other programs, the MECESUP program, which started in 1998 in collaboration with the World Bank, with the objective of strengthening higher education institutions. MECESUP 2 (second stage) and MECESUP 3 (third stage) have fostered internationalization through funding to increase students and faculty mobility, international research collaboration, and even the generation of transferable academic credits across universities in the region. Although the MECESUP initiative ended in 2015, its competitive project-based approach to funding has remained the Ministry’s preferred mode of promoting the development of higher education institution’s strategic development initiatives, including internationalization. The Ministry also provides funds to promote the constitution of international networks and joint degrees, attraction of foreign students—with a particular focus on doctoral studies—and academic mobility. These funds are only reserved for higher education institutions that have the highest level of quality accreditation provided by the CNA, and at least ten doctoral programs, of which at least 75 percent have been accredited by the CNA. Ministry of Foreign Affairs: International Cooperation Agency for Development (AGCID) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also plays a role in the internationalization of higher education, through the International Cooperation Agency for Development (AGCID). This agency has a strong focus on fostering international cooperation in relation to research, development, innovation, and student mobility. The AGCID coordinates several programs and multi- and bi-lateral funds focused on enhancing technological and scientific transfer, foreign trade, and development. It promotes international agreements and scholarship programs to support undergraduate and postgraduate foreign students studying in Chile and national students studying abroad. National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research The National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) funds research and development in higher education and research centers across disciplines. From an internationalization perspective, it funds student and academic mobility, joint international research projects, access to international bibliographic databases, and the participation of researchers in international conferences. These objectives are supported through the following programs and initiatives, detailed in Table 15.3 (CONICYT, 2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

231

TABLE 15.3 CONICYT: Funding targeted to internationalization Attraction and Insertion of Advanced Human Capital Program

This program seeks to strengthen the academic, scientific, and technological capacities of national institutions that develop science and technology by means of: A) the attraction of recognized and internationally prestigious scientists to local universities in short and long stays, in order to strengthen collaboration networks; and B) the insertion in the academy and in the productive sector of new researchers who are trained in Chile and abroad.

Human Capital Formation Abroad

CONICYT manages the BECAS CHILE program, which funds postdoctoral, doctoral, and master’s studies abroad. This program will be discussed in detail in the next sections. CONICYT also provides funding to national and international students who study for their PhDs in Chile but require additional funding to strengthen international cooperation. It also supports doctoral internships abroad, co-tutelage, and attendance at academic events and short courses.

International Cooperation Agreements and Programs

The International Cooperation Agreements and Programs allow strengthening of international collaboration between the national scientific community and world-class centers of research. This is done by means of international joint research calls, and the formation of international networks and mobility programs. Currently, CONICYT has cooperation agreements with more than forty countries.

Electronic Library of Scientific Information (BEIC)

This program was co-financed by CONICYT and the Council of Rectors of Chilean Universities, in association with the Cincel Corporation. Its objective is to provide free online access to researchers, teachers, undergraduate and graduate students, fellows, and administrative staff of Chilean universities to scientific journals in more than 100 disciplinary areas.

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on CONICYT (2019).

National Accreditation Commission The National Accreditation Commission (CNA) is responsible for quality assurance of higher education through accreditation. This process aims to ensure that higher education institutions have reliable internal systems for regulating quality and outputs that comply with accreditation criteria. With the purpose of improving the accreditation system using international benchmarking and better practices, the CNA establishes international alliances with foreign quality assurance agencies to compare and ensure the reliability of the Chilean accreditation process (CNA, 2019). An example of such activities is the fourth mutual agreement on professional and academic degrees, signed between Chile and Spain, Ecuador, the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and Argentina. Another example is the participation of CAN in ARCUSUR, a system for quality assurance of undergraduate programs in various South American countries. This is implemented by the CNA as a member of the National Accreditation Agencies Network—RANA—from the educational sector of the MERCOSUR association of South American countries. This system includes the accreditation of Agronomy, Architecture, Nursing, Medicine, and Odontology (MERCOSUR, 2019). In sum, the CNA has established a series of international agreements and participates in several regional networks to incorporate international good practices (Table 15.4).

232

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 15.4 International cooperation: Quality assurance system International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)

A network of organizations responsible for quality assurance of higher education around the world. It aims at sharing experiences and knowledge in the field of quality assurance, spreading good practices.

Red Iberoamericana para la acreditación de la calidad de la Educación Superior (RIACES)

Its goal is to generate interaction between different institutions related to evaluation, accreditation, and quality assurance in Latin America, to boost academic excellence in higher education. It seeks to promote international cooperation and certify entities which are responsible for the quality assurance of Higher Education.

Red de Agencias Nacionales de Acreditación (RANA)

A network of National Accreditation Agencies that belong to the ARCU-SUR system.

Red de Administradores de Universidades Iberoamericanas (RAUI)

Workgroup composed by academics and administrators with management responsibilities in higher education institutions. This group aims to develop activities to share good practices in higher education management.

Sistema iberoamericano de aseguramiento de la calidad de la educación superior (SIACES)

A network of presidents of accreditation agencies of higher education in Iberian America. It aims to strengthen collaboration and establish shared criteria to assess quality of higher education institutions, sharing good practice and expert knowledge.

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on CNA (2019).

BECAS CHILE: A CASE STUDY OF A BOLD STATE-LED STRATEGY TOWARDS INTERNATIONALIZATION Study Abroad Scholarship Programs Boosting the formation of advanced human capital through international study abroad, scholarship programs have been a crucial strategy used by many countries interested in developing, strengthening, and internationalizing their higher education systems. Developing countries such as Chile, China, Brazil, and Colombia, as well as developed nations such as Belgium, Finland, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, provide domestic students with financial support to encourage them to study abroad in top-quality institutions, acquiring advanced knowledge and specific skills highly valued in their home countries upon their return. This section briefly discusses the Chilean experience in this field. This case study provides a relevant and pertinent benchmark to be taken into account by other developing and developed nations for several reasons. First, in 2008 Chile implemented the Becas Chile program (BCP), one of the biggest international postgraduate scholarship programs in the world, in relative terms (Table 15.5). Nevertheless, its uniqueness not only resides in its relative size, but also in its creative design. An international evaluation led by the OECD and the World Bank concluded that the Chilean scholarship program was “an innovative exemplar in public policy and administration” (OECD, 2010: 61). As a result, there are relevant lessons to be learnt from this experience.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

233

TABLE 15.5 Cross country comparison of program size Country

Student sponsored

Year of reference

As a % of total student enrollment at tertiary level

China Brazil Chile

12,402 4,043 3,300

2007 2007 BCP in Steady State

0.05 0.08 0.36

Source: OECD (2010).

Second, since Chile and other Latin American countries share an array of comparable economic and educational challenges, they are all in a similar position to benefit from the implementation of study abroad strategies. These countries are struggling to reduce their dependency on natural resources, devoting part of their revenues to promote research and innovation. Nevertheless, these nations still face important shortfalls in their higher education systems, especially in relation to their capacity to contribute to the knowledge economy. The success of their development strategies strongly depends on their capacity to rapidly upgrade the quality of their local tertiary education institutions and academic communities. Therefore, the recent progress made by Chile in this field should provide interesting insights to be considered by other countries.

Objectives of Chile’s International Scholarship Program In 2008, the Chilean government launched a new international scholarship program, the Becas Chile Program (BCP), intended to tackle the deficit of advanced human capital in the country. It originally aimed at sending 30,000 students to the finest universities, research centers, and vocational education institutions in the globe by the year 2017. Additionally, the government announced the future creation of a USD 6 billion endowment fund for human capital development, whose interest earnings would finance BCP’s yearly costs. Through these means, the resources set aside for this purpose would be available without overburdening annual government budgets, ensuring the long-term sustainability of this initiative.3

Expanding Access to Study Abroad The implementation of the BCP significantly increased the number of new scholarships awarded each year (Figure 15.7). By 2010, the number of scholarships was four times higher than in 2007 (pre-BCP), and more than ten times higher than its historical level (2000–2005). Additionally, it expanded the type of beneficiaries and scholarships offered. Before BCP, financial support focused exclusively on master’s and doctoral degrees. In contrast, additional funding schemes were created in BCP to support postdoctoral studies, doctoral short stays, postgraduate medical education (sub-specializations) for professionals from the health public sector, master’s degrees in education, math and science diplomas for public school teachers, and technical and vocational postsecondary education diplomas, among others. In sum, approximately 60 percent of all scholarships were directed towards postgraduate studies, 30 percent to technical and vocational education, and the remaining 10 percent to teacher training (OECD, 2010). This endowment fund has still not been created by law.

3

234

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FIGURE 15.7: New international scholarships awarded per year. Source: González and Recart, 2010.

Targeting Human Capital Accumulation towards Priority Areas BCP was conceived as a policy aimed at supporting all areas of knowledge at the postgraduate level, from engineering to philosophy and the arts. Nevertheless, priority areas were also introduced to give an advantage to doctoral candidates working in key social and economic areas.4 This goal was achieved through the provision of additional bonus points in the selection process. Consequently, over 85 percent of doctoral and postdoctoral scholarships were awarded in these areas (González and Recart, 2010). No priority areas were introduced at the master’s level. In contrast, at the postsecondary technical level, scholarships were only provided for programs in pre-defined areas. These limited areas were established by the National Innovation Council.5 In turn, the programs within each area were defined by a public– private sectoral council, considering the specific skill shortages and requirements of each sector. These mechanisms guaranteed that the skills acquired abroad were pertinent and relevant for the selected economic clusters.

Ensuring Academic Quality of Beneficiaries and Host Institutions Abroad Safeguarding high levels of academic excellence was a key concern, especially considering the magnitude of the expansion in the number of scholarships awarded by the BCP. Priority areas were categorized into three groups: (1) Economic: mining, aquaculture, food, tourism, and global services; (2) Transversal platforms: energy, environment, information and communications technologies (ICTs), and biotechnology; and (3) Social: education, health, housing, public safety, and public policy. 5 The National Innovation Council was created in 2005. It is an advisory council to the President of Chile. It is constituted by diverse members from the private sector, academia, and public sector (including the Ministers of Finance, Economy, Education, and Agriculture). 4

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

235

To achieve this goal, a series of measures was implemented. First, the assessment and selection process of students was completely carried out by external (non-governmental) experts from each discipline. In total, more than 650 evaluators worked in approximately 30 disciplinary commissions in charge of the assessment of each applicant. Second, each applicant was assessed by two different anonymous evaluators, which provided a final score. This evaluation considered both the academic records and work experience of each candidate, and the quality of the program and the institution of study. The latter assessed as a combination of (1) the position of the institution of study in international rankings (Shanghai and Times Rankings), and (2) the evaluation of the program of study by each area expert. As a result of these measures, the percentage of postgraduate students enrolled in higher education institutions ranked within the top 200 (Shanghai ranking— ARWU) increased rapidly from a previous average level of 44 percent to 58 percent during the period 2008–2009 (González and Recart, 2010).

Promoting Social Inclusion: Widening the Participation of Students with Non-traditional Backgrounds Widening the participation of students with non-traditional backgrounds was a fundamental objective of the BCP. To accomplish this purpose, efforts were made to provide information and application support, to include an affirmative action policy in the selection process, and to provide free language courses for selected students. The government signed a series of international agreements with universities and foreign agencies to provide better information and special support to non-traditional students. Information about institutions and programs of study in each discipline was made available, among other activities, through roadshows throughout the country each year. Also, application processes to study abroad were simplified in a joint effort with foreign partner universities. Complementarily, additional bonus points were given to traditionally underrepresented groups: students from regions outside the capital city, students with special needs, indigenous students, and also women, were given special consideration. Also, pregnant students were offered a four-month maternity leave stipend to support them while studying abroad, thus reducing the chances of attrition. Female participation increased from a previous average level of approximately 33 percent to 46 percent as a consequence of these policies. Finally, free English, French, and German courses were delivered to students who lacked adequate language proficiency. These were especially targeted towards students from low economic backgrounds.6 Originally, a progressive feature of this support scheme was that the scholarship evaluation process did not require applicants to be already accepted by institutions abroad or have a certain level of language proficiency. This requirement would have left most bright students from lower economic groups out of the competition. Consequently, the BCP encouraged these students to apply for the scholarship and assessed them on their academic merit, supporting them in their Three measures were implemented in order to target public resources and the language courses to students from low socio-economic backgrounds. First, each applicant had to fill a registration form including socio-economic background information, which was later confirmed by the National Tax Office. Second, students were classified according to their socio-economic background. Finally, those coming from the first four quintiles of income, received the corresponding courses for free. Those coming from the fifth quintile were asked to pay a proportion of the total cost of the course. 6

236

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

applications to foreign institutions, and helping them reach the necessary language thresholds required by their university of destination.

Increasing Benefits, While Reducing Costs The BCP scholarships comprise a series of monetary benefits that tend to be rather similar across different programs of study. Most grants include: air tickets, provision for reallocation, health insurance, and an allowance for books (Table 15.6). As mentioned previously, language courses and pre- and postnatal leave are also included for programs lasting more than twelve months. Additionally, it provides a monthly stipend adjusted according to the living costs of the country of destination. This stipend (USD 1,500) is comparable to that provided by Colombia (USD 1,600) and the United Kingdom’s Chevening Scholarship (USD 1,400). It is higher than the Mexican CONACYT scholarship (USD 1,000) but considerably lower than the UAE scholarship, which can reach up to approximately USD 3,800 in the case of married PhD students. Finally, the BCP scholarships cover 100 percent of the tuition and fees, contrasting with other international programs, such as the Chinese State-Sponsored Study Abroad Program (SSSAP), which only covers living costs and air tickets, expecting host institutions to assume the remaining costs. As a result of this policy, and in order to make this program costeffective and sustainable, the Chilean government signed several international agreements obtaining considerable tuition and fee reductions conferred by foreign institutions.

Improving the Institutional Framework The implementation of the BCP required a reorganization of the institutional framework. The new structure ensured the existence of a strategic steering board and the consolidation of numerous scattered pre-existing programs. At the policy level, the President created the Ministers Council for Advanced Human Capital Formation7 (MCAHC), responsible

TABLE 15.6 Average BCP benefits Monthly Stipend

US $1,500 (Adjuster by cost of living)

Tuition and fee

100 percent (after discounts offered by institutions)

Books and study materials

US $300 (per year)

Arrivals allocation

US $500

Spouse allocation

US $500

Allocation per child traveling

10 percent of Recipient’s monthly stipend

Health insurance

Up to US $800

Recipient’s air fare

100 percent

Traveling family’s air fares

100 percent

Language course

English, French, or German

Pre- and Postnatal leave

4 months

Source: Becas Chile Program. www.becaschile.cl

7 The MCAHC was constituted by the Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Education, Economy, Social Planning, and the President of the National Innovation Council.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

237

for defining the policy goals and general implementation guidelines. At the coordination level, an Executive Secretariat was formed in charge of: (1) providing reliable research and policy proposal to the MCAHC; (2) coordinating the implementation of the MCAHC’s decisions, guidelines, and implementation plans; (3) promoting international agreements to reduce tuition costs and obtain free language courses abroad; and (4) acting as a clearing-house or “one-stop-shop” for applications and information. At the implementation level, four different public agencies were responsible for the everyday management of the different scholarship programs (candidate evaluation, expert commissions, payment of benefits, beneficiary follow-up, etc.), according to the type of beneficiary served. Postgraduate students were managed by the National Commission of Scientific and Technological Research. Vocational Education students were managed by the Higher Education Division of the Ministry of Education (MoE). Teacher Training scholarship holders were served by the Teacher Training Division (CEPEIP) and Open Doors Program, both at the Ministry of Education. Although each institution independently managed its scholarships, they had to follow the policy and implementation guidelines established by the MCAHC and coordinated by the Executive Secretariat. Although, since its creation in 2008, each new government administration has introduced changes, many of the main strategic pillars remain the same after a decade, providing Chile with a large amount of highly trained professionals to address the country’s challenges, working in government, academia, and the private sector.

INTERMEDIATE ACTORS: PRIVATE ALLIANCES AND NETWORKS PROMOTING INTERNATIONALIZATION There are several networks and alliances of higher education institutions that promote internationalization as part of their main objectives. These organizations are mainly focused on promoting international cooperation to share good practices. However, in some cases, they carry out actions to effectively insert tertiary institutions in the international arena by promoting their international recognition. The most important organization in this sphere is the Chilean Council of University Rectors (CRUCh), which gathers the heads of twenty-nine Chilean universities. Currently, CRUCh has linked and established academic cooperation with Germany (HRK and DAAD), Australia (Memorandum of Understanding with the Go8 Group), Belgium (Program for PhD students to carry out stays and double degrees), Bolivia (Cooperation Agreement with CEUB), Brazil (Cooperation Agreement with CRUB), Canada, Colombia, Spain (Agreement with Carolina Foundation; Framework agreement for University collaboration with CRUE), Finland, France (Framework Agreement of Academic Collaboration with CPU), Italy (Framework Agreement of University cooperation with CRUI), Poland, Hungary, and Argentina (CRUCh, 2019a). On the other hand, to gain international recognition of Chilean higher education, CRUCh developed and implemented the transferable credit system (SCT) within the framework of MECESUP 2. This action seeks to measure, quantify, and distribute the academic work of students among various curricular activities that make up their syllabus. This system is intended to foster the validation and recognition of the academic activities abroad by Chilean students, and also of those in Chile by international students (CRUCh, 2019b). Other inter-institutional organizations also play an important role in the internationalization of tertiary education. These institutional groupings encourage

238

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

networking between higher education institutions to promote cooperation and share good practices. For instance, the interuniversity development center (CINDA) offers a University exchange program for undergraduate and graduate students, academics, and managers, among other international activities (CINDA, 2019). Another example is provided by Universia, an online center of information regarding academic exchange opportunities and postgraduate studies available to Chilean students in foreign institutions (UNIVERSIA, 2019). Similarly, LearnChile is a network composed of twenty-seven Chilean higher education institutions that share the goal of increasing the internationalization of Chilean higher education and promoting the country as a destination for international students (LearnChile, 2019).

INSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS ON THE GROUND: STRATEGIES PROMOTED BY INDIVIDUAL HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS Beyond the critical support provided national institutions, Chilean higher education institutions have increasingly taken internationalization into their own hands. They have extended this phenomenon to different dimensions, such as institutional planning, evaluation, generation of networks, student and staff mobility, curriculum design, development of joint/double degrees, research, and innovation activities, among others. As a result, while before the 1990s less than 5 percent of HEI formally included “internationalization” as part of their institutional development plans, by the mid-2000s more than 70 percent did so (Ramirez et al., 2004). To analyze and characterize bottom-up internationalization strategies being developed by individual leading Chilean higher education institutions, we used the following strategy. First, we used international rankings, specifically the Times Higher Education (THE) ranking related to “international outlook” and the QS ranking devoted to “international research networks,” to identify the most active institutions in this sphere. Second, we characterized the internationalization strategies of these top institutions, through a review of their websites and other publicly available information. Finally, we briefly describe in more depth the multi-annual institutional internationalization plans recently developed by three leading institutions. As just mentioned, there are several rankings that prove useful to assess the level of internationalization of top national universities. The Times Higher Education (THE) ranking and the QS ranking include two indicators to evaluate this dimension. The THE ranking measures “international outlook,” which considers the capacity of a university to attract international students and staff, and carry out international collaboration in research. The result of this exercise is shown below (Table 15.7). On the other hand, the QS indicator, “international research networks,” indicates the level of international collaboration in research. The result of this exercise is shown below (Table 15.8). Once we had identified top-level universities concerning internationalization, we proceeded to review eight selected universities, to identify through their publicly available information resources what actions they were performing to insert themselves in the international sphere. The selected universities respond to the following criteria: five were included because they were present in both rankings among the top ten institutions in terms of

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

239

TABLE 15.7 THE ranking—International outlook for Chilean universities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pontifical Catholic University of Chile Adolfo Ibáñez University Federico Santa María Technical University University of Chile Catholic University of the North University of the Andes, Chile Austral University of Chile University of Valparaíso Diego Portales University University of Desarrollo

92.3 88.8 87.6 80.6 78.0 74.0 73.9 73.1 72.9 72.4

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on THE (2019).

TABLE 15.8 QS ranking—International research network 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

University of Chile Pontifical Catholic University of Chile University of Concepción Austral University of Chile University of de Santiago de Chile Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso Andrés Bello University University of Valparaíso University of Tarapacá Federico Santa María Technical University

100 99.8 98.2 91.5 88.4 85.8 85.7 84.6 84.2 84.0

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on QS (2019).

internationalization (University of Chile, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Austral University of Chile, University of Valparaíso, Federico Santa María Technical University). The University of Concepción was considered based on its high score in the QS ranking. Two additional universities were selected to include newer (post-1980s) private universities, i.e., Adolfo Ibáñez University and Andrés Bello University, which appear quite high in the internationalization rankings.

Institutional Internationalization Strategies and Activities: General Synthesis Based on the information synthesized in Table 15.9, it is possible to conclude that internationalization strategies are strongly targeted towards providing students with opportunities to study abroad through the provision of a foreign language course, student exchange programs, and double degrees agreements. With some exceptions, there are also activities aimed at supporting academic mobility, joint research, and international dissemination of activities. However, it should be noted that internal financial support for research tends to be weak, even though joint international collaboration is relatively common. A possible explanation for this apparent contradiction resides in the fact that many institutions have specialized offices that provide strategic support to academics to help them successfully apply to external funds. Finally, very few institutions have campuses beyond Chilean borders, UTFSM and UAI being exceptions to this rule.

240

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 15.9 Institutional internationalization strategies University

UC UCHILE UTFSM UV UACh UdeC UAI UNAB

Foreign language courses Student exchange Double degrees Academic mobility Joint international research Internal funds to carry out international research International dissemination activities International branch campuses

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ x

✓ ✓ ✓ x x x

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ x

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ x ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓







x









X

x



x

x

x



x

Source: Authors’ elaboration based information publicly available on institutional websites.

INSTITUTIONAL INTERNATIONALIZATION PLANS: A DEEPER EXAMINATION INTO NATIONAL LEADING UNIVERSITIES One of the main instruments used by institutions to plan, manage, and expand their operations lies on their multi-annual strategic plan. In this section, we briefly analyze the strategic plan of three top-level institutions, which consider internationalization a key lever. The Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (PUC), in its 2015–2020 development plan, includes as one of its key pillars “internationalization to participate in a global world.” Based on this strategic pillar, PUC incorporates internationalization at the core of its institutional project, setting specific goals, which include adopting international quality standards in teaching and research. Among the main objectives for the institution are: promoting international research, improving and extending networking with international organizations, and reinforcing and increasing student mobility. Specifically, among the proposed activities to achieve these goals is the creation of a graduate school to achieve the diversification of the range of doctoral studies available and to increase the possibility of exchange and mobility for postgraduate students. Another goal is the implementation of an institutional strategy, focused on internationalization that includes the entire academic community. Similarly, the University of Chile, in its 2017–2026 institutional development plan includes as a key strategic objective, promoting internationalization “to respond to the new local, regional, and global challenges.” Focusing on this goal, the University of Chile aims to become a leader in Latin America and in international networks. The institution proposes promoting exchange experiences and establishing research and training cooperation for undergraduate and graduate students, to produce social impact at the global level. It seeks to achieve excellence in teaching, research, and creativity to generate public engagement, as well as to tackle current national and international challenges. Finally, it aims to establish an institutional strategy for internationalization. The 2016–2022 University of Concepción’s strategic plan is coherent with the previously mentioned plans. Although it doesn’t have a specific pillar related to internationalization, this dimension is included across the strategic plan to achieve international standards. The University of Concepción seeks to increase international mobility and research cooperation, strengthen alliances with foreign institutions, create

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

241

international research groups, and achieve greater visibility worldwide. On the whole, the three cases show that universities, at least the top-level ones, consider internationalization as a key component of their long-run growth and development strategies. They develop plans and activities in this field with a clear objective of meeting international standards that will allow them to improve their international reputation, better their position in international rankings, and make them more competitive globally. In fact, in their plans, all three institutions express concern regarding their positions in international academic ranking.

FINAL REMARKS AND PROJECTIONS As we have shown throughout this chapter, internationalization is clearly in the agendas of Chile’s government agencies’ bearing on the development of higher education and research, the associations of universities, and the institutions of higher education themselves. Of course, in as much as the intensity of internationalization depends on the magnitude of funding, institutions with better access to resources tend to appear as leaders of internationalization. Yet interesting projects can be found, amongst less wealthy institutions, to carry out internationalization at home initiatives, typically organized around the curriculum of study programs. Moreover, as today the majority of university faculty with PhDs are still trained abroad, an international perspective is the default outlook of university professors across Chilean universities. The relatively small size of Chile’s research community is also a feature that could be playing in favor of international collaboration, as seen in the high proportion of articles published by Chilean scholars in co-authorship with international scholars. Larger scholarly communities, as those of the United States or Brazil, can more easily find research partners within their countries’ borders. A promising avenue of further progress in internationalization is inter-university collaboration. An example can be gleaned from the most recent (post MECESUP) generation of Chile’s policy instruments for strategic development of universities. In the terms of reference for these projects, the Ministry of Education asked for proposals that would favor “the formation of advanced human resources with masters and doctoral degrees in disciplinary and interdisciplinary areas and research programs and centres with the greatest potential for knowledge management.” The internationalization plans were to address, at a minimum, a) strategic alliances with national and international institutions of high reputation to develop joint programs and projects, b) recruitment of foreign graduate students, c) academic and student incoming and outgoing mobility (MINEDUC, 2015). The proposals presented by the University of Chile and the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, albeit largely independent from one another, did consider one joint objective: to disseminate globally the work of advanced research centers in both universities (Universidad de Chile, 2015; Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 2015). At the level of public policy, a shortcoming of Chile’s efforts in advanced human capital formation has been a lack of articulation between the growing supply of Chileans trained at PhD level—both at home and abroad—and the stagnant demand of those researchers by universities and business firms alike. It is not that universities do not need or want new researchers. The problem is that they do not have the openings to hire them. On the one hand, the higher education system has ceased to grow in size, and expansion of faculty positions based on increased tuition revenues from greater enrollment—the main driver of a vibrant academic labor market for thirty years—has come to a halt. On the other

242

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

hand, replacement of senior faculty is expensive, as retirement is not mandatory and therefore incentives for retirement need to be offered to senior staff (Bernasconi, 2018). Additionally, business is hardly an employment option, since only 10 percent of PhDs in Chile are employed outside of academia or the government (Comisión, 2015). A labor market crunch for doctors is looming large, unless universities are supported by public policy to expand their faculty cadres. In other words, some of the potential benefits of an internationalized human capital cohort may be lost for lack of opportune attention to the demand side of the equation. The lesson is obvious: the needs and perspectives of the end employers of internationalization initiatives cannot be absent from the analysis when it comes to investment in internationalization. We too readily and perhaps naively assume that internationalization is always a boon and a profitable investment, forgetting that internationalization is only as good as the advantages it creates for a receptive environment in which it can blossom.

REFERENCES Bellei, C., Cabalín, C., and Orellana, V. (2014). The 2011 Chilean student movement against neoliberal educational policies. Studies in Higher Education, 39(3): 426–440. Bernasconi, A. (2018). Desafíos de futuro de la educación superior chilena. In Ignacio Sánchez, D. (ed.), Ideas en educación II. Definiciones en tiempos de cambios. Santiago: Ediciones de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, pp. 345–373. Bernasconi, A. (2019). Chile: The challenges of free college. In Delisle, J.D., and Usher, A. (eds), International Perspectives in Higher Education. Balancing Access, Equity and Cost. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Education Press, pp. 109–128. CINDA (2019). Centro interuniversitario de desarrollo. Available at: https://cinda.cl/ CNA (2019). Comision Nacional de Acreticacion. Chile. Available at: https://www.cnachile.cl/ Paginas/Inicio.aspx CNID (2016). Lineamientos para una Politica nacional de centros de investigacion. Docuemnto de trabajo no. 3. Available at: http://www.cnid.cl/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/informe_ politicas_ci_6.pdf Comisión Presidencial Ciencia para el Desarrollo de Chile. (2015). Un sueño compartido para el futuro de Chile. Informe a la Presidenta de la República, Michelle Bachelet. Available at: http://www.cnid.cl/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Informe-Ciencia-para-el-Desarrollo.pdf CONICYT (2019). Comisión Nacional de Acreditación. Available at: https://www.conicyt.cl CRUCh (2019a). Consejo de Rectores de Chile. Internacionalización. Available at: https:// consejoderectores.cl/c_internacionalizacion CRUCh (2019b). Sistema de Créditos Transferibles. Available at: https://sct-chile. consejoderectores.cl/que_es_sct_chile.php González, J., and Recart, M.O. (2010). Becas Chile: Advanced Human Capital for the Knowledge Society. Centre of Public Studies (in Spanish). LearnChile. (2019). Learn Chile. Available at: https://www.learnchile.cl/ MERCOSUR (2019). Sistema de Acreditación Regional de Carreras Universitarias de los Estados Partes del MERCOSUR y Estados Asociados. Retrieved from: Memorándum de entendimiento sobre la creación e implementación de un sistema de acreditación de carreras universitarias para el reconocimiento regional de la calidad académica de las respectivas titulaciones en MERCOSUR y Estados Asociados, September 2019. Available at: http://edu. mercosur.int/es-ES/programas-e-projetos/25-mercosur-educativo/57-arcusul.html

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF CHILEAN HIGHER EDUCATION

243

MINEDUC (2015) Decreto Supremo N° 200 de 2015 del Ministerio de Educación que reglamenta la ejecución de la asignación presupuestaria “Internacionalización de universdades.” Available at: http://dfi.mineduc.cl/usuarios/MECESUP/File/2016/otrosinstrumentos/internacionalizacion/ ReglamentoInternacionalizacionDS2002015.pdf OECD (2010). Chile’s International Scholarship Programme, Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: OECD . OECD (2019). International student mobility. Available at: https://stats.oecd.org/ Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (2015). Plan trienal de Internacionalización de la P. Universidad Católica de Chile en postgrado e investigación: 2015–2018. Fondo de internacionalización de universidades. Ministerio de Educación. Available at: http://dfi. mineduc.cl/usuarios/MECESUP/File/2016/otrosinstrumentos/internacionalizacion/ PUC1566.pdf QS (2019). QS Latin America Ranking 2019. Available at: https://www.topuniversities.com/ university-rankings/latin-american-university-rankings/2019 Ramírez, M., Delgado, J., and Espitia, M. (2004). Destino de las inversiones españolas: Países industriales vs países en desarrollo. Revista de Economía Aplicada, 12(34): 127–139. Scopus (2019). Scimago Journal and Country Rank. Country comparison. Available at: https:// www.scimagojr.com/comparecountries.php SIES (2019a). Institutiones de educación superior vigentes. Junio 2019. Available at: https:// www.mifuturo.cl/instituciones-de-educacion-superior-en-chile/ SIES (2019b). Informe matrícula 2019 en educación superior en Chile. Ministerio de Educación. Servicio de información de educación superior. June 2019. Available at: https:// www.mifuturo.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Informe-Matricula-2019_SIES-1.pdf SIES (2019c). Informe sobre matrícula de estudiantes extranjeros en educación superior. Matrícula 2018. Ministerio de Educación. Servicio de información de educación superior. August 2019. Available at: https://www.mifuturo.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/informe_ extranjeros_en_educacion_superior_en_chile_matricula_2018_agosto_2019.pdf THE (2019). Times Higher Education World University Ranking 2019. Available at: https:// www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking UNESCO (2019). Global Flow of Tertiary-Level Students: http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-studentflow UNIVERSIA. (2019). Universia Chile. Retrieved from Estudiar: https://www.universia.cl/ estudiar-extranjero Universidad de Chile (2015). Consolidación de la internacionalización de la investigación y postgrado de la Universidad de Chile. Fondo de internacionalización de universidades. Ministerio de Educación. Available at: http://dfi.mineduc.cl/usuarios/MECESUP/File/2016/ otros-instrumentos/internacionalizacion/UCH1566.pdf

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

Colombian Higher Education Internationalization and Social Sustainable Development From Meaning to Practice GIOVANNI ANZOLA-PARDO

Globalization will affect national democracy insofar as certain issues, such as the environment and current economic crisis, cannot be solved at the national level alone but require a concerted international effort. Democracy, like national sovereignty, will then lose importance concerning the benefit of non-denominational, global power; hence the importance of democratizing globalization. — Boutros Boutros-Ghali, UNESCO, 2009

OUTLINE Education is perhaps the most crucial aspect of today’s knowledge society. This vital foundation plays a role in the founding of societal principles, the development of science and technology, and the broader establishment and dissemination of knowledge. Education also serves as a bond between learning, occupation, and prosperity; it allows the modeling of an individual’s conduct and, therefore, becomes a flagship to recreate current and social scenarios. Finally, yet importantly, education fulfills the purpose of generating permanent societal movements, leading societies to deeper stages of evolution. Classically, education systems comprehend a broad range of protocols, policies, and quality mechanisms in elementary, secondary, and higher levels of education. Undoubtedly, this framework varies by country and is expected to be aligned with national conditions (e.g., historical, cultural, and political). 244

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

245

In this tenor, quality education is a shared concern worldwide, and Internationalizing higher education (HE) may become an answer to common difficulties in several educational systems. It is considered that internationalization efforts contribute to the quality and richness of teaching and learning. According to Van Der Wende (2001), in Shutina (2008: 63), academic rationales to improve the quality of education became especially prevalent in the 1980s. In this regard, alleged concerns by universities began to focus on consolidating accurate planning and quality assurance regulations, ensuring career development pathways, reinforcing partnerships between organizations, associating research and knowledge transfer, and Internationalizing. In the Colombian framework, the internationalization of HE (IHE) has led to several limitations because of the educational apparatus. On the one hand, institutions attempt to integrate world dynamics into the existing national structure to increase the pertinence and quality of education. On the other hand, Colombia is undergoing a series of political, economic, and social transformations, where institutions struggle to reconsider national identity while coping with international demands. Otherwise, accepting who possesses the intellectual property resultant of Internationalizing an institution is an issue to be agreed upon by several stakeholders. This acceptance is also related to the following: The globalization and internationalization of universities have altered how HE is perceived in developing regions such as Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in Colombia. In this sense, universities’ growth is deeply dependent on policymaking, institutional planning, and the use of technologies of information, and these factors are connected to the proper local usage thereof, and answer the need of well-trained individuals who require the knowhow to adapt them, and, consequently, to narrow disproportions within their contexts. The aforementioned elements require additional in-depth debates for consensus in such regions. The increasing breadth and depth of knowledge dissemination pose both challenges and opportunities for Colombian social advancement. New forms of accessing knowledge mainly support the opportunities and the type of resources necessary to operate such knowledge for social cohesion. This phenomenon unavoidably leads to the pursuit of new means of understanding societal representativeness to increase people’s proficiency. One such means is to question the connection between societal necessities and academia in Colombia. Hence, this chapter presents an overview of the current strains between improving the current institutional positions while fulfilling national and international standards in the search for appropriate instruction—necessary for social cohesion and advancement— within the actual, multifaceted Colombian context. The nexus of IHE with Colombian social development (Anzola-Pardo, 2018) is also referred to and elucidated through this chapter. Based on the aforementioned insights, this chapter presents how Colombian HE institutions (HEIs) have worked in explicit and embedded internationalization schemes. However, such schemes have focused on operative activities rather than raising awareness regarding more extensive social theories, such as the implications for Colombia’s development. Jaramillo (2005) stated that the internationalization of Colombian HE was still in an “emerging stage,” and today that statement is still true. Jaramillo posited that Colombian universities have traditionally looked inward, rather than looking outward to explore new means of working in a borderless academic world (Jaramillo, 2005: 179).

246

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Jaramillo also posited that internationalization in Colombia is merely based on issues related to operational actions such as the mobility of students and staff, the signing of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with universities abroad, and, finally, infusing the learning of foreign language acquisition. In the literature, no evidence has been presented on the nexus of internationalization and a social development approach. Jaramillo concluded that HEIs’ activities were not connected to institutional policies; additionally, Jaramillo (2005) stated that the units in charge of internationalization within institutions are usually administrative workplaces that function in a “dispersed way.” Thus, this chapter examines the nexus of societal configuration and Colombian universities’ mission statements through internationalization. Regarding the anticipation of doubt, importance is not based on the role of an institution to regard social advancement exclusively but on Internationalizing HE as a vector1 for Colombia’s social advancement and denoting that it could be used to provide purpose and direction in general and to education, more specifically. The latter means that HE systems must aim at the same solutions of societal problems within an international understanding according to positions and contexts (Anzola-Pardo, 2018: 218). Likewise, the following must be highlighted: HE internationalization “theories” and “pragmatism” have not been the subject of a dialogue based on development studies in Colombia.

INTRODUCING THE CONTEMPORARY COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION APPROACH Hermanowicz (2014) suggested that a contemporary university—through research, teaching, and public service—can make a significant impact on students, faculty, and researchers that influences the social framework. Therefore, the shift in global-setting burdens should result in universities rethinking education and its role in creating a new social reality (Searle, 2010). In this sense, Kobayashi (1986) stated that one of the general characteristics of contemporary education is that within the scope of national training, each country is responsible for educating its inhabitants. This obligation, coupled with permanent changes in society, creates a unique objective: renovate the ever-growing Internationalizing of universities and the related wider dissemination of knowledge under globalization premises. In this respect, globalization has resulted in new views, models, and approaches. This phenomenon has facilitated the reassessment of how HE should adjust to an interconnected ecosphere of knowledge. Globalization has led to a globalized revolution; this notion is particularly notable because the globalized revolution was previously for only the elite domain in local or regional spheres. Notwithstanding such changes and the universality of information, universities in emerging nations regularly work in an isolated sphere of influence. For example, some nations have had difficulties in preparing academic staff to

In physics, a quantity that has both magnitude and direction. It is typically represented by an arrow whose direction is the same as that of the quantity and whose length is proportional to the quantity’s magnitude. Although a vector has magnitude and direction, it does not have a position. That is, as long as its length is not changed, a vector is not altered if it is displaced parallel to itself. Excerpted from www.britannica.com/topic/ vector-physics (accessed, July 2019).

1

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

247

improve university procedures. As stated by Gomez (2015), the academic exchange of individuals has always occurred; specifically, in the case of most of the countries in Latin America, and particularly Colombia, such activity has usually been based on the mobility of students. However, the latter has been circumscribed to economically privileged people. With globalization quickly affecting almost everybody in the twenty-first century, and with all the influence it has had in the markets over the last three decades, professions, associations, information flows, and investigations have gradually been globalized (CEPAL, 2016). Similarly, new associations, organizations, networks, and institutions have acted out, and the associations between them have been reinforced. Likewise, new openings for world interchanges have occurred; hence, the world is now a more intersected and cross-cutting place. Undoubtedly, introducing globalization in HEIs has enriched academic environments through a considerable exchange of information, but, more fundamentally, it has delivered a unique situation in which to rethink societies, namely, as communities that are more equitable and focused on development (Bertucci and Alberti, 2001). In the same sense, as the internationalization of universities increases worldwide, HEIs endeavor to renovate or adjust their policies and strategies to remain pertinent in their domain. This phenomenon suggests that the affiliation between HE internationalization and societal development may require the reconsideration of many aspects because of current economic challenges. The argument that is herein advanced is founded on whether the IHE is capable of acting as a “catalyst” (Hudzik, 2011) for societal advancement by introducing alternative points of view in national debates. In this sense, Berry and Taylor (2014) stated that Colombia is considering encompassing its worldwide profile at the university level, is coming out of a lengthy period of instability, and has demonstrated significant signs of progress in security. Conversely, universities considering internationalization must first overcome the perceptions of Colombia as a troubled nation. In this respect, IHE is, therefore, undeniably connected to the country’s socio-political conflict. In this respect, today, the drivers of Colombia’s societal progress are several political and economic limitations. The Colombian internal conflict, which has continued for over six decades, has disrupted the progress made because of the nation’s steady national plan. This conflict has produced geopolitical segregation and has permeated all types of interactions in every part of Colombian society. The evidence for the latter is high rates of poverty, famine, inequity, injustice, and corruption. The aforementioned associated phenomena have resulted in a process of social disintegration in Colombia, characterized by acute political and economic distress, uncertainty, and disbelief. Although Colombia’s development policy is considered in the National Development Plan, Restrepo (2004) argued that one of the main complications of the improvements to be conducted by the State is the impracticality of enduring a continuing progression that reassures a more consistent, wide-ranging development structure. After the completion of the negotiations between the Colombian government and outlaw forces—still in an awkward phase of implementation—the most crucial action proposed was placing a comprehensive plan on the national government’s agenda. In this regard, the access to quality education and social security, reinsertion of former combatants in civil society, fight against corruption, the implementation of technologies of information, creation of better labor opportunities for graduates, and more effective mechanisms of

248

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

social development, among other actions, must be prioritized by the central government. Nevertheless, growth from a perspective of HE connected to a development plan has been neither discussed nor determined. In the Colombian National Development Plan (NDP) 2018–2022, education is considered an influential mechanism to lead to social equity, especially in goals 1, 2, 3, and 16. The objectives of these goals are to improve coverage in early education, add more students to a unique-school-day model in public high schools, strengthen public HEIs, and double the public and private investment in science and technology. This plan is supposed to offer people new opportunities, permitting them to shift the cycle that prolongs poverty. Accordingly, improvements in HE are closely linked to the trajectory of national social development. An additional strategic feature in this analysis is the appropriate preparation of individuals by universities for competitiveness. This feature has been questioned: Do the current teaching approaches consider proper accessibility, qualifications, skills (e.g., communicative, soft and hard) and quality of education to guarantee their inputs to the innovation and further knowledge transfer? Such inputs must be linked with societal advancement in the sense that clusters of stakeholders may be able to formulate better intercessions for nurturing creative development and social unity. Structural competitiveness (OECD and World Bank, 2012) has resulted in a methodology that mainly covers economic categories, almost wholly avoiding social and political aspects involved in the promotion of competitiveness. This methodology is vital to consider in the context of local governments’ measurements of development principles that typically employ these categories. However, the current macroeconomic atmosphere aims to define and assess the stability, coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of policies as facilitators of development (not only from an economic stance). Such a structural parameter rules out other aspects of the complex social fabric, implying an imbalance among the sectors involved, including education. Welch (1998) stated that Internationalizing education presents opportunities, challenges, and concerns when addressing development, that is, in the sense that it may help produce new partnerships and knowledge transfer and raise the necessary technological improvements, for instance, to help the inner (re)structuring of society in social development policies for competition. In this sense, what is then understood is that the more new technologies are implemented, the more the countries gain sustainable and measurable socio-economic growth (Dahlman, 2007). In this tenet, scientific and technological progression is also considered a primary, distinctive feature that fixes the significance of an institution, especially a university. Therefore, the more that countries have substantial technological arrangements and inclusive research alliances with all of the society’s stakeholders (i.e., academics, administrations, businesses, communities, etc.), the more driven a nation may become in its effort to surpass inequity and impoverishment—as in the Colombian case. Finally, the academic output of a nation has a remarkable effect on the competitiveness of a state. The latter measures the development, efficiency, and viability of the educational and social continuum and the consolidation and influence in development. In this case, Internationalizing HE—and its distant relation to social engagement in Colombia—goes beyond simple “economic ideas” for social improvement in such analysis, even when they are typically pondered as part of the societal construct.

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

249

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN COLOMBIA According to Kehm and Teichler (2007), who addressed the international dimension of HE, one frequently matches mentions to only Western academicians. Another factor is that studies on the international aspect of HE have been more extensive in the United States. The dominance of academicians from other nations on this topic is, to some degree, because studies on the international spectrum of HE have been referenced in most other countries by an abridged number of specialists in this field. Precise, conducted research on the Latin American region can be credited to Gacel-Ávila (2007), even though supplementary mentions are restricted to local understandings. In summary, the allusions to Latin American authors have been scant. A careful analysis of the internationalization concept, to unmistakably affirm the nexus in the literature on the internationalization of HE in Colombia, found that the concept changes by the country, by the institution, and by the individuals. In some cases, the concept may be imprecise when defining it from a context stance. Callan (2000) raised this concern when explaining that the concept has been assumed and used in different ways since the Second World War. Analyses have shifted based on varying rationales and incentives for internationalization and the variable political and economic circumstances in which this theoretical construct is situated. Moreover, several meanings have resulted in terminology differences; de Wit (2002), in Shutina (2008), posited that the different concepts are used to denote a specific element within the broad field of “internationalization” and are used as synonyms for the overall term “internationalization.” As in the Colombian case, although internationalization is not a new topic, several revisions have been performed by the Colombian Ministry of Education, the network of accredited universities CCYK ® (MEN-CCYK, 2013), and the Colombian Institute for the Promotion of Higher Education (ICFES), in partnership with the Colombian Network for Internationalization of Higher Education (RCI), (ICFES, 2002). Jaramillo (2003; 2005) and Otálora (2009) have also conducted discipline-based studies. From a specific analytical perspective on international cooperation in science, technology, and innovation, work has been performed by agencies or networks such as RCI, ASCUN, and COLCIENCIAS. Uribe (2010) conducted a retrospective analysis of internationalization and presented several considerations to develop a “policy of opening up HE in Colombia.” Fernández (2011) highlighted the importance of policies for internationalization at public universities through mission statements on issues related to quality in teaching, research, and public service. Other discussions are contextualized internationally in the Third Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education and subsequent versions, held by the International Association of Universities (Egron-Polak and Hudson, 2010), and a report by the OECD and the World Bank (2012) on HE in Colombia. The Colombian National Development Plan 2010–2014 (DNP, 2011) set a strategic goal to achieve democratic prosperity and international competitiveness of all economic sectors comprising education. Additionally, an explicit directive was given by the Ministry of National Education to build a project to promote the internationalization of HE, namely, to address quality assurance (CNA, 2013a, b). The IHE in Colombia has been characterized by the work of the Ministry of National Education and networks of universities such as CCYK and the RCI. However, no policy

250

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

on internationalization has been advanced, and institutions continue to work in isolation and in a dispersed manner. Nonetheless, a study on the indicators for the internationalization of HE (MEN-CCYK, 2013) clearly demonstrates that, nowadays, more institutions have structures in place and this component is more considered because of the relevance that the National Council of Accreditation (CNA) has implemented for accreditation purposes. This theme of internationalization has also been considered within the context of recent HE discussions, as led by the National Council for Higher Education (CESU). These dialogues have led to the issuance of several academic documents such as the Agreement for Higher Education—2034 (MEN, 2014: 13). This Agreement focuses on ten key aspects: inclusive education; quality and relevance; research (science, technology, and innovation, including social innovation); regionalization; articulation of secondary education to HE, job training and human development; university community and welfare; new educational methods; internationalization; and structural systems, governance and financial sustainability. Succeeding the Agreement was the publication Reflections on the policy of internationalization of higher education in Colombia (2014) by the Ministry of National Education and the Observatory of Science and Technology (MEN and OCyT, 2014). The academic book provides an in-depth overview of the country’s internationalization. Additionally, in 2016, the group of CCYK universities published a report that raised the importance of understanding security concerns associated with the mobility of students. The inbound mobility of United States’ students to Colombia presents a reality of the country different from the one perceived (connected to, e.g., war problems, drug trafficking, and kidnapping). In this respect, the international inbound mobility is presented as an aspect that directly affects the Colombian gross domestic product (GDP) and poses an opportunity for universities and the national government to work on a strategy for the visibility and promotion of HE internationally. Anzola-Pardo (2018) introduced a framework to understand the history and evolution of internationalization in the Colombian context (Table 16.1). This section reviewed the concept of internationalization of HE in the literature, including the Colombian cases. The investigation of Colombia is an attempt to understand the roots of the notion and instituting differences to explain the relationships between internationalization of HE and three other terms: international education, international rationales, and globalization. These terms are often employed interchangeably and in an overlying manner.

COMPLEXITY OF THE COLOMBIAN EDUCATIONAL SECTOR Colombian HEIs began to be created in response to the circumstances of urbanization and city expansion. Urbanism appeared late in Colombia, and in other countries of Latin America (Ramirez, 2011). The concept of the Colombian HE system is closely related to urbanization advancement in the country and the laicization of the State. Additionally, the creation of the university system does emphasize a single macroinstitution located in a city or capital. The history of public and private universities and institutions has been more connected to the concept of regional HEIs. In this tenet, heterogeneity in the quality of the degrees offered by HEIs is evidenced when contrasting the enrollment fees of institutions and programs with high-quality accreditation, which poses a rather concentrated and unequal setting for HE. Actually,

TABLE 16.1 The IHE: National ideological context and trends: an overview (Anzola-Pardo, 2018) Colombia Pre-1970

Post-1970

1980

251

• Formation • HE • Memoryof Office for internationalization based International influenced by education Education scholarship/ • Limited to manage cooperation with independence student/ developed of academic academic countries thought exchange • Napoleonic • Inflow of and international loans Model— international • National scientific/ vocational academic technology emphasis cooperation development is a • Difference driver for IHE between cooperation state/public and private (mainly Catholic); the latter emphasized general education, and the former was more professional directed • HRI mainly directed internally to South America and the United States

The 1990s

The 2000s

• Increase the country’s links to the global economy • Education internationalization follows rapid international economic cooperation • HEIs embrace internationalization • Internationalization of HE is driven by the quality of education considerations and institutional prestige

• • • • •



• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Formation of Colombian Challenge your Knowledge Colombian Network for Internationalization of HE formed Consideration of internationalization of HEIs for financial gain A concern in HEIs that their internationalization will negatively affect national culture A rapid increase in international agreements—private institutions focus on student mobility and the public focuses on research collaboration Limited student mobility: in 2004 Latin America (4 percent) lagged behind Asia (45 percent), Europe (30 percent), Africa (11 percent), and North America (6 percent) Limited Latin American interregional mobility, and no intraregional systems for credit and qualification recognition (Gacel-Ávila, 2007) Almost an absence of the internationalization of the curricula Courses presented in English are rare, and more interaction with Spanish-speaking countries/institutions is necessary Advent and JP Morgan increase shares in HEIs Advent of new educational providers: International Apollo Group, Sylvan International, Oracle University Lack or limited number of HE internationalization policies HEI driven more by individuals than institutions No quality assurance programs for the internationalization process Limited HE internationalization budget Low level of professional qualifications of staff managing international offices and programs Limited integration of the International Office into university organizational structure Limited number of institutions consider internationalization as a strategic objective. Lack or underdeveloped internationalization strategy Rigid curriculum inhibits HE internationalization Project (2009–): Promoting the Internationalization of Higher Education by Colombian Ministry of National Education.

252

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

according to the National Higher Education Information System (SNIES, 2017), of the total number of official HEIs, 16 percent have high-quality accreditation and 40 percent of the institutions accredited at present in the country are public. According to the National Council of Accreditation, enrollment coverage in HEIs and accredited programs was 31 percent in 2014, coverage in accredited undergraduate programs was 19 percent, and coverage in graduate programs was 6 percent. Additionally, the results of the empirical exercise show that students’ economic and social conditions considerably affect the quality of the HE structure in terms of the academic outputs of the different HEIs and the careers offered by them. From a government viewpoint, quality is necessary. The goal is to benefit youngsters regardless of their places of origin or political, economic, social, and cultural situation and deliver opportunities to gain knowledge and expertise in a particular field and to improve the aptitudes and values necessary to live, coexist, be productive, and keep learning throughout their lives (MEN, 2010). However, the OECD and World Bank (2012) have remarked on the low performance of Colombia throughout recent years, which is the causality of an educational apparatus incapable of offering high-quality education for all. Indications of this are the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment exams2 and, currently, this statement is still factual. However, the OECD and the World Bank have established numerous assets in Colombian HE, for example: ●

Significant increase in coverage over the last ten years



Diverse institutional landscape



Complete and coherent national planning and policy formulation





Robust support for equity and a student loan agency that is among the best in the world, and Wide-ranging and cutting-edge assessment systems and a guarantee to engage in data-based decision making.

These assets will be more successful and valuable as the reform agenda progresses (OECD, 2015: 14). Notably, notwithstanding the institutional improvements and the increase in coverage rates, there remains an extensive heterogeneity in the quality of the programs accessible in Colombia at its universities and institutions, the disparity in access to HE programs, and the rare supply of quotas. Such heterogeneity has effects within institutions (and society, consequently) that are presented in these ways: ● ●





Equitable access to quality education and employment rates Successful access from pre-primary to tertiary levels of education, enhancing staff capacities An increase in the hours of instruction, and efficient evaluations of student and teacher performances Education results and employment chances, and

The Programme for International Student Assessment is a triennial international survey that evaluates education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students. According to this organization, Colombia performs below the OECD average in science; its degraded performance increased 28 score points since 2006, the second-largest improvement among the 52 education systems with comparable data (accessed July 2, 2017. www.oecd.org).

2

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION ●

253

Successful quality of staff in schools, and evading the occurrence of two- or even three-shift schools.

This list of considerations is also observed in the reports of the OECD in the following sense: Education in Colombia is advancing, but challenges remain. Enrolment has increased at pre-primary, secondary and tertiary levels, yet few students attend school before the age of six and many drop out after age fifteen. Only about half of 17–19-year-old secondary graduates go on to tertiary level studies. Improving the quality of education and ensuring that all students (particularly the most disadvantaged ones) achieve at least minimum skill levels will be essential for Colombia’s long-term economic and social development. Additionally, increasing the relevance of education systems and training programmes in the labour market are determinants to reduce unemployment and foster well-being. —OECD, 2015: 22

COLOMBIAN LABOR AND TALENT DEMAND IN A GLOBALIZED ECONOMY From its early stages in 1989, Colombia accomplished remarkable progress in terms of GDP growth and per capita income in a framework of relative constancy for some years mainly because of the low levels of uncontainable inflation and few developments in trade variation. The plan was based on the use of the “substitution model” endorsed by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL). Its central idea was to defend the domestic production required to be accompanied by state policy to offer businesspersons low-interest loans to subsidize in-house production. Currently, industrial sector investment is measured as a critical part of the modernization of the domestic economy by reintroducing equipment and a distinct change in the business culture in different companies. Consistent with the national agency to promote investment in the country (Invest in Colombia), and because of trade arrangements, Colombia has become a distribution, production, and export hub for international marketplaces. In this sense, companies’ networking increases the capacity for innovation and technological development in businesses and activates their productivity and competitiveness (Kahn and Ghani, 2004). Local commerce has a propensity to expand companies’ talent management scheme, in line with the countries’ progress engines, modernization, originality of the service of production lines, social responsibility, and commitment to advance fair trade. In this sense, the literature has exposed that talent management can offer noteworthy information on the best conditions for local customs, labor markets, and workforce guidelines across nations to integrate with adequate performance and new means to do business at the global level (Ray, 2012). Hence, socio-economic growth in Colombia is mainly influenced by the level of deliberate adjustment that local companies may have to adjust themselves to underpinning global demographic changes in talent attainment and retention. Correspondingly, and according to the survey for Development and Technological Innovation published by the National Administrative Department of Statistics, the limited

254

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

information on available technology, absence of skilled personnel, and ambiguity in the success of the technical implementation of projects are some of the limitations of the Colombian manufacturing sector when attempting to mobilize companies to change their culture, attitude, and investment priorities (DANE, 2014). In Colombia, economic progress has two economic elements that must be reflected: the current inflow of new foreign investment in the mining and petroleum sectors predominantly (Uribe, 2010), and that this economic growth has also been defined by the current local market based on beverages, food, agriculture, petroleum, footwear, mechanical equipment and transportation, livestock, floriculture, mining, chemical and textile industries (DANE, 2014). The Colombian trading segment has also experienced a primary conversion. Many multinational businesses have established offices in the country and have appealed to customers and the workforce by expanding their services and announcing new brands in the country. One such case is the introduction of French, Chilean, and Portuguese franchises with an investment of nearly US$5,000 million in five years (Semana, 2012). Colombia has proven to be an attractive country for foreign direct investment because of its political stability, competitive advantage, and economic growth over the last ten years. Hence, competition and new openings for socio-economic growth have a favorable position. Accordingly, local businesses must prepare their labor force with precise skills and abilities for such inbound competition, which means filling the gap between skills mismatched for better occupation opportunities, particularly within a global dynamic, where national and global competition are dissimilar but feed into each other (Marginson, 2006). When referring to an access-based source of advantage, Ma (1999: 262) states that “a firm enjoys competitive advantages over rivals because it has more superior access to the factor markets, i.e. resource input (Barney, 1986), and/or product market, i.e. customers (Porter, 1980) than do rivals or it has such access that is not at all available to rivals.” As aforementioned, the competition in trading activities endures the conversion to a more challenging arena, particularly when domestic talent is inclined to move to labor opportunities with more stable works and superior incomes (Dewhurst, Pettigrew, and Srinivasan, 2012).

COLOMBIA’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT According to HAYS (2013), approximately 97 percent of the occupied inhabitants in Colombia have earnings below US$2,500 monthly. Nonetheless, the qualified uppermiddle class and middle class, which cluster in the higher levels of schooling, are in high demand in the labor sector. Thus, there is a vast revenue gap in the country concerning education and development, and this clarifies the reality of the pull-out of Colombia in the international arena, and that can encourage satisfactory development (in terms of structure development, regional development, knowledge democratization, labor environment, job opportunities, justice, equity, and peace). In unison, in recent years, Colombia’s GDP has been in the top economies in the region, alongside Mexico and Brazil. Henceforth, such economic progress has affected the social and political characteristics vis-à-vis the type of promptness that might be necessary for Colombia to have equity, competitiveness, poverty alleviation, and a successful crusade against corruption by dint of education and societal development values to drive an agenda in national and international environments.

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

255

According to the National Department of Statistics (DANE), Colombia has generated satisfactory settings advancing firm economic advancement because of recent political and economic constancy and financial increases in the last ten years in its GDP. Swystun (2014) postulated that the dynamics of augmented growth are generating various opportunities locally to thrive in global setups with conceivable menaces in the employment of plans when going global. Hence, the impacts of Colombia’s increased variations (e.g., cultural, educational, political, and economic) must be examined by considering the effects and drawbacks in social development facets, especially political facets. Alternative aspects worth considering are the level of promptness that HE is supposed to have in a new competitive context to add value to the country’s socioeconomic advancement from the viewpoint of its internationalization.

HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The internationalization of HE, as a concept, and aforementioned, is understood from several approaches. As a field of study, HE has taken from historical analysis and several social science underpinnings. The internationalization of HE can now be the bond for a new type of socially sustained development approach based on a reviewed conception of the role of human beings on earth, with a compelling logic of accountability and repair. According to de Wit (2002; in Shutina, 2008: 52), “International education is frequently used in place of internationalization of HE, thus creating confusion.” De Wit (1999; 2002, in Shutina, 2008: 52) and Callan (2000) have advanced this argument by clarifying that it could be because of historical underpinnings. The concept of internationalization “carries different historical associations and hence different contemporary resonances in the United States, in Europe and other parts of the world” (Callan, 2000, in Shutina, 2008: 52). The opportunities for economic and social development for any country depend primarily on what can be done in the creation of scientific and technical collections to properly use available resources and to mend or change certain practices of the social junction by way of robust policies and long-term improvement plans. In this regard, if the internationalization of HE is not included in state policies, embracing HE as an instrument that might be a driver of other sectors of society is difficult, and not only in the context of the educational stance. In addition to the deductions drawn from macroeconomic groundings regarding the linkages between HE and socially sustainable development, the interconnections in a global and systemic role of education, development, and society are undisputable. Herein, the internationalization in HE will become the pillar for international knowledge dissemination and further development of a shared understanding of world society. In summary, reaching out to people through knowledge transfer and international education is essential, namely encouraging HEIs to prioritize the service of a global society understanding. HEIs must also overcome distinctiveness problems in teaching and research. Universities have been typically known as places to teach and perhaps as sources of political controversy but not as partners in development. Governments should view universities as engines of problem solving and of national development. Thinking can lead to innovations, original methodologies, or new types of governance.

256

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The OECD and World Bank (2012) have established that institutions integrating internationalization into their fields of operation and administration are likely to contribute to country-wide growth and innovation. They may be able to influence key areas of the world and global development. Innovation, priorities, and best practices must be from both institutions and governments to find ways to enhance and fund this process. Such a statement may imply that HEIs could then be considered by governments as partners in sustainable development to help address global leadership challenges in promoting solutions to problems that require immediate intervention beyond geopolitical boundaries. HEIs may collaboratively work to use joint-knowledge networks between governments, enterprises, and universities to leverage world competitiveness and attempt to be more active partners in cities, regions, or nations for problem solving by regarding sustainable development as a spearhead for social intervention. National competitiveness leads to increased interest in international off-shore campuses among some developing countries, for a combination of economic development and soft power reasons. Critical linkages between industry and government policy for fostering innovation are often lacking (OECD and World Bank, 2012). To counter common world problems, the United Nations has sponsored the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) to identify the main challenges for sustainable development from 2015 to 2030. The SDSN is an outreach organization that aims for the general membership of institutions of HE from around the world. Thus, an examination of the strategies to shape long-term transformative strategies is necessary to improve quality and achieve international standards for education at all levels, including elementary school, high school, and HE integration. The OECD calls for “connectedness” of the systems in the curricula from preschool through secondary education to develop students’ human capital to their fullest capacity in later stages of education.

SOCIALLY SUSTAINED HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION IN COLOMBIA Addressing the role of quality education in Colombia and in societies worldwide is a difficult task. IHE is not new but it influences and is a driver of current relations in the academic world because it challenges the status quo. HE introduces alternative means of thinking and questions the education model and its impacts on governance and management. HE will raise unexpected issues and anticipated benefits. All of these phenomena have a different impact, meaning, and import for institutions in countries of varying degrees of social or political development (OECD and World Bank, 2012). Henceforth, HEIs may leverage academic reflections to propel democracy, economic growth, opportunity, political participation, gender equality, human rights compliance, inclusion, and, ultimately, societal transformation to peace. Colombia is facing multiple challenges in its (post) conflict context. After sixty years of war, education must be strengthened and galvanized to address core concerns within Colombian society. Thus, an exploration of how to design successful policies must include and address minority groups, especially those affected by the conflict, such as women, indigenous peoples, and Afro-Colombians. The goal should be to position education as an agent for recovery,

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

257

inclusion, and development in the post-conflict context. Employing a democratization approach, policies should promote peacebuilding, including leadership and tactics, to promote gender and ethnic inclusion. Technology and communications have also become a means to facilitate access to education in remote areas, or as an alternative to increasing the availability of education resources by learning about some of the successful distance or technology-based academic and training programs in the HE Colombian case. The stakeholders to be encouraged in such intervention processes include education policymakers, researchers in education, government education advisers, education and/or training nongovernmental organizations’ (NGOs’) directors or representatives, and minority NGOs committed to serving their communities who can use the lessons learned for promoting social and economic inclusion in a promising scenario of a possible end to the longstanding internal armed conflict. In this sense, the following strategies could be used as relevant elements for discussion regarding how to address socially sustainable development through internationalization principles: ●

Enable sustainable career paths for Colombian professionals (including an international level)



Reinforce quality education to increase youth’s economic empowerment



Primary levels of education in a chain to succeed in HE internationally



Reflect on international education for sustainable competitiveness



Enable global (relevant) skills for sustainable intervention/action in development



Use technology to favor knowledge transfer for sustainable development actions



Stand up for education to promote socio-economic diversification



International service learning.

In this framework, a key articulator element is international curriculum development to implement relevant social teaching. The role of HE in building collective cohesion and sustainable peace in developing countries/emerging markets may be crucial for societal advancement by means of intentioned higher education internationalization. Based on the aforementioned ideas, the Yash Pal Committee Report on Higher Education (2009, in Tilak, 2010) has argued for more for rejuvenation of HE and the defragmentation of knowledge and care in the reliance on private university systems, even concerning internationalization. This report also favored less regulation of the universities by the government and stated, “universities should be self-regulating institutions” (Tilak, 2010: 63). Another means to increase social engagement is the participation in collective activities to reinforce social capital and social norms (Carroll, Jiang, and Zhang, 2011). According to Prohaska, Anderson, and Binstock (2012), critical elements of social engagement include activity (actually doing something), interaction (at least two people must be involved in this activity), social exchange (the activity involves giving or receiving something from others), and no compulsion (no outside force forcing an individual to engage in the activity). What is understood is that social engagement dismisses paid activities or any other obligations related to formal commitments. Social engagement is related to whether individuals are more or less engaged with various communities. In this regard, studies in social sciences have suggested that new information

258

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

and communication technologies increase social engagement in distant or virtual communities and consequently decrease their involvement in local communities (Carroll et al., 2011). In summary, the aforementioned ideas suggest that, regarding societal development, social engagement could provide knowledge (transfer) to any community with HE as a vector in the promotion of initiatives geared to overcome social constraints in Colombia and the world.

CONCLUSIONS Efforts to overcome inequity in societies usually prioritize solutions from education policymakers, governments, and HEIs, primarily between advanced and lagging regions. Education is expected to provide students with the necessary skills to get ahead in life, irrespective of social background. Nowadays, the complete chain of education has a direct relationship with the workforce that is now needed, and demanded, to prosper in a constantly changing world. Current graduates must have strong critical thinking skills, be adaptable, and be capable of learning new skills (e.g., soft and hard skills and problem solving) to perform better in the labor market. As such, education is an engine of social mobility, and this should be the driver in the Colombian case. Moreover, the main questions to address are as follows: Is education providing an opportunity for students to succeed regardless of family origin? Alternatively, is inequity hindering the opportunities for students to acquire and attain the necessary skills for their future performance in HE and the labor market? As aforementioned, the leading causes of the perpetuation of social exclusion in education are from socio-economic premises and lack of educational opportunities, which demonstrates unfair elements of disparity and elitism from the early beginnings. Compared with high-performing and equitable education systems that promote a good initial beginning into education, with high-quality training in the early stages of education programs for children, the accessible systems oriented to cover disadvantaged individuals in society may make the difference in these students obtaining good results in the long run—for any nation. Relevant teaching is essential. Curriculum development must include various learning styles and align with students’ realities. Working closely with students’ family backgrounds (parents and community) may help each child achieve his or her fullest academic potential. Efficient, fair education systems tend to be flexible, propose educational paths, and do not label or track students into irrelevant vocational options of poor quality. Proper allocation of resources and the provision of high-quality human capital to schools that struggle most instead of advantaged schools could be the most pivotal element of success for a country. The previous statements are also part of the discussions to be considered by policymakers in Colombia. A lack of (financial) resources has hampered the achievement of the proposed objectives and reverted aspects such as the autonomy of universities. Subsequently, urbanization processes and demographic changes in Colombia have led to a growing demand for educational services, which has favored the opening of private institutions and the emergence of universities with evening programs. Upon the signing of the 1991 Charter, freedom of teaching was treasured and education was recognized as a right, which is reflected in an increase in national educational coverage. Conversely, in the twenty-eight years since the Constitution of the 91, Colombia

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

259

has accumulated a series of constraints that characterize its HE: (i) High dropout rates, mainly because of socio-political constraints and the current implications of a negotiated and concerted peace with outlaw groups, privileging a different agenda for reinserting guerrilla members into the society; (ii) low-income students have been faced with difficulties in access to HE, especially in regions far from main urban centers; (iv) low qualification of teachers at all the levels of the educational sector; (vi) alignment between the country’s economic and social development with an educational agenda; (vii) irrelevant research activities and society; (viii) weak links between HE and the productive sector, especially in agriculture; (ix) inadequate resource allocation for faculty qualification; (x) constraints between public and private HE; (xi) classroom saturation of students per faculty; (xii) lack of readiness of high school students to enter HE, especially in rural areas; (xiii) lack of infrastructure and equipment; and (xiv) slow development of public universities and increase of private institutions that cannot guarantee quality standards (the difference between the rural and urban). According to the distribution of institutions nationwide, the official sector has a greater presence in cities of slight prominence, whereas the private sector has typically been concentrated in big urban centers. Finally, if development is understood as the process of adding improvements to a particular aspect (e.g., place, person, and time), ergo, socially sustainable development may imply that all efforts could be based on long-term intentions rather than temporary intuitions. This implication suggests that development could be fostered from intentioned knowledge from Internationalizing HE for the benefit of society.

REFERENCES Anzola-Pardo, G. (2018). The intersection between social development and the internationalization of HE in Colombia. Retrieved from http://ow.ly/db3b30ppV2f (accessed July 29, 2019). Berry, C., and Taylor, J. (2014). Internationalization in HE in Latin America: Policies and Practice in Colombia and Mexico. Dordrecht: Springer Science plus Business Media. Bertucci, G., and Alberti, A. (2001). Globalization and the Role of the State: Challenges and Perspectives. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9edd/97224bb2978453e6ff5c08afc56dd9e606 4e.pdf (accessed June 21, 2016). Callan, H. (2000). The international vision in practice: A decade of evolution. Higher Education in Europe, 25. Carroll, J., Jiang, H., and Zhang, S. (2011). Integrating online and offline community through Facebook. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5928738/ (accessed January 12, 2016). CEPAL (2016). Estudio Económico de América Latina y el Caribe 2016: La Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible y los Desafíos del financiamiento para el Desarrollo. https://www. cepal.org/es/publicaciones/40326-estudio-economico-america-latina-caribe-2016-la-agenda2030-desarrollo (accessed December 3, 2017). CNA (2013a). Importancia y calidad de los procesos de internacionalización de las IES en el marco de la acreditación. www.cna.gov.co (accessed July 23, 2017). CNA (2013b). Lineamientos para la acreditación de programas de pregrado. Retrieved from www.cna.gov.co/1741/articles-186359_pregrado_2013.pdf (accessed April 1, 2016). Dahlman, C. (2007). Technology, globalization, and international competitiveness: Challenges for developing countries. https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/industrial_ development/1_2.pdf (accessed February 23, 2016).

260

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

DANE (2014). Cuentas Trimestrales—Colombia Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) Cuarto Trimestre de 2013 y Total Anual. www.dane.gov.co (accessed May 6, 2014). De Wit, H., Jaramillo, I., Gacel-Ávila, J., and Knight, J. (2005). Higher Education in Latin America: The International Dimension. Directions in Development. Washington, DC : World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7428 (accessed November 10, 2016). Dewhurst, M., Pettigrew, M., and Srinivasan, R. (2012). How multinationals can attract the talent they need. http://www.mckinsey.com (accessed October 22, 2013). DNP (2011). National Development Plan—“Prosperity for all” 2010–2014. https:// colabouracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/PND/Resumen_Ejecutivo_Definitivo_PND%20en%20 ingl%C3%A9s06-07-2011.pdf (accessed February 2, 2016). Egron-Polak, E., and Hudson, R. (2010). Internationalization of HE: Global trends, regional perspectives. IAU 3rd global survey report. Paris: International Association of Universities. Fernández, A. (2011). Urgen políticas de internacionalización para las universidades públicas. UN Periódico. Bogotá. 4. Gacel-Ávila, J. (2007). The process of internationalization of Latin American Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 400–409. https://doi. org/10.1177/1028315307303921 Gomez, C. (2015). Internationalizing solidarity: A concept for mobility beyond technical definitions. Internationalization of Higher Education: Beyond Mobility. Conference paper. https://www.eiseverywhere.com/ehome/iau2015siena/231811/ (accessed February 22, 2016). HAYS (2013). Una Mirada hacia el futuro de Colombia. https://www.hays.com.co/cs/groups/ hays_common/@co/@content/documents/digitalasset/hays_773788.pdf (accessed January 16, 2017). Hermanowicz, J. (2014). Dynamics of the contemporary university: Growth, accretion, and conflict. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 43(5): 739–741. http://journals. sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0094306114545742zz (accessed November 23, 2016). Hudzik, J. (2011). Comprehensive Internationalization from Concept to Action. http://www. nafsa.org/uploadedfiles/nafsa_home/resource_library_assets/publications_library/2011_ comprehen_internationalization.pdf (accessed April 19, 2015). ICFES (2002). Guía para la Internacionalización de las IES de Colombia. Bogotá. Jaramillo, I.C. (2003). La internacionalización de la educación superior y su dinámica en Colombia. LCSHD Paper Series. No. 82. Washington, DC : World Bank. Jaramillo, I.C. (2005). Internacionalización de la educación superior en Colombia. In Educación superior en América Latina. La dimensión internacional. Washington, DC : World Bank, pp. 179–215. Kahn, J., and Ghani, J. (2004). Clusters and entrepreneurship: Implications for innovation in a developing economy. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9(3): 221–238. Kehm, B., and Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4): 260–273. Kobayashi, T. (1986). The internationalization of Japanese education. Comparative Education, 22(1): 65. Ma, H. (1999). Creation and pre-emption for competitive advantage. Management Decision, 37, 259–267. doi: 10.1108/00251749910264497 Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1): 1–39. MEN-CCYK (2013). Estudio sobre la Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en Colombia y Modernización de Indicadores de Internacionalización del Sistema Nacional de

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

261

Información de la Educación Superior. http://www.colombiaaprende.edu.co/html/ directivos/1598/articles-347706_documento (accessed August 25, 2015). Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN) (2010). Política de Educativa 2011–2014: “Educación de Calidad, el Camino para la Prosperidad.” http://www.mineducacion.gov. co/1621/propertyvalue-41686.html (accessed June 21, 2015). Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN) (2014). Acuerdo por lo Superior 2034. http://www. mineducacion.gov.co/1621/articles-344500_Brochure_acuerdo_Superior.pdf (accessed May 21, 2015). Ministerio de Educación Nacional (MEN and OCyT) (2014). Reflexiones para la política de internacionalización de la educación superior en Colombia. https://www.cna.gov.co/1741/ articles-186502_Reflexiones2014.pdf (accessed July 15, 2019). OECD (2015). Education at a glance (OECD indicators). www.oecd-ilibrary.org (accessed September 20, 2017). OECD and World Bank (2012). Evaluaciones de políticas nacionales de Educación: La Educación superior en Colombia. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/evaluaciones-de-politicasnacionales-de-educacion-la-educacion-superior-en-colombia_9789264180710-es (accessed March 4, 2016). Otálora, J.A.R. (2009). Elementos para la discusión de la internacionalización de la educación superior colombiana. Revista Facultad de Ciencias Economicas, 17(1): 109–122. Prohaska, T., Anderson, L., and Binstock, R. (2012). A public health approach to the challenges of an aging society. https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article-pdf/. . ./gnu099.pdf (accessed January 12, 2016). Ramirez, J. (2011). Historia crítica de la planeación urbana en Colombia. Una aproximación interpretativa desde los estudios sociales de la ciencia. http://www.bdigital.unal.edu. co/5217/1/393266.2011.pdf (accessed May 10, 2016). Ray, R. (2012). The State Human Capital 2012. False Summit. Why the Human Capital Function Still Has Far to Go. A Report by McKinsey and Company and the Conference Board. Restrepo, J.C. (2004). El desarrollo en Colombia: historia de una hegemonía discursiva. Revista Lasallista de Investigación 2004. www.redalyc.org (accessed September 29, 2016). Searle, J. (2010). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press. https://books. google.com.co/books?isbn=1439108366 (accessed June 20, 2017). Semana Magazine (2012). Las 100 empresas más grandes en Colombia—2012. www.semana. com (accessed August 6, 2013). Shutina, R. (2008). An Investigation of the Role that the Nation’s Six Major Higher- Education Associations Have Played in the Internationalization of American Higher Education During the Last Decade (1996–2006). The University of Toledo. SNIES (2017). Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior. https://www. mineducacion.gov.co/sistemasdeinformacion/1735/w3-article-212400.html (accessed November 23, 2017). Swystun, J. (2014). Going Global. Risks and Rewards. http://www.brandchannel.com/papers_ review.asp?sp_id=876 (accessed January 16, 2017). Tilak, J. (2010). Policy crisis in higher education: Reform or deform? Social Scientist, 38(9/12), 61–90. UNESCO (2009). Interview with Boutros Boutros-Ghali: “Democracy is the sharing of power.” http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/interview_with_boutros_ boutros_ghali_democracy_is_the_sh/ (accessed November 22, 2018).

262

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Uribe, J. (2010). La internacionalización de la educación superior en Colombia, un desafío para asegurar la prosperidad democrática. Revista UNICIENCIA , 1: 1–13. Welch, A. (1988). For sale by degrees: Overseas students and the commodification of higher education in Australia and The United Kingdom. International Review of Education, 34(3): 387–395.

APPENDIX List of Abbreviations A SCUN

Asociación Colombiana de Universidades

CCYK

Colombia – Challenge Your Knowledge

CEPAL

Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe

CESU

Consejo Nacional de Educación Superior

can

Consejo Nacional de Acreditación

COLCIENCIAS

Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación

DANE

Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística

DNP

Departamento Nacional de Planeación

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

HE

Higher Education

HEI(s)

Higher Education Institution(s)

IAU

International Association of Universities

ICFES

Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior

IHE

Internationalization of Higher Education

LATAM

Latin America

MOUs

Memoranda of Understanding

MEN

Ministerio de Educación Nacional

NDP

National Development Plan

NGO(s)

Nongovernmental Organization(s)

OCyT

Observatorio en Ciencia y Tecnología

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PISA

Programme for International Student Assessment

RCI

Red Colombiana para la Internacionalización

SNIES

Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior

The outlined terms or phrases and their explanations are brief and denote how each is used in the context of this study.

COLOMBIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INTERNATIONALIZATION

263

Working Definitions of Significant Terms Higher Education (HE)

The highest level of traditional education (with primary and secondary as its previous levels). In some countries, HE is referred to as tertiary education, post-secondary education, or third-level education. HE is delivered by a range of institutions such as universities, colleges, schools, seminaries, academies, and institutes of technology. HE includes undergraduate and postgraduate levels of education.

Internationalization of HE (IHE)

Process of a HE institution to holistically incorporate international features that add value to its substantive elements (i.e., teaching, research, and extension) employing its capacities, resources, and context adaptation to transform socially based realities.

Sustainable development

Interrelated considerations that should be considered when implementing development interventions. In principle, it fosters the organization and implementation of a set of resources needed to provide an equilibrium in the present while considering the future of societies.

Social development

Process of realization of goals and aims of a “society” in the attempt to establish social well-being according to its context.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

Internationalization of Higher Education in Mexico An Unfinished Agenda FRANCISCO MARMOLEJO 1

INTRODUCTION In recent years, the Mexican system of higher education has experienced a significant growth in enrollment, diversification, and complexity. In a way, the transformation of the Mexican higher education system is highly interrelated with the corresponding overall transition that the country has registered in economic and socio-demographic terms. As expected, the level of sophistication of universities in Mexico has increased, and labor market demands have transitioned as well, resulting in increased interest in internationalization from institutions of higher education. At the same time, governmentrelated entities have, in one way or another, also established—at least on paper—strategies and, in some cases, concrete initiatives aimed at supporting the internationalization of higher education. Nevertheless, despite government intentions, most efforts towards internationalization have been driven by higher education institutions (HEIs) and corresponding interinstitutional networks established with the very aim of internationalization in mind. Also, a significant role contributing to the internationalization of higher education in Mexico has been played by foreign government entities devoted to supporting international engagement of their respective colleges and universities. Ultimately, it is certain that, in some of those universities, the concept of internationalization has transitioned from a marginal concept to a mainstream strategic component, especially within the ranks of the most advanced higher education institutions in the country. However, in general, efforts on the field have focused mostly on traditional approaches towards internationalization such as student and faculty exchanges, signing of memoranda of understanding (MOUs), establishing of joint and dual degree programs, and, in very limited cases, offering of academic programs in a language different from Spanish. In reality, institutional efforts intending to implement a comprehensive internationalization strategy are very limited. Also, internationalization activities tend to concentrate on a South–North collaboration

The opinions expressed by the author do not reflect the opinions of the World Bank or the Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development.

1

264

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

265

mostly with European countries, the United States, and Canada. In addition, some seasonal government efforts have attempted to support mobility of students but with limited impact due to their inconsistency and limited sustainability in the long run. Paradoxically, as the national economy has experienced an important transformation in the last three decades, employers increasingly demand higher education graduates with second language competencies and globally oriented skills and global awareness; however, with a few exceptions, the traditional academic settings prevalent in many higher education institutions still have limited capacity to promptly respond. This chapter provides a brief outlook of the Mexican higher education system. It reviews key trends in the national context, and also discusses significant challenges in connection with the internationalization of higher education, along with lessons learned, and pointers for action for governments and institutions.

HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO: A BRIEF OUTLOOK A Glimpse of History The origins of the higher education system in Mexico can be traced to colonial times, and in particular to 1553, when the Real Pontificia Universidad de Mexico was established. In subsequent years, some religiously oriented institutions were established in the most important cities. After gaining independence from Spain in the early nineteenth century, some of those institutions served as a basis for the foundation of local universities which eventually became public autonomous universities. In fact, in the early part of the twentieth century, in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution, the universities of Michoacan and San Luis Potosi were granted autonomy by local government decree and, in 1929, the University of Mexico also obtained such a status, becoming the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). Later, other institutions, usually one per state, obtained a similar status. Due to the importance of UNAM in the national context, state autonomous universities gradually adopted its academic, organizational, and governance model. At the same time, the government began to authorize private universities in the 1940s, beginning with the first private university in Guadalajara (UAG). This continued with the Technological Institute of Monterrey (ITESM) in 1943, and the first internationally oriented and bilingual university in the country, known as Mexico City College, which later became the University of the Americas (UDLA).

Some Basic Information about the National System of Higher Education Currently, at the national level, the system is composed of a complex array of public and private institutions. In 2016–17, the more than 3,700 higher education institutions in the country enrolled a total student population of 4.4 million, mostly in undergraduate programs (90 percent), representing 38 percent of the 18–22-year-old age segment of the entire population of the country. The national system of higher education institutions has evolved into a complex array of different institutions, which are clustered into thirteen different subsystems (See Table 17.1). Although most institutions are private (72 percent of the total number of HEIs), the largest share of student enrollment (67 percent) attends public institutions. Also, at the undergraduate level, only a marginal 4 percent of students are enrolled in short-term cycle academic programs (OECD, 2019; ANUIES, 2018).

266

TABLE 17.1 Main characteristics of the Mexican higher education system by subsystem Higher education subsystem

Type of institution

ISCED level

Field of study

Source of public funding

State public universities

Public

5 to 8

Comprehensive

Federal (SEP) and state (different proportions)

Federal public universities

Public

5 to 8

Comprehensive

Federal (SHCP)

Federal institutes of technology

Public (direct pr

5 to 8

Technological fields

Federal (SEP)

Decentralised institutes of technology

Public (direct pr

5 to 8

Technological fields

Federal and state (50% each)

Technological universities

Public (direct pr

5 to 7

Technical fields

Federal and state (50%)

Polytechnic universities

Public (direct pr

6 to 8

Technical fields

Federal and state (50% each)

Teacher education institutions (public) Public (direct pr

5 to 8

Education

Federal (SEP)

State public universities with solidarity Public (direct pr support

6 to 8

Fields relevant to region

Federal and state (different proportions)

Intercultural universities

5 to 8

Fields relevant to region

Federal and state (50% each)

Public (direct pr

Public research centres

Public (direct pr

6 to 8

One specific field of study

Federal (SEP and CONACyT)

Other public higher education institutions

Public and som

5 to 8

Varied

Federal and state

Private universities

Private

5 to 8

Varied

None

Teacher education institutions (private) Private

6 to 8

Education

None

TABLE 17.1 contd. Enrollment Higher education subsystem

Number of students

% total Undergraduate

State public universities

1 152 317

26.00%

Federal public universities

584 692

Federal institutes of technology

340 800

Decentralised institutes of technology

241 035

Technological universities

241 688

Polytechnic universities Teacher education institutions (public)

Institutions Postgraduate

Annual growth1

95.30%

4.70%

3.40%

13.20%

91.40%

8.60%

7.70%

98.80%

1.20%

5.40%

99.60%

5.50%

100.00%

92 785

2.10%

83 573

1.90%

State public universities with solidarity support

68 089

Intercultural universities Public research centres Other public higher education institutions Private universities Teacher education institutions (private)

Programs

% total

Total

% total

Total

% total

34

0.90%

929

15.20%

5 480

14.40%

3.90%

9

2.50%

229

3.70%

1 491

3.90%

3.10%

128

3.40%

135

2.20%

1 658

4.40%

0.40%

12.50%

134

3.60%

141

2.30%

1 263

3.30%

0.00%

12.60%

113

3.00%

131

2.10%

1 685

4.40%

98.80%

1.20%

42.50%

61

1.60%

61

1.00%

378

1.00%

96.30%

3.70%

–2.50%

276

7.30%

306

5.00%

864

2.30%

1.50%

98.20%

1.80%

8.30%

22

0.60%

100

1.60%

514

1.40%

14 784

0.30%

99.50%

0.50%

14%

11

0.30%

31

0.50%

129

0.30%

37

1.00%

65

1.10%

217

0.60%

160

4.30%

305

5.00%

1 325

3.50%

2,517 66.90%

3,496

57.00% 22 537

59.40%

6 996

0.20%

2.20%

97.80%

4%

116 813

2.60%

85.30%

14.70%

2.30%

1 472 197

33.20%

86.80%

13.20%

4.50%

14 479

0.30%

95.10%

4.90%



Total

Campuses

176

Note 1: Average annual growth since 2000 (2001 for intercultural universities and 2002 for polytechnic universities). Note on acronyms: “SEP” stands for Secretaria de Educación Pública, or Ministry of Public Education “SHCP” stands for Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, or Ministry of Finance “CONACyT” stands for Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Technology, or National Science and Technology Council 267

Source: OECD (2019). Higher Education in Mexico: Labour Market Relevance and Outcomes. Paris: OECD

4.70%

200

3.30%

412

1.10%

268

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In recent years the system has expanded significantly, especially when taking into consideration the fact that the national enrollment in higher education in 1970 was only equivalent to 5 percent of the current total enrollment. At the same time, a significant diversification of institutions has resulted in the establishing of a variety of non-traditional universities, including polytechnic universities (mostly dedicated to STEM fields), teacher training institutions known as Escuelas Normales, technological universities (which at least in principle were intended to provide two-year technical degrees similar to Associate Degrees offered in Community Colleges in the United States), indigenous universities (located in communities with larger number of indigenous students), online universities (most notably the Universidad Abierta y a Distancia), and, more recently, a new type of open-access small undergraduate universities being established in mid-size cities by the federal government as part of a strategy aimed at expanding access to higher education. Both the federal and state governments have the power to grant authorization for the establishment of a higher education institution. Academic programs being offered by an institution should also be previously approved by governments. Several institutions— mostly public—are a key exception to this regulation, as they have obtained the status of being autonomous, allowing them to establish, modify, or close academic programs based on their own internal processes and regulations without the need to seek further approval from government.

Quality Assurance: Work in Progress In recent years, government efforts aimed at increasing access to higher education by establishing new public institutions and supporting the expansion of existing ones have not been sufficient. This has led to a significant growth in the number of private institutions and their academic offerings, in many cases with limited basic infrastructure, teachers without adequate credentials, and, in general, of low or questionable quality. The problem has been exacerbated by relaxed enforcement of monitoring regulations and the absence of mandatory accreditation of academic programs. Nevertheless, a voluntary accreditation mechanism has been gradually consolidated in the country, as more advanced institutions intend to use it as a proxy of their quality and prestige. A first effort consisted of the establishment of the Inter-institutional Committees for the Evaluation of Higher Education (CIEES), which allow HEIs to request the visit of review teams composed of academic peers from other institutions who in turn prepare and deliver a report scoring the quality of a given academic program and suggest recommendations for its improvement. In addition, the Higher Education Accreditation Council (COPAES being its acronym in Spanish) establishes and monitors general operational standards of several discipline-specialized independent accreditation agencies ranging from Medicine to Philosophy, which review and grant accreditation of academic programs at the request of institutions, either public or private. In parallel, private universities have established a comprehensive institution-wide accreditation system, which is managed by the Mexican Federation of Private Institutions of Higher Education (FIMPES). Another proxy of quality widely accepted in the country, especially in scientific circles, is the awarding of a special status, known as Padrón de Posgrado de Excelencia that the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) provides to a select number of graduate programs once they fulfill strict eligibility criteria. An important incentive for HEIs submitting their master’s and doctoral degree programs to such an evaluation is

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

269

that once a program is included in the roster or Padrón, full-time enrolled students are fully funded by CONACYT. Last, but not least, another para-governmental organization, the National Higher Education Evaluation Centre (CENEVAL), has specialized in the development and administration of student assessment tests, which are being widely used by institutions in support of their admission and graduation processes. In addition to national accreditation, a small number of institutions have turned their attention to seeking accreditation—either at the overall institutional level or at the programmatic level—by related accrediting agencies from other countries. Most notably, a few private institutions are accredited in the United States by either the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) or the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). In addition, several institutions, both public and private, have academic programs accredited by specialized agencies such as AABSC (in the case of business and economics) and ABET (in the case of engineering programs). As expected, foreign accreditation is commonly used by those institutions as a way to indicate that their quality is up to international standards. It is also used in support of outreach to partner institutions from other countries.

Governance Regarding governance, well-established private institutions are governed by boards of trustees mostly composed by external members whose attribution is to authorize academic programs and budgets, and also to appoint heads of institutions. In the case of centrally controlled public institutions, the head of the institution is usually designated by the corresponding government authority, while in the case of autonomous universities, in general, an internal university council composed by elected faculty and students, and also by the Deans of schools, elects the Rector, authorizes budgets, and approves the opening and closure of academic offerings among other tasks. An important feature, relevant in the case of internationalization efforts, is that, at least in the case of autonomous universities, since the election of authorities can be highly politicized, internal organizational structures and teams are relatively vulnerable—especially during leadership transition processes. It has been seen regularly that as a new management team comes on board, an office devoted to internationalization may be affected by also having its leadership and staff subjected to changes. This causes a loss in institutional memory about internationalization and, in many cases, results in the arrival of a new team that may try to “reinvent the wheel” or to shut down initiatives and partnerships based on a political criteria all while remaining unaware of their importance. At the system level, the main entity overseeing the higher education sector at the ministerial level is the Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP), with the authority to define national education policy and dictate general directives applicable to the entire higher education sector. At the same time, SEP has the responsibility to collect and disseminate relevant sector data, administer the federal budget dedicated to support public HEIs, and maintain the registry of individuals holding a degree, among other tasks. In addition to SEP, other government entities relevant to higher education and its internationalization are: the Foreign Affairs Ministry (SRE) and its Mexican Agency for Cooperation and International Development (AMEXCID); the Institute for Mexicans Abroad (IME), which connects Mexican diaspora; and the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) due to its work in both supporting Mexicans to conduct graduate studies abroad, and also financing universities’ outreach to international peers for research collaboration. At the

270

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

state level, most governments have a State Secretary for Education and, in some cases, a State Secretary for Innovation, although their role in connection with the higher education sector mostly complements directives defined by SEP at the national level. Another important player in the sector is the National Association of Universities (ANUIES) due to its representational role on behalf of both public and private HEIs. In addition to its role lobbying governments on behalf of member institutions, ANUIES conducts studies aimed at understanding key issues faced by higher education in the country, and offers professional development training. A similar role is also played among private higher education institutions by FIMPES, the Mexican Federation of Private Institutions of Higher Education.

Funding Regarding funding, it is important to be aware that, in general, all institutions—whether public or private—charge tuition and/or fees to students, although in the case of many public institutions, fees are mostly symbolic. In contrast, private institutions mostly rely on revenues resulting from student tuition and fees to cover their operations, since they are not eligible to receive direct public funds. Public autonomous universities receive budget allocations from federal and state governments in the form of subsidies mostly based on historic trends. In the case of centrally controlled institutions, faculty and administrative staff are government employees. Most of the public funding received by autonomous institutions is used to pay salaries and benefits, although in recent years the government has established a variety of performancebased competitive funding mechanisms. On several occasions, such additional financing has allowed institutions to support their international outreach.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Internationalization of higher education in Mexico is a relatively new concept. It was not until the establishment of the Mexican Association for International Education (AMPEI) in 1992 that universities in the country started to pay attention to their internationalization. AMPEI was founded as a professional development organization of individuals working in international efforts at both public and private universities in the country. The idea of connecting individuals rather than institutions, regardless of their institutional affiliation, was an uncommon concept in the higher education sector at the time that AMPEI was founded. More than a quarter of a century after AMPEI was established, its key role in developing institutional capacity and creating awareness of the importance of internationalization of higher education in Mexico is widely accepted (Bustos-Aguirre, Lizarraga-Gonzalez, and Cröte-Ávila, 2018). Nevertheless, in spite of internationalization being adopted as a priority in a larger number of HEIs with corresponding institutional support, the country is still lacking an explicit public policy focusing on providing a framework to enable and foster the internationalization of higher education (Gacel-Ávila and Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 2018). Also, at the institutional level, the importance of internationalization, as expressed in terms of its inclusion on strategic plans, is not always paired with an adequate level of financial and organizational support. A good way to illustrate this point is to note that for only 23 percent of institutions surveyed by Gacel-Ávila and Bustos-Aguirre (2017), their

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

271

office of international affairs was positioned at the first hierarchical level, while in 71 percent of institutions it was at a second hierarchical level, and, finally, in 6 percent at a third level of the organizational chart. Similarly, at the system level, in recent years the federal government has been eager to demonstrate the favoring of the internationalization of higher education. However, for practical matters, such a willingness tends to be translated into either rhetorical actions, or into isolated activities with limited impact, all in the absence of any explicit national policy supporting internationalization (Gacel-Ávila, 2018). In fact, in a comparative study commissioned by the British Council using an index-based methodology on 37 qualitative indicators, the national policy framework for internationalization of higher education in Mexico was the only one among the twenty countries analyzed that was rated with an overall score of “low” (Usher, Ilieva, Killingley, and Tsiligiris, 2019). Such mixed reviews of both advances and limitations in the process of making internationalization in higher education in Mexico mainstream, can be analyzed in a time continuum in order to envision potential next stages. In the case of Mexico, three main stages of evolution of internationalization are present (See Figure 17.1).

1990–2000. Internationalization of Higher Education 1.0: Inception In the 1980s, internationalization initiatives in Mexican higher education were rather negligible. The international outreach of universities was mostly confined to UNAM and Universidad de Guadalajara, in the case of public universities, and to some private institutions (namely the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, ITESM, and the University of the Americas) as well. Back in those years, the Mexican economy and society as a whole still had limited interactions abroad after decades of inward-oriented economic development policies. Universities were experiencing their own processes of expansion in which international engagement was not really on the horizon. A few institutions had in place an administrative unit known as Oficina de Intercambio Académico (Academic

FIGURE 17.1: Internationalization of higher education in Mexico. Stages of development. Source: Author’s elaboration.

272

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Exchange Office), mostly focusing on engagement with other universities in the country and, occasionally, with international partners. However, as the Mexican government began negotiations towards the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), universities gradually started to become interested in internationalization. The founding of AMPEI in 1992 became a detonator of internationalization of higher education in Mexico which, in a way, arose from the interest from a group of pioneer institutional leaders and heads of international offices to create a space for the exchange of ideas and capacity building, as well as the support of the office of academic and cultural affairs of the US Embassy in Mexico. In parallel, the momentum created by NAFTA negotiations triggered a variety of interinstitutional higher education collaborative alliances such as: the alliance established in 1994 between the American Council of Education (ACE) and ANUIES, as well as the US–Mexico Educational Interchange Project co-convened by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) from the United States and AMPEI. In fact, this latter collaboration ultimately led to the creation of the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC) as well. At the same time, the governments of Mexico, the United States, and Canada organized a series of trilateral meetings allowing a first generation of university leaders from the three countries to meet. Those meetings resulted in the establishment of several trilateral programs, of which the most notable was the North American Student Mobility Program (PROMESAN), which provided financial resources for the creation of trilateral consortia of at least six universities. Support by governments in the NAFTA region was highly instrumental, especially in the case of Mexican universities, considering the significant influence of SEP in establishing directives, and keeping in mind that, for those institutions, international engagement was something relatively new. All aforementioned support provided a significant incentive to Mexican universities towards their internationalization. The synergies established between universities participating in the PROMESAN initiative served as a basis for the further expansion of an international outlook of many Mexican universities. A related role was played by similar initiatives sponsored by the European Commission, although the most visible one, in terms of the multiplier effect inside Mexican higher education institutions, was the North American one.

2000–2010. Internationalization of Higher Education 2.0: Expansion and Diversification As expected, the visible efforts towards economic integration in the North American region, in the aftermath of the signing of NAFTA, resulted in a significant growth in the number and significance of international collaborative initiatives of Mexican universities, mostly with counterparts in the United States and Canada. However, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, as new governments came to power, interest shifted towards other priorities, and several higher education institutions started to widen their outreach beyond the North American region, many times in connection with programs sponsored by governments from other countries, as is the case of collaboration with institutions in France, Germany, and Spain. Also, organizations such as AMPEI expanded their scope of work beyond the initial focus in collaboration mainly with NAFSA and CBIE, in the United States and Canada respectively, towards related organizations in other regions of the world. The creation of

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

273

the Network of International Education Associations (NIEAA), in which AMPEI took an active role, helped AMPEI strengthen connections with institutions in Europe, AsiaPacific, and even Latin America. International education professionals from Mexican higher education institutions, now more well versed in the peculiarities of the field, started to reach out to peers from other countries. Even organizations such as CONAHEC, whose official charter was intended to connect universities from the North American region, also expanded their membership criteria in order to include universities from any other region of the world. During this decade, international engagement of Mexican universities resulted in a significant proliferation of the offering of joint and dual degrees in partnership with peer institutions from abroad. Also, some of the more resourceful institutions established “offices of representation” in several countries with which they had more significant collaboration, at times in countries as distant as China.

2010–2020. Internationalization of Higher Education 3.0: Consolidation and Normalization Today’s setting of higher education internationalization in Mexico is, in a way, quite different from the one existing three decades ago. Internationalization is no longer a foreign concept to higher education institutions in Mexico. In fact, it has been embraced— at least symbolically—as a core component in the institutional strategy of many universities in the country. Most of those institutions have entire organizational units fully dedicated to work on internationalization. Also, even though collaboration with peer institutions in the United States continues to be important, Mexican institutions have widely expanded their outreach, especially in Europe, the rest of Latin America, East Asia, and Oceania. On the other hand, collaboration with countries in the MENA region, Africa, and South Asia remains negligible. At the government level, in recent years, greater attention has been placed on an international agenda. Nevertheless, results are mixed due to an absence of a long-term perspective, as well as limited sustainability and high volatility due to shifts in government priorities. Most notably, the past federal administration established the Mexican Agency for International Collaboration (AMEXCID) in 2013 with the goal to use “soft diplomacy” more visibly in support of the international agenda of the government. Also, until recently, a now extinct government entity known as PROMEXICO provided partial support for the participation of missions of Mexican universities in international education fairs held in conjunction with meetings of NAFSA and the European Association for International Education (EAIE), among others. Once PROMEXICO was shut down, no other government entity has come on board with the specific goal to support the presence of Mexican universities in relevant events in the field of international education. Also, a significant development in recent years, with similar mixed results, has been the launching of a short-lived initiative sponsored by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, aimed at massively supporting international experiences in the United States for Mexican students. The Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation and Research (FOBESII) was established in 2013, with the goal of supporting the mutual understanding and bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States by means of supporting student mobility, academic exchanges, research in areas of common interest, and innovation. The rationale of FOBESII was based on the fact that at the time of its inception there were fewer than 14,000 Mexican students in US colleges and universities

274

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

while only slightly more than 4,000 US students were enrolled in Mexican universities. FOBESII established the ambitious goal of reaching a threshold of 100,000 Mexican students in the United States and 50,000 US students in Mexico by 2018. FOBESII was intended to serve as a Mexican counterpart to the “100,000 Strong in the Americas” program sponsored by the US government with the goal of achieving a target of 100,000 students from the Latin American region enrolled in US higher education institutions and a similar number of US students enrolled in Latin American higher education institutions. FOBESII received significant political support from the Mexican government and was able to attract the interest of Mexican universities and also that of colleges and universities in the United States. This was in strong part due to the fact that Mexican students received financial support in the form of scholarships to cover travel expenses, as well as tuition and fees. However, as government transitions occurred in Mexico, and originally committed financial support was reduced, the ambitious strategy has been severely downsized. In contrast with the limited engagement from the federal government, some state governments have identified international education as an important area. This is the case in the state of Jalisco where both government and the most important public and private institutions have established and supported a consortium of universities committed to internationalization. Also, some foreign universities have established offices in Mexico and have even, in some cases, launched impactful collaborative initiatives. This is the case in the SUNYCOIL Centre, which is sponsored by the State University of New York. Since 2014 it has helped to develop partnerships between eighteen Mexican institutions, thirteen SUNY universities and colleges, and four universities outside of New York State. These institutional partnerships resulted in thirty-nine online courses taught between fall 2016 and spring 20172 (SUNY, 2017). For its part, ANUIES, the National Association of Universities, has focused its recent work on three main areas: hosting an annual international conference, nurturing its relationship with sister organizations in other countries, and organizing delegations of Mexican Rectors with the idea of meeting counterparts in other countries. Another interesting development in the internationalization realm has been the increased interest of foreign providers of education to enter into the Mexican higher education scene. The transnationalization of Mexican higher education has been mostly expressed in terms of foreign providers operating in Mexico. Even though, officially speaking, “for-profit” higher education is not permitted under Mexican regulations, foreign for-profit companies such as Laureate International Universities have managed to acquire existing universities such as Universidad del Valle de Mexico and UNITEC. Despite the fact that the academic approach of those institutions is similar to any other regular private university in Mexico, one of the ways they attract students employed by those institutions is to make the point that they are part of “the largest international network of degree-granting higher education institutions with more than 875,000 students enrolled at over 25 institutions with more than 160 campuses and online programs,”3 and that students can participate in exchange programs with institutions within the network.

http://coil.suny.edu/sites/default/files/2018-03/mcp_final_project_report_submitted.pdf http://www.laureate.net

2 3

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

275

A similar development has been the case of Arkansas State University (ASU), a public university in the United States which, in conjunction with Mexican investors, built a campus in the city of Queretaro as a private business foundation, offering since 2017 bilingual degrees valid in Mexico and the United States. Similar negotiations are happening towards the establishment of a campus of New Mexico State University in the city of San Luis Potosi in the future. At the institutional level, a relevant development is that a few universities have started to further advance their internationalization strategy by departing from the traditional emphasis on student exchanges, and embracing a more comprehensive approach aimed at providing an international perspective to larger number of students. In some cases, such as with Universidad de Monterrey and Universidad de Colima, a formal institutional strategy on internationalization “at home” and internationalization of the curriculum, respectively, is in place with promising results. In summary, the 2010–2020 decade has been characterized by a process of “normalization” of internationalization in higher education institutions. Internationalization is no longer a novel concept in many universities in Mexico, since it has become “business as usual.”

2020–2030. Internationalization of Higher Education 4.0: Exhaustion of Re-engagement? Since internationalization has lost some of its initial glamor as something new and exciting in higher education in Mexico, and no specific financial incentives in support of internationalization seem to be visible on the horizon, several scenarios may be possible for the upcoming decade. A potential scenario is that the field may experience some sense of exhaustion due to the fact that universities are facing significant budget cuts, and this may significantly affect the scope of work and capacity of international affairs of offices of higher education institutions. Under this scenario, internationalization efforts could be severely limited. This potential scenario is not far away from related concerns expressed at the global level (Knight and De Wit, 2018; Marmolejo, 2019; Brandenburg, de Wit, Jones, and Leask, 2019). Another scenario is that higher education institutions could take the current context as a basis for a future re-engagement of its internationalization agenda. Such a renewed role of internationalization could be achieved if universities in Mexico envision that, in the current and upcoming global context, preparing students with a global awareness and capacity is no longer simply a good idea but something necessary for future graduates. This scenario, although it can be seen as optimistic or even naive, requires higher education to design and implement bold curricular and regulatory transformations aimed at adapting academic programs accordingly.

276

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

LESSONS LEARNED, PENDING ITEMS, AND POINTERS FOR ACTION Internationalization Due, Despite, or Independently of Government Support? The process of internationalization of higher education in Mexico is a relatively new development. Nevertheless, there are important lessons learned. Probably the most visible one is that in the absence of a clear policy and political government endorsement or explicit support, higher education institutions have taken the process by themselves. It can be said that progress into the adoption of an international dimension in higher education in a way has happened not due to, but despite, the involvement of the government. Undoubtedly, a more internationalized higher education system would be in place in Mexico if government had been more supportive.

Increased Awareness of the Importance of Internationalization among Students: The Case of Study Abroad Interestingly, the idea of having internationally relevant competencies is increasingly been seen by higher education students not only as something important, but also as feasible. This was not the case until relatively recently. A survey conducted with students from public and private institutions in Mexico (Camacho, 2017) showed general awareness of opportunities made available at the institutional level including opportunities to study a semester abroad (26.5 percent), research conducted abroad (14.1 percent), learning of foreign languages (11.7 percent), etc. Only 31.2 percent of respondents indicated not having plans to participate on abroad opportunities offered by the institution. Reasons for not participating included financial limitations (33.1 percent), limited command of a foreign language (18.8 percent), plans to finish the academic workload as soon as possible (16.6 percent), unavailability of scholarships (8.2 percent), limited family support (5.4 percent), etc. Regarding preferred destinations, undergraduate students planning to study abroad mentioned in order of importance Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, and France; while graduate students mentioned Spain, Germany, Canada, and United Kingdom. In both cases, the number of responses for the United States was not significantly mentioned (Camacho, 2017). Last, but not least, student respondents who already participated in a program abroad indicated that their rationale for their decision was improving their CV (21.5 percent), learning about the culture of another country (20.4 percent), learning or improving command on a foreign language (14.3 percent), being the recipient of a scholarship (14.1 percent), the existence of an agreement between the home and host institutions (8.7 percent), etc. (Camacho, 2017). Persistent Absence of Consistent Data and Evidence-Based Information An important persistent challenge is that efforts towards gathering consistent and relevant data on internationalization of higher education in Mexico are rather limited. A pioneer effort towards disseminating related research is the Educacion Global journal published periodically by AMPEI since 2000, although its impact is limited due to the fact that it is not available online. In addition, in recent years, the research work done by the Latin American Network of Internationalization of Higher Education (RIESAL) and the

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MEXICO

277

Internationalization of Higher Education Observatory in Latin America (OBIRET) has provided useful knowledge. Last, but not least, a notable experience has been the case of Patlani, the national student mobility survey that has been conducted annually from 2010 to 2016 (MaldonadoMaldonado, Cortés, and Ibarra, 2016). It was established as an independent effort of a group of scholars and practitioners and the voluntary participation of higher education institutions. Most recently housed at ANUIES, Patlani has provided useful information about patterns of international student mobility to and from Mexico. However, such effort has not been exempted from significant logistical limitations. From Traditional to Innovative Internationalization Efforts Most higher education institutions embraced in internationalization still focus their action mostly on student mobility even though such work only supports the equivalent of 1 percent of the total enrollment of students. At the same time, metrics of internationalization performance of institutions usually refer to number of students going abroad, number of foreign students on campus, and signing of MOUs with foreign institutions. Even on efforts towards improved bilingualism, in most cases emphasis is placed on offering basic or optional second language courses, or marginally on using English as the language of instruction in a very limited number of regular subject courses. Nevertheless, there are promising cases in which some universities have embarked on designing and implementing institutional comprehensive internationalization strategies with concrete short- and longterm goals.

A FINAL NOTE After three decades of internationalization of higher education in Mexico, its importance is widely accepted, but its real impact is still marginal. The absence of reliable and consistent evidence of its role in preparing a larger number of students with a global mindset and related competencies, makes vulnerable the internationalization efforts at institutional level, especially in times of financial constraints. Efforts towards increasing the number of students and faculty members abroad are needed but insufficient. Consequently, a renewed agenda towards a more comprehensive internationalization of higher education in the country will make it necessary to mainstream its scope into the regular teaching, research, and public service functions of universities in the country.

REFERENCES ANUIES (2018). Anuarios Estadísticos de Educacion Superior. http://www.anuies.mx/ informacion-y-servicios/informacion-estadistica-de-educacion-superior/anuario-estadisticode-educacion-superior (retrieved October 15, 2019). Brandenburg, U., de Wit, H., Jones, E., and Leask, B. (2019). Defining internationalization in higher education for society. University World News. June 29, 2019. https://www. universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190626135618704 Bustos-Aguirre, M.L., Lizarraga-Gonzalez, A.M., and Cröte-Ávila, I.A. (2018). Asociación Mexicana para la Educación International. In Gacel-Ávila, J. (ed.), La dimensión International de la educación superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Guadalajara: RIESALUniversidad de Guadalajara.

278

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Camacho, M. (2017). La movilidad estudiantil como principal forma de internacionalización en las IES mexicanas. Proceedings. XIV Congreso Nacional de Investigación Educativa. San Luis Potosí: COMIE . Gacel-Ávila, J. (2018). Internationalization of higher education in Mexico: Progress and challenges. In ACE-CIGE , International Brief for Higher Education Leaders (7), Washington: American Council on Education, pp. 24–27. Gacel-Ávila, J., and Bustos-Aguirre, M. (2017). La internacionalización de la educación superior en México. Educación Global, 21. Guadalajara: AMPEI . Gacel-Ávila, J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2018). Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Un Balance. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara, UNESCO-IESALC, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. Knight, J., and de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of higher education: Past and future. International Higher Education, 95, 2–4. https://doi.org/10.6017/IHE.2018.95.10715 Maldonado-Maldonado, A., Cortés, C., and Ibarra, B. (2016). Patlani. Encuesta mexicana de movilidad internacional estudiantil, 2012/13 y 2013/14. México: ANUIES . Marmolejo, F. (2019). Introduction. In NAFSA, International Education in a Time of Global Disruption Extended Reflections and Commentary by the 2018–19 NAFSA Senior Fellows. Washington: NAFSA . OECD (2019). Higher Education in Mexico: Labour Market Relevance and Outcomes, Higher Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Par https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309432-en SUNY (2017). U.S. Mexico Multistate COIL Program: Final Project Report. Collaborative Online International Learning. New York: SUNY. Usher, A., Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., and Tsiligiris, V. (2019). The Shape of Global Higher Education: The Americas. London: British Council.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

Conclusion: Latin America and the Caribbean Internationalization Process Main Achievements and Shortcomings JOCELYNE GACEL- Á VILA

Internationalization is driven by a dynamic and constantly evolving combination of political, economic, socio-cultural and academic rationales. These motives take diverse forms and dimensions in the different regions and countries of world, as well as in institutions and their programmes. Regional and national differences are varied and constantly evolving. — de Wit, Hunter, Howard, and Egron-Polack, 2015

INTRODUCTION This is precisely the main focus of the present chapter, which is to depict the key findings and characteristics of the internationalization process of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region, highlighted through the different chapters written on Brazil, the Caribbean, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. The main conclusion is that progress, mostly due to institutional involvement, has definitely been made in some countries, and in others, hardly, if not at all. Notwithstanding this positive evolvement, the question remains: will this progress be enough to train graduates with the relevant skills, as well as to produce the knowledge that LAC societies need in order to provide their populations with more opportunities for social expansion?

LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT All higher education (HE) systems of the countries being studied: Brazil, the Caribbean, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico, have common characteristics in institutions, access, and funding, as well as in achievements and challenges. As any internationalization process is 279

280

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

determined by its HE context, it is important to first highlight the main characteristics of these HE national systems. The dominant trend in HE in Latin America and the Caribbean in the last two decades has been the growth of student enrollment, achieving a regional average in Gross Tertiary Enrolment Ratio (GTER) of 51.76 percent, which is above the world average (38 percent) (UNESCO, 2019), but still below other regions like North America and Western Europe (78.66 percent; Table 18.1). Private HE institutions account for most of this growth, in countries like Brazil (73.33 percent), Chile (84.36 percent), and Colombia (49.75 percent), (Table 18.1).1 As a result, LAC has reached the highest average of the world in terms of enrollment in the private sector, which is above 53 percent (Brunner and Miranda, 2016). Brazil has one of the largest HE systems in the world with 8.6 million students (Table 18.1), attaining a GTER of 51.34 percent, with higher enrollment than average in the private sector at undergraduate level, granting public loans support for low-income students (Zicman, Chapter 13 of this volume), a modern and diversified HE system with research universities, comprehensive university centers, colleges, and federal institutes on vocational training. Worth mentioning is the sharp increase in postgraduate programs achieved in the last few decades, especially in the public sector, whose eighteen universities are accountable for the 91.54 percent of the articles indexed in the Web of Science in the period 2007–2019. The Chile HE access rate of 88.46 percent is comparable to the ones of developed societies and is second in the region,3 with also a high enrollment in private institutions (84.5 percent). Chile has 61 universities, among which 70 percent are private and 30 percent public. Private enrollment accounts for 43 percent of private universities and 41 percent of vocational and technological institutions. Only 16 percent of the students attend public universities. Part of the HE funding is provided by the government (40 percent), mostly spent in financial aid for students (70 percent); and the rest (60 percent) stems from tuition fees paid by the students’ families. It is worth mentioning that public universities also charge tuition fees in Chile. According to González, Bernasconi, and

TABLE 18.1 LAC higher education access, 2018 HE size HE access % (million students) (GTER) World North America and Western Europe LAC Brazil Chile Mexico Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic

223.6 37.7 28.0 8.62 1.3 4.5 2.4 286,542 556,523

38.04 78.66 51.76 51.34 88.46 40.23 55.30 39.91 59.92

Enrollment in private sector %

53.00 73.33 84.46 33.56 49.75 No private enrollment 56.96

Source: UNESCO, 2019; Brunner & Miranda, 2016. The exception in this respect is Argentina. China (45 million students), India (34.4 million students). 3 The highest GTER in the region is Argentina (89.96 percent) with a private sector participation of 24.25 percent of the HE enrollment. 1 2

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

281

Puyol (Chapter 15, this volume), Chilean strategy to expand HE access, although successful, has had several costs. Initially, students from low-income families were targeted by low-quality institutions under a loosely regulated private HE sub-system. Nowadays, accreditation is regulated by a stronger quality assurance system. Nevertheless, high tuition fees to attend public and private institutions had to be paid by students’ families, a situation that has provoked important popular demonstrations of discontent. Mexico is the second largest HE system in the region, with a large amount of participation of the public sector, but it has one of the lowest access rates of the region (40.23 percent), with only a third of the enrolled students attending private institutions. Mexico has a diversified HE system (Marmolejo, Chapter 17, this volume), made of thirteen subsystems. Enrollment in the public sector accounts for 67 percent of the HE enrollment, with 33.56 percent in the private sector. Of the total enrollment, 90 percent is concentrated at undergraduate level, in contrast with the OECD countries average of 76 percent in bachelor’s programs. Colombia HE enrollment by level is distributed as follows: BA degree (61.4 percent), master’s degree (1.9 percent), PhD (0.2 percent), technological (28.7 percent), professional technical (4.9 percent), and specialization (3.9 percent). According to the OECD and the World Bank, several recent achievements are a significant increase in enrollment, coherent national planning and policy plans, robust support for equity through a student loan agency, and wide-ranging and cutting-edge assessment systems to guarantee data-based decision making. Nevertheless, there is still an extensive heterogeneity in the quality of the programs offered by universities and institutions, as well as disparities in access to HE (Anzola-Pardo, Chapter 16, this volume). The Caribbean region is very heterogeneous in terms of political organization, including thirteen states and nineteen overseas departments and dependencies. Most of the Caribbean region gross domestic product (GDP) (76 percent) is concentrated in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, 21 percent in Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Bahamas, Suriname, Barbados, and Guyana, and 3 percent in the remaining territories. Given the small scale of Caribbean societies and economies, integration of the parts would be an asset, but despite multiple initiatives, regional integration has been elusive (Insanally and Madera, Chapter 14, this volume). Access to HE remains low, with a limited education offer and few formal accreditation systems. These deficiencies are mainly to be attributed to the inconsistency of action as a regional community (Insanally and Madera). There is consensus that the Caribbean region requires the development of strategic initiatives in order to increase the attractiveness of HE offer for local and international students. However, this is a significant challenge in the face of diminishing public funding (Insanally and Madera). LAC government expenditure on HE as a percentage of its GDP is 1.42 percent (Red Indices, 2019), which is below the OECD average of 1.60 percent. In particular, Chile (1.36 percent), Brazil (1.34 percent), Mexico (1.04 percent), and Colombia (1.01 percent) expenditure on HE is below the LAC average. These restrictions in HE expenditure are among the main factors limiting the quality of the sector, which is ultimately a problem for the internationalization process, as has been consistently pointed out in all the country chapters. A concern for the region is the high dropout rate (22 percent in average), with a higher percentage in some countries like Colombia (45 percent) and Mexico (30 percent) (Ferreira, Ciro, Botero, Haimovich and Urzúa, 2017). Additionally, students take more time to graduate than in other regions; 72 percent of UK students achieve their studies in

282

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

due time, in contrast with 33 percent of Brazilian students and 16 percent of Chilean students (OECD, 2019a). Among the reasons explaining this situation, which is common in all LAC countries, is a majority of part-time students, and lengthy BA programs with traditional curricula of four or five years of duration. Programs are also consistently rigid, offer few general studies courses, and tend to be overspecialized (OECD, 2017). Another challenge of the HE sector in LAC is the low proportion of faculty with a doctoral degree. In Chile, they represent 11.78 percent, Colombia (9.22 percent), Cuba (7.44 percent), Dominican Republic (3.94 percent), and Mexico (7 percent), with the exception of Brazil (44.19 percent), (Table 18.2). Additionally, the proportion of faculty hired on an hourly basis represents the large majority of faculty in most of the countries of the region. The shortage of full-time faculty with PhDs is an important limitation for the establishment of postgraduate programs and research projects. At the same time, enrollment in doctoral programs is low, representing only 0.79 percent of the total enrollment, in contrast to the OECD average rate of 4 percent (OECD, 2019a). LAC also has important challenges in research, with a Gross Domestic Expenditure in R & D (GERD) of 0.64 percent of its GDP, well behind that of OECD countries (2.37 percent), and even China (2.15 percent), (UNESCO, 2019; OECD, 2019b). This low investment in R & D directly affects knowledge production, the development of postgraduate programs and international research engagement, and ultimately the region’s competitiveness. Brazil is the country with the highest percentage in GERD (1.27 percent) followed at a distance by Mexico (0.49 percent), Chile (0.36 percent), and Colombia (0.24 percent). In the Caribbean, Cuba (0.35 percent) and the Dominican Republic (0.35 percent) have a similar investment in R & D. In addition, LAC has fewer researchers per thousand total employment (1.73), which contrasts sharply with the OECD average of 8.3. Brazil leads the region with 2.97, followed by Chile (1.62), Mexico (1.01), and Colombia (0.52), (Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Interamericana, 2019; Red Indices, 2019). Brazil also leads the region in knowledge production, holding the 14th position for its volume of publications in scientific journals (Zicman, Chapter 13, this volume; SCImago, 2019). Worthy of mention is the case of Chile that, despite its relatively low investment in R & D, has the highest rate of citation per document (0.80), above Brazil (0.50), Mexico (0.51) and Colombia (0.53), (González, Bernasconi, & Puyol, Chapter 15, this volume). In summary, it can be said that LAC’s level of development in HE, as well as in research and knowledge production, in terms of quality, relevance, funding, and innovation sets clear limits to internationalization. Nevertheless, internationalization activities and international cooperation could well be the opportunity to overcome these shortcomings more rapidly, if the countries of the region have the expertise and set the right strategies to do so.

TABLE 18.2 LAC percentage of faculty with a doctoral degree, 2017 Brazil Faculty with doctoral degree

Chile

Mexico Colombia

44.19 % 11.78 % 7.00 %

9.22 %

Cuba

Dominican Republic

7.44 %

3.94 %

Source: Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Interamericana, 2019; Brunner and Miranda, 2016.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

283

NATIONAL PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC POLICIES TO FOSTER INTERNATIONALIZATION In all the above-mentioned countries, the main finding is that none of them has a welldefined and long-term internationalization strategy for HE, as such. Although it is true that some countries have succeeded in launching important national initiatives and programs, these are, nevertheless, mostly short-term, lack continuity and funding, and generally speaking do not achieve a major impact on the sector. When compared with those of other regions, LAC governments are definitely among the least supportive in the world. This situation of absence, weakness, or short-term internationalization public policies and national programs in LAC has also been pointed out in a series of studies realized by the British Council (BC) (Ilieva and Peak, 2016; Ilieva, Killingley, Tsiligiris, and Peak, 2017; Usher, Ilieva, Killingley, & Tsiligris, 2019). As described in more detail in Chapter 12, “Higher Education, Internationalization and Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean” (Gacel-Ávila), the 2016 British Council (BC) study, carried out in twenty-six countries in different regions of the world, included the following Latin American countries: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. The methodology of the study set up a complete framework of categories and indicators to assess qualitatively and quantitatively the level of governmental support for internationalization through public policies on student and academic mobility, quality assurance of academic programs and recognition of overseas qualifications, funding of mobility and research collaboration, as well as access and sustainability. In terms of governmental support to HE internationalization, in the 2016 BC study, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico obtained an overall score of “low,” like Botswana, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, while other developing countries such as China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, and Thailand obtained scores of “high” or “very high.” For these latter countries, government support for internationalization is part of a general public policy oriented to economic and social development (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). More recently, the BC updated the aforementioned 2016 report under the following categories: International Strategy; International Student Mobility; International Research Engagement; and Transnational Education (Ilieva et al., 2017; Usher et al., 2019). As a result, the position of some LAC countries has improved and others have not. Brazil is the best example in the region, obtaining the score of “high” in International Strategy, and “strong” both in International Student Mobility and International Research Engagement but “weak” in Transnational Education (TNE), Quality Assurance, and Inbound Mobility. Brazil’s global position is behind Bulgaria, Greece, and India. Therefore, the fragile parts of the Brazilian international strategy are a weak policy support for transnational education, quality assurance, and international inbound mobility. This situation is confirmed by Zicman (Chapter 13, this volume), who points out that the National Education Plan (2014) does not contain a thorough public policy to support internationalization in every heading, but only vague statements such as, “to consolidate and expand programs and initiatives to encourage student and faculty mobility in undergraduate and postgraduate courses at domestic and international level with the aim of enriching the Brazilian higher education.” Nevertheless, the progress made by Brazil can definitely be attributed to the launching of Science without Borders (SwB), a largescale outbound mobility program, oriented to the mobility of undergraduate students in

284

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

STEM areas. SwB was designed as a public international strategy with the objectives of strengthening the country’s human capital and to position Brazil as a player in the global scene of education (Zicman, Chapter 13). Unfortunately, because of changes in political orientation and economic crisis, this program was terminated in 2017, and the expected goals were not met, thus reducing its impact. By 2019, a new policy called the Capes/PrInt program had been launched with a different approach. This program aims at supporting HEIs to develop their own internationalization plans in accordance with development needs and is oriented to postgraduate level (Zicman, Chapter 13). In the case of Chile, this country obtained the overall score of “low” in the 2016 BC study (Ilieva and Peak, 2016), as well as “low” for Openness and Mobility, “very low” for Quality Assurance and Recognition, and “high” in Access and Sustainability. According to the 2019 BC study, Chile obtained an average score of “high” similar to those of India, Russia, Brazil, and Colombia for its International Strategy, which is an important improvement compared with the score obtained in 2016. Nevertheless, Chile scored “weak” in International Student Mobility and International Research Engagement, and “very weak” in Transnational Education. In sum, these results point out several weaknesses in Chilean public policy and national programs. Chilean progress was made thanks to several national programs, as described in Chapter 15 on Chile (González, Bernasconi, and Puyol) such as the Higher Education Quality Improvement Program (MECESUP), the International Cooperation Agency for Development (AGCID), the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT), and Becas Chile Program (BCP), to name just a few of them. As far as Colombia is concerned, in the 2016 BC study the country obtained an overall score of “low,” as well as “low” in Openness and Mobility, and “very low” in Quality Assurance and Degree Recognition, and “very high” in Access and Sustainability (Ilieva and Peak, 2016). Nevertheless, in the 2019 BC report, Colombia’s international strategy was evaluated as “high,” similar to the ones of Brazil, Chile, and India, which shows important progress made by the country. Worth mentioning here is that Colombia obtained the score of “strong” in International Student Mobility, data confirmed by the OECD (2019), showing an outbound mobility ratio of 1.8 percent for Colombia, which is similar to the OECD average. Nevertheless, some weaknesses of Colombia’s national strategy are still present. Like all other LAC countries, Colombia shows a very low inbound mobility of 0.2 percent, which is very far from the OECD average of 6 percent, and scores a “weak” in International Research Engagement, with a Gross Domestic Expenditure in R & D of 0.24 percent, very far from the OECD average of 2.37 percent and Brazil’s average of 1.27 percent. This situation is highlighted by Anzola-Pardo (Chapter 16, this volume), who declares that “no clear and well-developed policy of internationalization has been designed and HEIs continue working in internationalization efforts by themselves.” Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that several reviews on the nature and scope of the concept of internationalization have been made by different Colombian organizations such as: the Colombian Ministry of Education; the Colombia Challenge your Knowledge (CCYK) (a network of accredited universities whose mission is to promote Colombia as an international destination for HE and collaborative research); the Colombian Institute for the Promotion of Higher Education (ICFES), in partnership with the Colombian Network for Internationalization of Higher Education (RCI) of the Colombian Association of Universities (ASCUN) and Colciencias (Anzola-Pardo, Chapter 16). As a consequence, a step forward was made in the Colombian 2010–2014 National Development Plan by setting the strategic goal of achieving international

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

285

competitiveness of all economic sectors including education. Consequently, an explicit directive was given by the Ministry of National Education to promote internationalization by addressing HE quality assurance. As a result, internationalization has also been included in the Agreement for Higher Education (2014), and the report made by the Ministry of Education and CCYK on the system of indicators for internationalization shows that nowadays more HEIs have internationalization programs mostly due to the relevance placed by the National Council of Accreditation (CNA) on internationalization (Anzola-Pardo, Chapter 16). Additionally, three national organizations are funding outbound student mobility: COLFUTURO (scholarships to study abroad); ICETEX (scholarships offered by foreign governments); and the recently created, in 2019, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, formerly known as Colciencias. Concerning the Caribbean region, Cuba is an outstanding example of good practice, with both public and institutional policies to support internationalization. As a result, Cuba stands out as the country with the greatest results in international academic cooperation, despite the hostile international environment that limits its strategies. Internationalization is now a significant part of the strategic planning of the Cuban Ministry of Higher Education and is considered a transversal axis for the management and development of university processes, and for the creation and transfer of knowledge for scientific research activity (Insanally and Madera, Chapter 14). For the remaining countries of the Caribbean, a survey carried out with a representative sample of HEIs reported the absence of public polices and specific funding as a main external obstacle to internationalization (Insanally and Madera, Chapter 14). Mexico is the only case where no progress has been made, obtaining an overall score of “low” in the 2016 BC study, as well as in the 2019 one, being in the lowest position among the twenty nations assessed for its International Strategy (Usher et al., 2019). Additionally, Mexico gets scores of “very low” in Openness, Mobility, Quality Assurance and Recognition of Foreign Degrees (Ilieva and Peak, 2016); and “weak” in Transnational Education (Ilieva et al., 2017). The main progress in programs launched by the federal government in the previous administration has been the establishment the Mexican Agency for International Collaboration (AMEXCID); the initiative of PROMEXICO giving partial support to HEIs’ participation in annual meetings of NAFSA and the European Association of International Education (EAIE) (Marmolejo, Chapter 17); and the Bilateral Forum on Higher Education, Innovation and Research (FOBESII), to support student mobility to the United States. Unfortunately, once again with the arrival of a new government, these initiatives have been cancelled, or largely downsized in the case of FOBESII. In other words, Mexico is a good example of dispersion—isolating and discontinuing activities and programs without achieving a unified international strategy. As a consequence, without explicit and consistent funding provided by national programs, institutional efforts are rather insufficient for the country (Marmolejo, Chapter 17). Therefore, the most frequent internationalization activities are the most traditional ones, such as outbound student mobility based on institutional resources and cooperative agreements with foreign universities (Marmolejo, Chapter 17). As a result, Mexico shows very low ratios in both inbound and outbound student mobility, and insufficient funding for research collaboration. Therefore, the weak support by the Mexican government for internationalization is the principal obstacle to the process in the country and has led to the OECD conclusion that “The Mexican tertiary education system is weakly internationalized” (OECD, 2019a).

286

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In sum, the main finding for all chapters is that public policy to foster internationalization is still the most important limitation to the consolidation of the process in the whole region. This conclusion coincides with the one made by the first Regional Survey on Internationalization Trends in LAC carried out by the UNESCO Observatory on Internationalization and Networks in Latin America and the Caribbean (OBIRET), in which the “Lack of national policies and programs in support of internationalization,” “Limited public funding for internationalization,” and “Lack of continuity of national programs” were referred to as the main obstacles for the internationalization of the higher education sector in LAC (Gacel-Ávila and Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2018).

INTERNATIONALIZATION STRATEGIES AT AN INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL As Marmolejo (Chapter 17) points out: “Internationalization is no longer a foreign concept to HEIs in LAC, and in fact, it has been embraced—at least symbolically—as a core component in the institutional strategy in a majority of universities, especially in the largest and traditional public and private institutions.” Marmolejo underlines the key role of institutions, declaring that “in the absence of strong and constant government strategies, internationalization has been left for the most part to institutional initiatives for the last three decades.” This is one of the main and common characteristics of the LAC internationalization process and has been pointed by all the authors of the countries at study. Notwithstanding that most HEIs have adjusted their organizational structures to the needs of the internationalization process, some important deficiencies are continuously highlighted, such as a lack of planning, monitoring and quality assessment, and adequate funding; as well as poor professionalization of staff in international office (IO), among others. As a result, the international dimension of institutional policies is still largely marginal, and international activities are organized for individual interests rather than institutional priorities (Gacel-Ávila, Chapter 12). Furthermore, internationalization activities are generally traditional ones like outbound mobility for students and faculty. As Marmolejo (Chapter 17) mentions: “In reality, institutional efforts intending a comprehensive internationalization strategy are very limited.” The same point is underlined by Zicman (Chapter 13): “If it is true that the internationalization process of Brazilian HEIs is no longer at an early stage, there is a still strong national trend towards passive internationalization (outgoing student and faculty mobility) and low rates of attraction of international professionals and scholars.” Brazilian HEIs evaluate the internationalization process as a “low or medium priority” in the country. Using indicators of global rankings, González, Bernasconi, and Puyol (Chapter 15) designed an interesting tool in order to analyze the internationalization strategies adopted by the leading Chilean HEIs. Based on the two indicators international outlook of 2019 of The Times Higher Education (THE) and international research networks of the 2019 version of the QS global ranking, these authors identified the most common strategies for internationalization used by these universities. The outcome is that students’ exchange programs, foreign language courses, and double degrees are their main institutional strategies for internationalization with international branch campuses the least frequent. Three universities of the country are highlighted for adopting exemplar internationalization

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

287

strategies, which are the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, the University of Chile, and the University of Concepción. According, Insanally and Madera (Chapter 14), critical issues to be resolved for the progress of the internationalization process of the Caribbean are adequate institutional funding for capacity-building of staff and students through study abroad; a globalized curriculum; participation in regional and international conferences; and a targeted research output on issues related to the region’s vulnerabilities and development. Funding is also stressed by all countries to be critical, as (Zicman, Chapter 13) points out: Financing also remains a challenge to ensure the effectiveness of national and institutional policies in the internationalization of the country higher education; and the risk remains of not overcoming the situation that is still common among LAC HEIs, which promote internationalization in policy and discourse but have inadequate financial resources to support it in practice, just as the 2005 World Bank report pointed out 15 years ago. —de Wit, Jaramillo, Gacel-Ávila, and Knight, 2005 Zicman (Chapter 13) underlines that “This is a particularly sensitive point as HEIs are suffering huge budgetary limits, as well as contingency cuts in spending on universities and research institutions, which have particularly affected the federal funding agencies with a long track record of supporting international cooperation in Brazil.” In Mexico, as the priority of the new administration is the increase of access, budget for internationalization activities has been reduced. Worthy of mention is a change of orientation in international cooperation schemes. The new federal administration is limiting the importance of partnerships with developed countries, giving more weight to development cooperation projects with Central and South American countries. In terms of professionalization of internationalization structures and processes, Marmolejo (Chapter 17) points out a characteristic that can be generalized to the whole region: Governance structures are a weak point in internationalization efforts, as they still lack institutionalization, systematicity, and professionalization, especially in the public sector, since the election of authorities can be highly politicized making international organizational structures and teams relatively vulnerable. It has been seen regularly that as a new management team comes on board, an office devoted to internationalization may be affected by also having its leadership and staff subjected to changes. This causes a loss in institutional memory about internationalization and, in many cases, results in the arrival of a new team that may try to “reinvent the wheel” or to shut down initiatives and partnerships based on a political criterion all while remaining unaware of their importance.

OUTBOUND AND INBOUND MOBILITY IN LAC Worldwide, 2.38 percent of HE students are enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programs in foreign institutions, with 1.6 percent being the OECD average outbound mobility ratio and 6 percent being the average inbound mobility ratio (OECD, 2019a). In the case of LAC, outbound mobility is 1.22 percent, while inbound is 0.75 percent (Table 18.3). Measured by outbound and inbound mobility rates, LAC has one of the

288

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 18.3 Outbound and inbound mobility ratios by regions, 2017 Regions World Central Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Arab states Central and Easter Europe East Asia and Pacific North America and Western Europe South West Asia Latin America and the Caribbean

Outbound mobility ratio Inbound mobility ratio 2.38 12.98 4.76 4.33 2.33 1.98 1.98 1.43 1.22

2.38 2.42 1.71 2.95 3.39 1.49 7.33 0.16 0.75

Source: UNESCO, 2019.

TABLE 18.4 LAC international outbound and inbound mobility ratios, 2017 Outbound mobility ratio4 Europe OECD Latin America and the Caribbean Brazil Chile Mexico Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Haiti Grenada Jamaica

3.37 1.60 1.22 0.69 1.29 0.79 1.82 0.87 0.81 No data available 5.80 5.87

Inbound mobility rate5 7.26 6.0 0.75 0.24 0.38 0.57 0.20 No data available 1.73 No data available 71.74 No data available

Source: UNESCO, 2019; OECD, 2019a.

lowest mobility ratios in the world, especially in attracting international students from outside the region (Table 18.4). Of note are the cases of Brazil and Mexico. As the two largest HE systems of the region, they have lower outbound mobility ratios (0.69 and 0.79, respectively) than those of Chile (1.29) and Colombia (1.82) with medium size HE systems (Table 18.4). On the other hand, the low inbound mobility of Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Colombia highlights that LAC is not an attractive destination to international students. Furthermore, LAC inbound mobility mainly comes from the region itself, while outbound mobility is directed to developed regions (UNESCO, 2019), with the exception of the Dominican Republic and Granada. As an example, according to the last issue of Education at Glance (OECD, 2019a), 44 percent of Mexico inbound students come from neighboring countries. Outbound mobility remains low despite the efforts made by the different governments of the region. In the case of Brazil, as a result of SwB, outbound mobility ratio went from Outbound mobility ratio: total number of students from a given country studying abroad expressed as a percentage of total tertiary enrollment in that country. 5 Inbound mobility ratio: Total number of students from abroad studying in a given country expressed as a percentage of total tertiary enrollment in that country. 4

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

289

0.52 in 2013 to 0.69 in 2017. Nevertheless, it is still a low rate compared with the OECD 1.6 percent. Brazil’s inbound mobility is also very low (0.24 percent) if compared with the OECD average (6 percent) (Table 18.4). The same is true for Chile. Despite important efforts being made, the country still obtained a score of “weak” in international student mobility, according to the BC study (Ilieva et al., 2017); data confirmed by Table 18.4 showing an inbound student mobility of 0.38 percent, below the LAC’s ratio of 0.75 percent. In the case of the Caribbean, two different types of student flows can be differentiated: on the one hand, countries like Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti, with low ratios of outbound student mobility mainly taking place with other LAC countries (Table 18.4); and, on the other, the exception of Grenada with a very high inbound mobility (71.74 percent). These results should be attributed to the fact that almost three quarters of Grenada’s HE enrollment are foreign students in the field of medicine and veterinary aid (Insanally & Madera, Chapter 14). In summary, it can be said that the important efforts made by LAC in the last few decades in outbound student mobility still look insufficient when compared with other regions of the world, like Asia for instance. A key recommendation would be that besides increasing its outbound mobility ratio, the region should set up national and even regional strategies to attract more international students from outside the region (Gacel-Ávila and Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 2018).

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION IN RESEARCH According to Scopus, in 2017 LAC published 148,448 scientific articles representing 4.9 percent of the world production. It is worth mentioning that although Brazil reached 14th place in the SCImago database, and has achieved important progress to strengthen its research sector in the present decade, its international collaboration in research still remains rather low (33.87 percent) in comparison with Chile (62.42 percent), Colombia (48.93 percent), Mexico (42.71 percent), and Caribbean nations such as Cuba (62.79 percent) and the Dominican Republic (92.32 percent), (Table 18.5 ), (SCImago, 2019). Brazil and Mexico have the lowest indexes in international collaboration in research, a situation probably caused by the low level of funding policy for academic and research collaborations, as pointed out by the British Council report (Usher et al., 2019). Chile also obtained a score of “weak” in the BC report under International Research Engagement (Ilieva et al., 2017), due to a low funding in research of 0.36 percent of its GDP to R & D, compared with the OECD average of 2.25 percent, the world average of 1.68 percent, or the one of Brazil of 1.27 percent. Furthermore, Chile has fewer researchers per thousand total employment (1.1 percent),6 compared with the OECD average (8.3 percent), (González, Bernasconi, & Puyol, Chapter 15). Nevertheless, Chile compensates for this obstacle thanks to the quality of its researchers, as shown by its high level of citations per document (Table 18.5). Mexico and Colombia also obtained a “weak” in International Research Engagement (Ilieva et al., 2017), due to a scarce government funding with a GDE in R & D of 0.49

According to (UNESCO, 2019), Chile has 1.62 researchers per thousand economically active labor force.

6

290

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

TABLE 18.5 LAC knowledge production, 2018

Brazil Chile Mexico Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Trinidad Tobago Jamaica Barbados Haiti

Country international rank

Journal articles

Citations per document

International collaboration in research %

14th 45th 28th 47th 84th 143th 126th 128th 159th 161

81,742 14,618 25,290 12,651 1,806 186 429 377 113 104

0.50 0.80 0.51 0.53 0.38 0.40 0.32 0.56 0.64 0.46

33.87 62.42 42.71 48.93 62.79 92.32 54.08 — — —

Source: SCImago, 2019.

TABLE 18.6 LAC International collaboration in research

Brazil Chile Mexico Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Trinidad Tobago Jamaica Barbados Grenada French Guiana Guyana

Scopus

SCImago

%

%

31.38 57.03 40.66 47.02 50.79 85.23 50.59 52.97 — — — —

33.87 62.42 42.71 48.93 62.79 92.32 54.08 64.19 68.14 95.40 81.90 77.05

Source: SCImago, 2019; Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Interamericana, 2019.

percent and 0.24 percent respectively, very far from the OECD countries’ average of 2.25 percent and even Brazil (1.27 percent). A low level of funding in research and in international research collaboration is a critical weakness of LAC, as the relationship between quality of research and international collaboration is more than confirmed in the different BC studies (Usher et al., 2019). In the Caribbean region, Cuba (0.36) and the Dominican Republic (0.35) have similar investment levels in R & D but a wide gap between them in scientific articles. While Cuba published 1,806 journal articles in 2018, the Dominican Republic published only 186 (Table 18.5). Nevertheless, both get similar citation indexes: (0.38) and (0.40) respectively, which are below the ones from Chile (0.80) and Brazil (0.50). Noticeably, the Dominican Republic has a very high percentage in international collaboration in research (92.32), compared with that of Cuba (62.79), which is also relatively high (Table 18.6).

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

291

POSITION OF LAC IN GLOBAL UNIVERSITY RANKINGS Latin American and Caribbean HEIs perceive that global university rankings are among the least important external drivers for internationalization process (Gacel-Ávila & Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 2018). The same has been pointed out by Insanally and Madera (Chapter 14), in the case of the Caribbean region, where rankings are mentioned as not being an accurate description of the regional reality. In the case of Brazil and Chile, which both have a high position in global university rankings, this is an indicator of quality, prestige, and internationalization (Zicman, Chapter 13; González, Bernasconi, and Puyol, Chapter 15). Brazil has the highest number (23) of universities in the region followed by Chile (5) in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). Mexico and Colombia have only two HE institutions in this global ranking, respectively (Academic Ranking of World Universities, 2019).

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CURRICULUM More than half of the HEIs in LAC do not have a policy for internationalization of the curriculum, and are among the least active institutions of the world in collaborative international programs such as joint and double degrees (Gacel-Ávila and RodríguezRodríguez, 2018). This fact is confirmed by the recent 5th IAU Global Survey, pointing out that these programs are offered by more than half of HEIs in Europe, Asia and Pacific, and the Middle East, while only 40 percent of HEIs in LAC offer them, making this region the one with the lowest percentage (Marinoni, 2019). In the Caribbean region, a higher percentage (59 percent) report having this type of policy (Insanally and Madera, Chapter 14). In the Brazil, Chile, and Mexico chapters, all the authors mention that internationalization activities in their countries are still largely about traditional programs like outbound mobility for students and scholars.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAMS Deficiency in language proficiency is one of the biggest limitations for internationalization in LAC, and it is in fact the region where this obstacle is the highest ranked (Gacel-Ávila & Rodríguez, 2018). The chapters on Brazil and Chile are the only ones reporting national programs and public strategies with the intention of solving this problem. In the case of Brazil, one can mention Language without Borders (LwB), which was a program launched as a complement of SwB, aiming at improving levels of proficiency in English and other languages for students, as well as the training of teachers from language departments in public federal and state HEIs. LwB funded language courses and proficiency exams for more than 800,000 students, faculty members, and researches between 2014 and 2018. Unfortunately, the federal government ended the funding of this program in 2019, showing again the lack of continuity in public policies. The current FUTURE-SE Program promotes foreign language courses for faculties and researches through partnerships with private institutions for publishing in foreign journals (Zicman, Chapter 13). In Chile, the BCP program delivered free English, French, and German courses to students lacking sufficient language proficiency in order to comply with the language thresholds required by their university of destination (González, Bernasconi, and Puyol, Chapter 15).

292

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

ASSOCIATIONS AND NETWORKS FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION A very important part was played by international education associations in the spreading of the concept and the establishment of internationalization strategies and activities. Good examples are the cases of the Brazilian Association for International Education (FAUBAI) and the Mexican Association for International Education (AMPEI). These associations were founded as professional development organizations of individuals working in internationalization process at both public and private HEIs, and have had a key role in developing institutional capacity and creating awareness of the importance of internationalization in the HE agenda in their respective countries (Marmolejo, Chapter 17; Zicman, Chapter 13). In Chile, there are also several networks and alliances of HEIs dedicated to the promotion of internationalization, such as the Chilean Council of University Rectors (CRUCh) and the Interuniversity Development Centre (CINDA) (González, Bernasconi, and Puyol, Chapter 15). In the Caribbean region, the Universities Caribbean (UC), the Association of Caribbean Tertiary Institutions Network (ACTI), and the recently created Hemispheric University Consortium are examples of networks and associations of HE institutions working for the fostering of internationalization of HE.

DATA AND RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONALIZATION Generally speaking, the whole region lacks hard data on its HE internationalization process, although the situation has improved in the last decade. Some national university associations like ANUIES, AMPEI, ASCUN, and FAUBAI, to name just a few, carry out surveys on a regular basis to assess the progress made by the region in terms of internationalization process. But these data are usually focused on mobility flows, and rarely on the comprehensive internationalization process. This fact is confirmed by Zicman (Chapter 13), who underlines that although advances have been made in statistical surveys and indicators on the internationalization of higher education processes, the lack of assessment of the effectiveness of internationalization strategies has prevented more proactive governance in Brazilian HEIs. This data will be key for institutional-level and national-level decision making.

CONCLUSION In summary of all findings, it can be said that the most highlighted deficiency in LAC is, definitely, public policies and national programs to foster the internationalization process, which are, in the majority of countries, still absent, or, when existing, have limited impact due to their small scale, lack of continuity, and limited sustainability in the long run. To this important deficiency must be added the lack of institutionalization of internationalization strategies, as well as an insufficient professionalization of internationalization office. As a result, LAC has one of, if not the most fragile and inconstant internationalization processes of all the regions. Another limitation of the process is that internationalization activities are still largely traditional, mainly focusing on outbound mobility programs for students and scholars. According to the recent IAU Global Survey on Internationalization trends (Marinoni, 2019), LAC is the region putting the least emphasis on curricular design to develop global skills in students.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

293

Marmolejo (Chapter 17) anticipates for the future of the field in the region two different scenarios: A potential scenario is that the field may experience some sense of exhaustion due to the fact that universities face significant budget cuts, and this may significantly affect the scope of work and capacity of international affairs offices of higher education institutions. Under this scenario, internationalization efforts could be severely narrowed. This potential scenario is not far away from related concerns expressed at the global level. —Knight and De Wit, 2018; Marmolejo, 2019; Brandenburg, de Wit, Jones, and Leask, 2019 Another scenario is that higher education institutions could take the current context as a basis for a future re-engagement of its internationalization agenda. Such a renewed role of internationalization could be achieved if universities of Mexico and of the region envision that in the current and upcoming global context, preparing students with a global awareness and capacity is no longer simply a good idea but something necessary for future graduates. This scenario, although it can be seen as optimistic or even naive, requires higher education to design and implement bold curricular and regulatory transformations aimed at adapting academic programs accordingly. For Insanally and Madera (Chapter 14): “the internationalization of higher education is critical for sustainable development in Caribbean countries, but it must overcome the North–South model and promote South–South cooperation, to be effective.” These authors also stress the need to strengthen the region as an articulated multicultural community; nevertheless, the Caribbean remains a space under construction. According to these authors: It is desirable that the internationalization of higher education, its strategies and processes, contribute to defining a base of common knowledge on the Caribbean, regardless of national and local choices. There is also a need to develop and implement transnational policies to disseminate this shared knowledge. The process is necessarily based on a strong political will and especially on the involvement of university networks. This would result in mandatory cross-university and interuniversity education in partner universities. LAC HEIs are expected to become more active and focused on proposals with a greater impact for their respective country and the whole region. The region is in urgent need of an internationalization process that is more horizontal, inclusive, sustainable, strategic, and longer term, promoting greater international cooperation and integrating an international, intercultural, and global dimension into higher education. According to the British Council, the low scores obtained by Latin America in different aspects concerning internationalization mostly reflect the fact that these countries are still developing their HE systems and are less focused on internationalization as a policy issue; consequently, it is a lower priority policy area than in developed countries. Many LAC institutions declare that they would like to invest more in research, and international collaboration, but they do not do so because it is not a national priority and monetary resources are scarce (Usher et al., 2019). Nevertheless, in our opinion, this assertion should be mitigated, as LAC is a region where investment in HE and R & D is particularly low compared with other regions of the world, namely Asia. This could be interpreted as

294

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

a lack of vision of educational authorities and national governments, which definitely jeopardizes the future of the region and the countries that belong to it and, ultimately, the future of the generations to come. To these concerns, a further one could be added, as González, Bernasconi, and Puyol (Chapter 15) rightly underline, that some of the potential benefits of internationalized human capital may be lost for lack of social and economic opportunities in the different countries of the region, because of a negative context where stagnation in economy and low investment in higher education are prevailing. This peculiar LAC condition leads to the authors’ conclusion: “In other words, internationalization is only as good as the advantages it creates for a receptive environment in which it can blossom.”

REFERENCES Academic Ranking of World Universities (2019). Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking. com/arwu2019.html Brunner, J.J., and Miranda, D. (eds) (2016). Educación Superior en Iberoamérica. Informe 2016. Santiago de Chile: Universia-CINDA . De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard L., and Egron Polak, E. (eds) (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Ferreira, M., Ciro, A., Botero, J., Haimovich, F., and Urzúa, F. (2017). At a Crossroads. Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington DC : The World Bank Group. Gacel-Ávila, J., & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, S. (2018). Internacionalización de la Educación Superior en América Latina y el Caribe. Un Balance. Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara, UNESCO-IESALC, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla. Ilieva, J., and Peak, M. (2016). The shape of global higher education. Retrieved from: https:// www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/f310_tne_international_higher_education_report_ final_v2_web.pdf Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., Tsiligiris, V., and Peak, M. (2017). The Shape of Global Higher Education: International Mobility of Students, Research and Educational Provision. London: Bristish Council. Retrieved from www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe Marinoni, G. (2019). IAU 5th Global Survey—Internationalization of Higher Education: An Evolving Landscape, Locally and Globally. DUZ Medienhaus and IAU, 2019. Available at: https://www.iau-aiu.net/Internationalization?lang=en OECD (2016). Education in Colombia. Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2017). Education in Chile. Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2019a). Education at a Glance 2019. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2019b). Main Science and Technology Indicators. Volume 2019, Issue 1. Paris: OECD Publishing. Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología Interamericana (2019). Indicadores. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from http://www.ricyt.org/indicadores Red Indices (2019). Red Iberoamerican de Indicadores de ES . Retrieved from www.redindices. org SCImago (2019). SCImago, Journal and Country Rank. Retrieved from http://www.scimagojr. com/ Secretaría de Educación Pública (2018). Principales cifra del Sistema Educativo Nacional (México). 2017–2018. Ciudad de México: Secretaria de Eduación Pública.

INTERNATIONALIZATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

UNESCO (2019). UNESCO Statistics. Retrieved from data.uis.unesco.org/ Usher, A., Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., and Tsiligiris, V. (2019). The Shape of Global Higher Education: The Americas. London: British Council. Retrieved from: https://www. britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/global-landscape/shape-global-highereducation-vol-5

295

296

SECTION III

North Africa and the Middle East

297

298

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Introduction to MENA Chapters WONDWOSEN TAMRAT

INTRODUCTION The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is a vast and highly diversified region in many of its substantive features such as resources, economy, geography, population, politics, and standards of living. The MENA region covers an area of over 15 million square kilometers, incorporating nineteen countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. At times countries such as Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Djibouti, Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan, and Western Sahara also appear on the same list. The region is also referred to as “Greater Middle East” or the “Arab world” with three sub-areas identified under it: the Maghreb countries in North Africa, the Gulf countries (GCC), and Levant. It is inhabited by around 6 percent of the world’s population, reaching 569 million in 2017 (UNDESA, 2017) and expected to double by 2100. The region has a gender ratio of roughly 51 percent male and 49 percent female. Youth aged 15–29 make up around 30 percent of the region’s population, or some 105 million people (UNDP, 2016). Despite the regional GDP of around 3.5 trillion and the average per capita GDP of about $2,000, which is twice that of developing countries as a whole, countries within the region differ greatly. The richest countries of the region are mostly located in the Arabian Gulf where two-thirds of the world’s known oil reserves are located. The four highest per capita income countries (Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates) enjoy an average per capita GDP of around $15,000. With few exceptions, intra-regional interaction in the form of trade in goods and services is weak in the region, restricted mainly to labor flows, and the trade connections within the region also tend to be mainly from the Gulf states to the oil importers. The MENA region has seen unprecedented changes and experienced tumultuous challenges over the last six decades. Many countries in the region have been forced to liberalize their economies and embark on structural adjustment programs owing to economic and socio-political factors and the influence of neo-liberal tendencies and the effects of globalization. While countries in the GCC have especially witnessed a radical transformation from mainly tribal communities to modern nations (Badri, 2019b), the region has since 2011 seen successive uprisings and social unrest driven by the dissatisfaction of educated youth. The region has also experienced a series of turmoils 299

300

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

triggered by civil war in countries such as Libya. The effects and impacts of these changes at global and regional levels, and on individual countries, have not been simple and transitory, to say the least. In general, the political, social, and economic dynamics the region has passed through have had their imprint on the way education in general and higher education in particular have been structured. It is these changes and their impacts in the internationalization of higher education (IHE) that the various chapters in this section discuss.

THE CHAPTERS Excluding this introductory chapter and a conclusion, seven chapters are included in this section. Two of the chapters are written from regional dimensions (MENA and GCC) while the rest address country-specific cases. Most of the chapters offer a brief scanning of the education, demographic, and economic and social tapestry of their country as background to the core points of discussion that follow. The main discussion in each chapter is geared towards outlining the major features of internationalization and the forces of change that shape the context of each country. The core areas covered in each chapter include: development of institutional and/or national IHE frameworks/policy or guidelines (processes, stakeholders, documentation, funding); approaches to IHE (e.g., structures, activities, outputs, outcomes, performance indicators, challenges, interventions, quality assurance, funding, any new/emerging topics); IHE research (locally generated knowledge, best practices of innovative strategies, emerging theories and methodologies); IHE and technology; and future aspirations and directions.

EDUCATION IN THE MENA REGION The MENA region has a long history of religious education that extends more than 1,400 years. The oldest universities in the world also existed in MENA long before they did in other parts of the globe though these universities are sometimes regarded as universities of European origin due to the model they adopted. For some countries like Egypt and Tunisia, the history of modern Western education goes back to the nineteenth century, but for most countries in the region the introduction of modern Western education and that of higher education in particular is a recent phenomenon. For too long education has assumed a central place in the modernization and development of countries in the region. Despite the region’s late start, the task of providing education at all levels has been entrusted mostly to the government as a result of which MENA countries on average dedicate 5 percent of GDP and 20 percent of government expenditures to education, which is comparably higher than other developing countries at similar levels of per capita income (World Bank, 2007). This has led to significant changes in areas such as the growth of schooling and reduction of illiteracy rate. Accordingly, the average level of schooling in the region has quadrupled since the 1960s and the region has managed to reduce the illiteracy rate by half since the 1980s. MENA countries have almost reached full primary education enrollment, and increased enrollment in secondary schools has grown threefold between 1970 and 2003, and fivefold at the higher education level (World Bank, 2007). This has enabled the region to become a place where the highest intergenerational mobility in education in the world has

INTRODUCTION TO MENA CHAPTERS

301

been attained (World Bank, 2019). In fact, the strong backing of free education by governments has helped the education system in the region to develop rapidly, and address the questions of equity and social mobility. The two exceptions have been Lebanon and Palestine, which are dominated by private schooling owing to political conflicts and civil war that contributed to the weakening and fragmentation of state power and government institutions (Buckner, 2011; El-Ghali, 2010). The increasing demand for education, the rising share of young graduates and public sector restructuring have not always made it possible for governments to accommodate the increasing demand for education at all levels or provide jobs for graduates on a continuous basis. Nor has it been possible to fully address concerns as regards quality of education, learner achievements, productivity and growth (Salehi-Isfahani, 2012; UNDP, 2016). In fact, as compared with the many changes that have occurred in the region in the spheres of politics, economy, and social development, the education systems in MENA are known to have remained the same (World Bank, 2019), calling for a variety of changes, interventions, and reforms. Over the last few decades, successive changes and transformations in the region have been driven by a multitude of factors that include the need to build a knowledge-based economy, the need to integrate into the global economy, and to keep pace with rapid changes at a global level. In this regard, universities are conceived not only as engines of economic and social transformation but also as a means to provide the population with the capabilities necessary to cope with the various aspects and challenges of globalization. Old institutions like the American University of Cairo, Beirut, and others that existed in the MENA region since the late nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, were often subjected to mounting criticisms about their failure to produce skilled graduates and for serving as centers of fundamentalist religious ideologies, intolerance, and Islamist terrorism (Badri, 2019b). The higher education crisis in the region has also been manifested in various forms including lack of access, and appropriate human, material, and financial resources. In many of the country case chapters included in this section it can be seen that changes in educational systems have been triggered by the need to improve challenges as regards access, lack of funding, and poor quality of the education sector. These and similar economic and political needs had their own impact in allowing neo-liberal tendencies to creep into the region through the influence of international organizations like the World Bank and Western governments. The introduction of new forms of delivery and operators, privatization, and the modernizing of educational systems have been heavily influenced by Western orientations in educational delivery, assessment, and quality assurance. Internationalization—as a newly emerging development in the region—has been viewed as a mechanism of enhancing academic values and quality, fostering cultural understanding, promoting mobility, innovation, and best practices in learning and teaching, employability of students in the international job market, and using existing Western mobility networks intensively (AlAgtash and Khadra, 2019). Higher education institutions (HEIs) in the region have responded to this call through a variety of mechanisms which reflect the form and pattern of internationalization that is continuously emerging in the region. This development has gradually permitted the choice of specific activities and strategies, academic values and standards, access to internationally recognized resources, legitimacy, and credible accreditation, which were sought in alignment with global educational systems and trends that began to be taken as important institutional goals (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019; Badri, 2019a).

302

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

MANIFESTATIONS OF IHE IN THE MENA REGION Internationalization of higher education in the MENA region is an evolving phenomenon. Despite the many features and faces of internationalization that have particularly emerged over the last two decades, the region is characterized by a consistent dearth of literature on the subject. The variations among countries in the region also pose challenges in terms of providing a comprehensive treatment of the subject and/or the possibilities of making swift generalizations. Notwithstanding these limitations, a quick scanning of the wider literature and that of the chapters included in this section provides a good grasp of the major features of IHE in the MENA.

RATIONALE FOR INTERNATIONALIZATION The rationale for internationalization could vary across countries in the region but it is essentially dictated by reasons relating to addressing the needs of a growing population, the need to build a knowledge economy, and the need to balance out the internationalization and globalization efforts with efforts to integrate the national and the local perspective (Vardhan, 2015). This need is reflected in all the chapters included here. Internationalization in the region was necessitated by demographic growth and a youth bulge, expanded secondary school completion, the need to develop skilled human capital to meet the challenges of the time, and increased participation of women in higher education in all countries, particularly in the GCC countries where 62 percent of enrolled students are now female (Ruby, Jaramillo, Henard, & Zaafrane, 2011; Badri, 2019b). The success rate of most of the initiatives taken in the last few decades has been substantial. Gross enrollment rates for secondary and tertiary levels have increased rapidly. Between 2000 and 2010 alone, there was a 66 percent increase in the number of higher education students in the region, which reached over 6 million (Ruby et al., 2011). Due to the increasing demand, the region has witnessed the surge of many types of institutions from 2000 onwards. This includes countries that, historically, had a restrictive tertiary enrollment rate. While there are countries such as Palestine and Libya that have moved to universal higher education with participation rates of 50 percent or more, there are also others such as Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan, which are making tremendous efforts to respond to the incessant demands from increasing numbers of secondary education graduates (Ruby et al., 2011). Currently 9 million students in the region are enrolled in universities, of which 10 percent are enrolled in postgraduate studies (8 percent master’s, 2 percent doctorate) (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). The continuing rise in the number of students has motivated various forms of institutional ownership and the emergence of different delivery modalities that include offshore campuses, and open and virtual universities. These new developments continue to create opportunities for increased internationalization of higher education in the region. It is worthy of note that a significant part of the drive towards IHE has come from government policies, strategies, and interventions that promote rapid expansion, modernization, and a renewed emphasis towards the development of the region’s human capital. The policy support and government backing towards the changes in the region are a remarkable development across all countries included in this handbook and appear to speed up the process of change being witnessed. This is mainly reflected in the national documents, plans, strategies, and actions devised both at country and institutional levels. A cursory glance at the chapters on Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia gives further insight on

INTRODUCTION TO MENA CHAPTERS

303

how IHE assumes a high level of importance within the national strategies of governments and is addressed through the strategic plans of universities. Apart from setting out strategic directions that endorse the need for international orientation of the HE system, governments are involved in creating appropriate structures (units, committees, etc.) that are deployed to manage the various features and manifestations of the internationalization of higher education.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND TRANSNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION (TNHE) The internationalization of higher education in the MENA region continues to be accomplished through a number of cooperation schemes that include educational, technical, and technological areas. One such process is what has sometimes been called “Americanization.” The major manifestation of this trend has been the establishment of extensive partnerships with foreign universities in the Global North. This process has been facilitated by governments in places such as the Gulf Cooperation Countries where special schemes of motivation have been offered to attract the best universities in the world. Transnational higher education (TNHE) is a very recent phenomenon in the Middle East and North African region. Most developments happened in the past fifteen years and many after 2000. TNHE in the MENA region is exhibited in various forms including the opening of branch campuses, franchise arrangements, etc. Countries in the region in general and the Gulf States in particular have been the largest recipients of transnational higher education globally (Wilkins, 2011). The level, features, and modalities of TNHE pursued exhibit significant differences across the region but around 60 percent of foreign institutions that operate in the region have opened since the year 2000 (Miller- Idriss and Hanauer, 2011). Many institutions available in the region are assumed to have either joint programs or branch campuses of foreign universities. Although exact figures may be hard to obtain, Miller and Hanauer (2011) claim that nearly one third of the branch campuses of foreign institutions worldwide are located in the MENA region, particularly in the GCC countries. There are, of course, variations in ownership, size, governance, financing, selectivity, and academic offering (Ruby et al., 2011). Countries like UAE and Qatar are at the forefront of the “branch campus model” that subscribes to “institution mobility” (Vardhan, 2015; Badri, 2019a). In fact, the UAE hosts over forty international branch campuses, which represents almost a quarter of all international branch campuses worldwide (Becker, 2009). Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Kuwait appear to favor the partnership model, with local universities developing programs affiliated to some foreign institutions. Bahrain is especially popular for the “twinning model” in which students study for a part of the program in the host country and another in the home country (Vardhan, 2015; Driouchi and Achehboune, 2014; Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). The Sultanate of Oman, on the other hand, has no international branch campuses, but does have private higher education institutions. It should be noted that, despite its concentration, the opening of branch campuses is not a phenomenon restricted to the GCC area. The major source of countries in these partnership schemes are the United States (which dominates branch campuses), the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Singapore, and India. Russia, Iran, and Pakistan also have foreign campuses in the

304

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

region. Most of the foreign institutions are drawn to the region by reasons of economic rationales and the search for a new market (Vardhan, 2015). The chapter on Tunisia shows that there are countries within the region that could be involved in the establishment institutions and in sending staff to particular countries in the region where they are needed. The aforementioned type of scheme is not the only form of international cooperation in the region. As noted by Bekele and Ibrahim (Chapter 24, this volume), TNE provision in Egypt “mainly consists of double/multiple and joint degree programs delivered in collaboration with local public and private HEIs.” In Morocco, devised partnership schemes include not only branch campuses but also academic mobility and study and research programs. The list for Tunisia extends to PhD supervision, academic mobility, international programs and institutions, quality assurance, research, and ICT. In Libya, international cooperation is used as a mechanism that enhances teaching and quality of education, knowledge transfer and research, and graduate programs.

ACADEMIC MOBILITY The chapters on Jordan and Tunisia indicate that the flow of students from the Arab region to the West goes as far back as the nineteenth century, but the process of IHE started in the 1960s and accelerated after the 1990s due to the unprecedented sociopolitical, economic conditions and technological advances that transpired both in the West and in the MENA region. As Vardhan’s chapter shows, despite the limited attention it has so far attracted and the meagre data available, the mobility dimension in the MENA region comprises both inbound and outbound mobility (Chapter 27, this volume). All chapters invariably indicate the interest on the part of universities to be involved in academic mobility of various natures, though their purposes could be slightly different from one country to another. Mobility in the region appears to involve both short- and long-term movements, with funding coming from either national governments themselves and/or paid through joint projects or scholarship schemes arranged between countries. Scholarship is a dominant feature of student mobility in the region. Although Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon host a significant number of students from outside, the number of outgoing students from the region is relatively high compared with the number of inbound students. According to Ruby et al. (2011), the main destination of MENA students is France, which hosts 30 percent of outbound students, followed by the United States (11 percent), and the UK (9 percent). The biggest cohorts of MENA students come from Morocco, Iran, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia, who together constitute over 40 percent of all MENA student mobility. Egypt sends a relatively small number (8,700 students, or 0.4 percent) of its higher education students out of the country, significantly less than Tunisia (17,900 students/5 percent of its higher education enrollments) (Ruby et al., 2011). Student mobility can sometimes take a different form, as in the case of Tunisia where schemes of international credit mobility are employed in collaboration with international partners. Historical ties with host countries, geographical positions, and language appear to influence where and how academic mobility is directed. For instance, Tunisia and Morocco have more attachment with France while Libya’s link is more with Britain. The overall trend indicates that the dominant link is with Europe and North America. Staff mobility (both inbound and outbound) is also a common phenomenon across many countries in the region with the variety of benefits that comes with it. The benefits extend from

INTRODUCTION TO MENA CHAPTERS

305

availing qualified teachers to the sector to the promotion of cross-cultural exchanges and cooperation. Staff mobility is often a process facilitated through a variety of policy directions and support schemes, including payment from the university coffers, as in the case of Jordan and Tunisia.

PRIVATIZATION Another noticeable change in the region is the privatization of higher education, which is taking place at a tremendous pace. The process of privatization in the region is manifested in many guises and has been assisted by the continued student demand that outpaces the growth of the higher education provision in many countries, forcing governments to institute new policy directions. Libya is a good example in this regard. Jordan was the first country to adopt to this change and currently nearly one third of Jordanians pursue their higher education in private universities. In UAE the majority of higher education institutions are privately owned (Godwin, 2006). It is now quite common to see local rulers and wealthy nationals in the region launching private institutions based on foreign, particularly American, models (Barnawi, 2012; Barnawi and Al Hawsawi, 2017; Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). As noted by Bekele and Ibrahim (Chapter 24), even in countries like Egypt the opening of International Branch Campuses has become one of the most salient developments recently, altering the higher education landscape in the country. However, this is not necessarily a common pattern across all countries in the region. In countries such as Jordan the pattern is not similar, despite the absence of provision that forbids opening foreign HEIs. In Egypt the phenomenon of privatization is not limited to the establishment of private universities but also takes the form of charging tuition fees for special courses such as the teaching of foreign language within the public universities and private tutoring (Hartmann, 2008). Similarly, the chapter on Morocco indicates that the privatization surge is not only about the increasing presence of private institutions but also about changes within the public system. The chapter on Tunisia further indicates that the peculiar nature of new developments includes the excellence of the private sector over public institutions in some areas such as attracting international cooperation. However, it should also be noted that while there is a rising number of private providers in the higher education systems of the region, the influence of government institutions still continues to be dominant in many countries (Godwin, 2006). For instance, privatization in Egypt and Tunisia has not reached the level witnessed in Jordan. Today the percentage of youth in higher education in both countries is approximately 30 percent, but the percentage in private universities is less than 5 percent, although it does keep rising (Sedrine, 2009).

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CURRICULA Internationalization through the promotion of English is another approach pursued across the MENA region. The increasing tendency towards this direction has been achieved against the earlier loyalty to local languages, especially Arabic. In most countries, the approach to language prioritizes English teaching, although Arabic has not lost attention as the chapter on Jordan shows. The chapters on Morocco and Tunisia clearly indicate that English is even gaining ground where a foreign language like French was

306

HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

previously predominant. For instance, Tunisia has adopted a radical departure from the common study programs that are taught in either Arabic or French. In some countries like Libya a similar trend has been observable since 2000 despite the earlier decision of the former Gaddafi government to remove English from schools. A key component of the change in the region has been the decision by governments to switch from Arabic to English as a medium of instruction as well as importing English products and services to their educational systems (Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). The aim behind this major shift has been to accommodate the evolving socio-economic needs of citizens, to ensure international participation in the global economy and education, and to provide the political and economic connection to the rest of the world (Corbyn, 2009; Wilkins, 2011; Barnawi 2012). There is a wider understanding in the region that graduates must develop advanced English communication skills to use English as a language of modern communication and technology to compete in an increasingly globalized labor market. The responsibility of promoting English has been entrusted not only to national governments but has also been taken up by international consultancy groups, and Western educated expatriate faculty and university leaders who form the majority of academics (80 percent to 95 percent) in the non-public universities (Hamdan, 2013; Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). However, despite the new developments in promoting English as providing social, linguistic, political, cultural, intellectual, and economic advantages, its fast-growing international role in higher education (HE) is being questioned as a product and a promoter of neoliberalism (Le Ha and Barnawi, 2015). It is also challenged by the continued presence of cultural and linguistic heritages that can conflict with the promotion of foreign languages. Another common feature of the region is the lack of involvement in IoC (internationalization of the curriculum), which has not been widely endorsed in policy directions nor in practical activities of many countries and universities. The Jordan chapter offers further details on this. ICT (information communication technology) shows a similar pattern since its application is limited to some contexts as the experience in Libya and Tunisia shows.

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF RESEARCH Compared with other regions, higher education institutions in the MENA region are less engaged in knowledge creation, international knowledge networks, and innovation, which has made research achievements within the region quite meagre. MENA countries lack qualified tertiary level faculty, sufficient researchers, and financial resources, infrastructure, teaching and research facilities, and motivated and experienced staff that would offer the competitive basis for research undertakings. Political interest and poor supporting environments also contribute to the problem. Badry (2019b) notes that even countries in GCC nations that have heavily invested in education, including the provision of significant financial incentives to foreign universities, allocate only around 1 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to research and development (R & D). Some efforts had been made by governments in United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, which launched research initiatives, including scientific research commissions, centers of excellence, science councils, business and technology parks, and incubators but the initiatives lack consolidation at the regional level to stimulate cooperative research that addresses common pressing problems in the region (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). In addition, social constraints on access to data, particularly in the

INTRODUCTION TO MENA CHAPTERS

307

social sciences, do not facilitate conducting research in some parts of the region. According to Badry (2019a: 6), “major international databases, such as Elsevier’s Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, etc., do not index Arabic medium journals resulting in an underrepresentation of research in Arabic on the international scene.” However, all is not gloom and doom. There are some changes and a few shining examples within the region. The chapter on Tunisia offers a unique example of how involvement in research could be augmented through a concerted effort and positive policy directions from governments that enhance achievements in this area. Research is similarly emphasized in Egypt and Jordan, as the chapters on both countries show. In Saudi Arabia, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology has adopted another model by engaging world-class universities to help design its programs and has equally created a “Global Research Partnership” that allows faculty and students to access top researchers and research facilities from four world-class research universities (Ruby et al., 2011).

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION Despite the various efforts made, higher education in the MENA region is still under developed due to limitations in providing quality education, quality standards, lack of policy directions, and inadequate educational resources that impede progress (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). According to Ruby (2010) most of the institutions in MENA countries face problems meeting international quality standards. This is why the issue of quality assurance continues to be a high priority in the region. Some countries (e.g., Tunisia) have established the legal framework for quality assurance assisted by foreign partners. This is no surprise in the light of the globalization of higher education, increasing student enrollment, and the mushrooming of private institutions, which, being new developments in the region, can pose a serious threat unless systems and mechanisms are designed for recognition of institutions and qualifications. It is believed that effective, transparent quality assurance mechanisms, including certification and accreditation procedures for cross-border education, will maximize the benefits for students, programs, and/or institutions and national systems as a whole (Ruby, 2010). In the interest of setting up quality systems, countries in the MENA region have been establishing national commissions for quality assurance and accreditation or motivating the development of quality assurance programs and capacity building projects to uplift the quality of their national higher education systems (Al-Agtash and Khadra, 2019). The Centre for Quality Assurance and Accreditation (CQAA) in Libya and the National Evaluation, Quality Assurance and Accreditation authority (NEQAA) in Tunisia discussed in the chapters on these respective countries are typical examples. There are also countries like Tunisia that are emulating practices in the European Union (EU) to handle the new quality needs of their education systems. The MENA region also harbors the need for a regional higher education space to promote regional harmonization between higher education institutions, which is considered essential in facilitating mobility, recognition, credit transfer, and quality as well as enhancing harmonization between higher education systems in the region (AlAgtash and Khadra, 2019). However, given the vast differences in the systems and structures of the higher education systems of MENA countries, creating such a space remains a difficult task since it demands proper policy directions, agreement, and regional consensus. In this regard, the development in