What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher

Education in a Time of Globalization in the

Asia-Pacific Region?

Shun Wing NG

Associate Professor
Department of Educational Policy and Leadership
The Hong Kong Institute of Education

(E-mail Address: swng@ied.edu.hk)

Centre for Governance and Citizenship

The Hong Kong Institute of Education
Working Paper Series No. 2010/003

July, 2010
Editor of the CGC Working Paper Series: Dr. Betty Yung
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

Abstract

One major trend of globalization related to reforming and restructuring higher

education is the intention to make the higher education systems more globally
competitive. While indulging in the game of marketing and exporting higher education
to other regions, we must ask ourselves authentically, “What should internationalization
of higher education aim at? What is missing in the process of internationalization in the
Asia-Pacific Region?”
This paper argues that preparing future leaders and citizens for a highly
interdependent world requires a higher education system in which internationalization
promotes cultural diversity and fosters civic and intercultural awareness, and in which
the internationalized curriculum is committed to the pursuit of the notion of global
citizenship. Such internationalization of higher education contributes to building more
than economically competitive and politically powerful states. It represents a
commitment to the civic mission of international solidarity, human harmony and helps to
build a climate of global peace.

2
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

1. Introduction

Globalization and the evolution of the knowledge-based economy have caused

dramatic changes to the character and functions of higher education in most countries
around the world. Higher education faces tremendous challenges to its governance
systems, curriculum development, research and budgeting in the 21st century. One major
trend of globalization related to reforming and restructuring higher education is the
intention to make the higher education systems more globally competitive. Thus, in the
process of internationalization of higher education, the nature of competitiveness is
being particularly highlighted. Driven by concerns of „brain gain‟ and „income
generation‟, higher education institutions (HEIs), not only in the Western developed
region, but also in the Asian Pacific areas, are strategically committed to promoting their
higher education services overseas. However, it is criticized that under globalization
forces, many of the HEIs in the Asia-Pacific countries follow global practices and
ideologies without developing their own unique systems and honouring the rich
traditions and cultures of their own countries. Under the impact of globalization,
learning from the other systems is desirable, but the management of HEIs should
consider avoiding duplicating without appropriate modification and contextualization.
While indulging in the game of marketing and exporting higher education to other
regions, we must ask ourselves authentically whether internationalization of higher
education has really improved and enriched teaching and learning experiences in the
campus and ensured education quality. This paper adopts a critical theory approach for
analysis of the issue because the notion of power between the powerful and the
powerless is concerned in the internationalization process. Emancipation and
empowerment for the purpose of social change are both key terms and provide the
overall objectives of critical theory (Lather 1986). Through critical reflection on how the
higher education systems in the Asia-Pacific region have been impacted by the
international criteria and practices determined by the Western paradigm, the author
would like to ask, “What should internationalization of higher education aim at? What is
missing in the process of internationalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?”

It argues that preparing future leaders and citizens for a highly interdependent world
requires a higher education system in which internationalization promotes cultural
diversity and fosters intercultural understanding, respect, and tolerance among people
and in which the internationalized curriculum is committed to the pursuit of the notion of
global citizenship. Such internationalization of higher education contributes to building
more than economically competitive and politically powerful states. It represents a

3
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

commitment to international solidarity, human harmony and helps to build a climate of

global peace.

2. Increasing Demand for Higher Education Service in the Asia-Pacific region

With the advent of globalization, advanced information technology and increased

transnational travel, higher education services have already been expanding beyond territorial
boundaries, either electronically or through physically-based campuses. Exporting higher
education services emerged in the 1980s and 1990s and is now becoming a global,
market-oriented and private industry, prevailing not only among those developed countries
but also in the Asia-Pacific region. For instances, Australia and Singapore have already
established their international networks by setting up international academic offices and
collaborating with partner institutions to attract overseas students to study in their own
countries. Australia is now the third largest provider of education to overseas students in the
world, coming in rank order after the United States of America and the United Kingdom
(Dunn & Wallace 2004; Marginson 2002). In fact, policies on marketization and
internationalization of higher education have been moving towards the rising Asian populated
countries such as India, the Chinese Mainland, Indonesia and Malaysia. Recently, like
Singapore and Australia, Hong Kong and Malaysia are of no exception in an attempt to
internationalizing their higher education and have tried to develop themselves into regional
thriving education hubs by exporting higher education services to mainly their neighboring
countries such as India, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam and South Korea.

Asia will dominate the global demand for international higher education for the next two
decades. In forecasting global demand for international higher education, Bohm, Davis and
Pearce (2002) found that the global demand for international higher education is set to grow
enormously. The demand is forecasted to increase from 1.8 million international students in
2000 to 7.2 million international students in 2025. By 2025, Asia will represent some 70% of
total global demand, an increase of 27% from 2000. Within Asia, China and India will
represent the key growth drivers, generating over half of the global demand in international
higher education by 2025 due to their blooming economies. The great demand for higher
education of the Asian countries can also be confirmed by the figures provided by the
databases of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and
International Institute of Education of the United States. In Table 1, it shows that among the
14 top sending countries, number of students from China, Korea and Japan studying in the
OECD countries are in first, second and third places respectively, whereas Indian students are
in seventh, Malaysian in ninth, Hong Kong in twelfth and Indonesian in fourteenth place

4
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

(OECD 2007). Carrington, Meek and Wood (2007) estimated that the higher education
service was about 3% of total trade in services in OECD countries (Carrington, Meek &
Wood 2007). In the United States, India, China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are among
the top 6 sending countries whereas students from Hong Kong and Indonesia are in fifteenth
and sixteenth places (Table 2).

Table 1: Share of Tertiary Foreign Students in OECD Countries

Countries % of total within the OECD area as at
2007-2008
1. China 7%
2. Korea 5%
3. Japan 4%
4. Greece 4%
5. Germany 4%
6. France 3%
7. India 3%
8. Turkey 3%
9. Malaysia 3%
10. Italy 3%
11. Morocco 3%
12. Hong Kong China 2%
13. U.S.A 2%
14. Indonesia 2%

[Source: OECD Education Data Base. Retrieved from:

http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_37455_38082166_1_1_1_37455,00.html ]

Table 2: Share of Tertiary Foreign Students in the United States

Countries % of Total as at 2007-2008
1. India 15.2%
2. China 13%
3. South Korea 11.1%
4. Japan 5.4%
5. Canada 4.7%
6. Taiwan 4.6%
15. Hong Kong 1.3%
16. Indonesia 1.2%

[Source: Data Base of International Institute of Education. Retrieved from:

http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=131534 ]

5
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

On the other hand, transnational higher educational services have gradually aroused the
attention of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS is a treaty of the
World Trade Organization (WTO) that entered into force in January 1995 as a result of the
Uruguay Round negotiations. The treaty was created to extend the multilateral trading system
to services, in the same way the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provides a
system for merchandise trade (WTO 2007a). Education is one of the twelve service sectors
covered by GATS and is included in the new services negotiations, which began in January
2000 (WTO 2007b). It covers four modes of supply for the delivery of educational services in
cross-border trade, namely, Mode 1: cross-border supply, Mode 2: consumption abroad,
Mode 3: commercial presence, and Mode 4: presence of natural persons (Knight 2002). The
framework of GATS regulating higher education as an industry includes transnational
education. HEIs in different regions of the world participate in the game of exporting higher
education services in the name of internationalization. The pace of internationalization of
higher education, in fact, has expanded speedily in recent years as a result of the rapidly
globalizing world of disintegrating country borders and the emergence of supranational
network of capital and knowledge (Bauman 2002). The activities of internationalization may
include the international movement of students between countries; international links
between nation states through open learning programmes and new technologies; bi-lateral
links between governments and higher education institutions in different countries for
collaboration in research, curriculum development, student and staff exchange, and other
international activities; and export of education where services are offered on a commercial
basis in other countries, with students studying either in their home country or in the country
of the providers (Harman 2005).

Today, universities establish linkages with each other in order to strike alliances, thereby
able to compete for funds, students as well as faculties. The mobility of students, university
faculties, knowledge and even values has become part of internationalization of higher
education for many years. The current situation offers many new opportunities for increased
access to higher education, transnational strategic alliances and the expansion of human
resource and institutional capacity.

3. Critical Reflections on Internationalization and Globalization

We could conclude that internationalization is, to a certain extent, an interactive

response to the multiple impacts of globalization. To meet the global demand for higher
education services, many developing countries have started integrating them into the world
community. However, the two concepts, internationalization and globalization, are very

6
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

different in their approach and carry different consequences for different nations (Yang 2002).
They have often appeared in the discourses of various levels over their meanings and
rationales (Fok 2007). For examples, Yang (2002: 85) argues that “internationalization lies in
an understanding of the universal nature of the advancement of knowledge” that is based on
the common bonds of humanity. Yang further argues that internationalization means the
awareness and operation of interactions within and between cultures through its research and
curriculum, with the crucial aim of achieving mutual understanding across cultural borders.
Knight (2004) also depicts that internationalization of higher education should help enhance
students‟ competencies and create a culture or climate on campus that promotes and supports
international/intercultural understanding. This conception echoes de Wit‟s (2002) refined
definition of internationalization of higher education as a process of integrating an
international/cultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of HEIs.
Knight (2006) adds that internationalization of higher education needs to aim at preparing
future leaders and citizens to address global issues and challenges like shaping sustainable
development, international solidarity and global peace in a highly interdependent globalized
world. Chan (2008) asserts that building up cross-cultural understanding, tolerance and the
creation of democratic communities and citizenships which transcend national boundaries are
the tasks of governments as well as universities that make it happen in the process of
internationalization of higher education. Thus, the common set of internationalization of
higher education highlights the importance of promoting cultural diversity and fostering
intercultural understanding, respect and tolerance among people (International Association of
Universities, cited in Turner & Robson 2007). These reiterations of what internationalization
of higher education should emphasize are actually based on the profound belief that the
cultural heritage of people is universal and humankind shares the bond of humanity and
global citizenship in the process of advancement of knowledge.

It is generally agreed that contemporary higher education has been influenced by two
mega trends - massification and globalization (Shin & Harman, 2009). As for massification, it
exerts tremendous impacts on governance, finance, quality, curriculum, faculty and student
enrolment, whereas globalization entails the formation of world-wide markets operating in
real time in a common financial system with cross-border mobility of production. It also rests
on the first world-wide systems of communications, information, knowledge and culture,
tending towards a single world community (Marginson & Wende 2007). Though we cannot
deny that globalization have positive impacts on education (Mok 2007), some scholars argue
that globalization in nature is, to a great extent, incompatible with the rationale of
internationalization of higher education, with academic values and academic work being
challenged (Scott 2003; Yang 2002). For example, massification and marketization of higher

7
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

education have caused severe competition for funds and students and faculty among
universities (Chan 2004; Mok 2007). Since globalization is a market-induced and driven
process for expansion, it is visualized as a universalization of capitalism (MacEwan 1994).
Yang (2000: 83) envisages it as a process stemming from the rise of Western imperialism and
capitalism and is concerned with single-sided economic advantages by means of
“competition, combat, confrontation, exploitation, and the survival of the fittest”. Slaughter
and Lesslie (1997) put forward a more severe critique in that globalization imperatives are of
the nature of power, control, economy and efficiency. Critics of globalization have further
conceptualized the process as an action of neo-colonialism that implies a form of
contemporary economic imperialism (Chan 2008). It highlights that multinational business
corporations still maintain economic control over the decolonized regions by means of
exploiting the resources of peoples. The common bond of humanity and culture will
eventually vanish due to economic driven motives of neo-colonialism. Thus, Yang (2003)
contends that global exchange, under such a context, in economic, cultural and education
domains will continue to be unequal. He adds, “Globalization, therefore, never meant global
equality” (p. 273). The gap between the developed and undeveloped has widened in the
process. Globalization also displays immense power over other cultures and is in general
envisaged as disadvantageous to cultures of developing and underdeveloped countries (Zajda
1998). Based on the Western theory of cultural imperialism, there is a fear that globalization
will cause cultural homogenization, especially in the process of internationalization of higher
education. Thus, globalization being fuelled by a neo-liberal ideology, emphasizing
entrepreneurship, cost-effectiveness, and customer orientation cannot be easily fended off by
national governments (Chan 2004) and by the development of hybrid world cultures created
by the mingling of global-brand cultures and indigenous traditions (Scott 1998).

4. Impact of Globalization on Internationalization of Higher Education

In recent decades, the role and policy of higher education has been significantly affected
by the impact of globalization. Though we have been alerted in the discourse of global
competition and the outcome of inequality with regard to the aforementioned conditions of
globalization, what is really prevalent today is the intensity and the extent of
internationalization activities occurring in HEIs, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The
economic driven imperatives in the name of globalization, emphasizing the importance of
productivity, have created huge pressures to the state for restructuring higher education in the
process of its internationalization.

8
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

4.1 Managerialism and Marketization

The tidal force of managerialism has accelerated diversification, corporatization,

marketization, devolution of responsibilities from state to local governments and HEIs, and
popularity of output-driven economic rationalism that are the key aspects of current
restructuring in HEIs (Chan & Mok 2001; Mok 2000). Moreover, marketization and
massification of universities have paved the way to serious competition for funds as well as
students and faculty (Chan 2004; Mok 2007). As reviewed in a recent study conducted by the
author and his colleague (Ng & Tang 2008), HEIs in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia,
Australia and Japan have embarked on the road of internationalization along the global trend
of marketization, corporatization and commercialization, with the inclination of advancing
their governance and management. For instances, in order to make their university systems
more globally competitive, both the Singapore and Malaysia governments have introduced
corporatization and incorporation strategies to reform their national universities (Mok 2008).
It is noted that incorporation of public universities was implemented in Japan in 2004, in
Singapore in 2006 and in Malaysia in 1998 (Shin & Harman 2009). Incorporation of those in
South Korea and Taiwan has been discussed since 2000. As the logic of the market place and
efficiency dictates Australian higher education policy, it then encourages competition and
customer choice in the running of educational services. Curie and Thiele (2001) have pointed
out that the motive for the Australian universities to be more export-oriented is indeed an
interactive response to a decrease in government funding for higher education and the need
for universities to become “entrepreneurial” in gaining income. Educators and academics in
Australia feel very demoralised and substantially deprofessionalized in the era of measuring
performance in terms of research output (Chan 2008; Welch 1996).

Under the influence of global market forces, there has been a trend towards the
decreasing of public funding to higher education. Public university heads now need to raise
money from alumni and private business enterprises for the benefit of effective functioning in
their institutions. In order to ensure that their higher education systems can compete globally
and to survive and prosper in this fast changing world, HEI administrators subscribe to the
belief that running a university becomes a customer-focused enterprise. Thus, university
curriculum is market driven and students are customers. Huge market forces have required
HEIs to reengineer themselves to be more sensitive to market demands. To ensure they can
share a significant portion of the pie in the higher education market, HEIs have developed a
variety of promotion and marketing strategies such as recruiting quality professors,
developing twinning programs with their partners, forming international alliances, effective
use of information technology and technical superiority in their courses etc. University

9
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

faculties have also needed to participate in the game of marketizing their knowledge (Mok
2000) and have been mindful of their performance in terms of efficiency indicators such as
research output, student evaluation scores and other managerial initiatives. However, while
the outcomes of the above mentioned managerial and marketing strategies remain to be seen,
there have already been dissensions among faculty staff and tensions among departments
within the HEIs and among universities in developed as well as developing countries (Yang
2003). Economy, efficiency and effectiveness as the influential “3 Es” of managerialism,
forming the fundamental values of consumerism in the market place, have been intensified in
reengineering processes of within HEIs.

4.2 Economic Utilitarianism

Utilitarian and pragmatic values can be reflected in the impact of globalization on

internationalization of higher education. Making every effort to compete for a top ranking in
the “world class” league tables has affected how universities in the Asia-Pacific countries are
governed (Chan 2008; Mok 2007; Yang 2003). Success in occupying a place within the top
range of the ranking can help attract the best performing students to study in their universities.
My interview with an administrator of the University of Malaysia in 2007 demonstrated that
the institution has also embarked on the road towards internationalization with the aim of
achieving a position in the top 200 of the world rankings. They consequently adopt English as
a teaching medium in many modules. In addition, international benchmarking in terms of
Research Assessment Exercises with an emphasis on monitoring research output has become
a powerful and pragmatic instrument to demonstrate high standards to various stakeholders,
including students and parents in today‟s very competitive global market (Chan 2008; Lynch
2006). Since utilitarianism and pragmatism are adopted as a favourite strategy in the
post-modern reality of the economic driven society, the curricula offered in HEIs are very
much influenced by market forces. In this connection, subjects offered focus mainly on the
practical and applied value of knowledge, leaving those of educational values such as
humanities and social sciences far behind. As indicated by the figures of non-local student
enrolment of both government-funded and self-financed programs in Hong Kong‟s HEIs as of
2007-08 (UGC 2009), more profitable applied subjects in the arena of science, technology
and business management are offered whereas those subjects of theoretical enquiry of
intrinsic values such as social sciences, arts and humanities are marginalized and placed at the
periphery of the university enterprise nowadays. Yang (2003) notes that these tendencies are
likely to cause tension among departments while creating institutional winners and losers. On
the other hand, in the interest of our customers-students, the university lecture will become a
speech show that must carry the function of entertaining rather than analysing; such that the

10
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

classroom is in danger of becoming a meaningless place, nothing but “licensing and

professionalism without the substantive knowledge and ethics of profession” being offered
(Yang 2003: 278). In addition, the growth in the mobility of higher education programs and
providers will lead to a potential increase in low quality or rascal providers, a lack of
recognition of foreign qualifications by domestic employers or education institutions and an
increase in selling unrecognized certificates which will at the same time create numerous
problems (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 2007; Meek 2002).

4.3 Policy Duplication

Global trends in higher education policies are greatly shaped by the institutes and
practices of western countries, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, but also
pacific countries, notably Australia. Duplicating Western educational policies seems to be one
of the characteristics of internationalizing higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. As
mentioned earlier, many Asian HEIs are eager to engage in international benchmarking and
competing for better ranking of the world class university league table originated in the West.
Undoubtedly, criteria for research assessment or the quest for university rankings are
predominated by the Anglo-Saxon standards and ideologies (Mok 2008). Those HEIs
involved in the internationalization process need to revisit the strategies adopted as to
whether they are learning from the Western traditions or they are duplicating without
deliberate contextualization. In fact, a great number of developing countries have worked in
line with the Anglo-Saxon paradigm. This would create a dependency culture which
constitutes internationalization and further reinforces America-dominated hegemony in the
Asian region (Chan 2008; Mok 2008; Yang 2002). While Asian countries adopt English as a
medium of instruction (MOI), use curricula designed by the Australian, British and American
scholars or governments and follow international benchmarks, have they gone through
adequate and proper contextual analysis to see whether these types of policies are compatible
with indigenous cultures and local practices? Asian scholars are engaging in a game of
“paper-chase” for the Research Assessment Exercise in that research outputs should be
published in English, preferably in Science and Social Science Citation Index international
journals while publications in local languages and local journals are regarded as of little
importance. For examples, my interview with a respondent of the Faculty of Education in
Macau University demonstrates that faculty staff are forced to produce more research articles
in English and especially international journals. Recently this year, the adoption of English as
an MOI policy in some of the curricula by the Malaysian Government has led to street riots.
In this connection, we surely need to revisit the fundamental issues arising from duplicating
Western policies without careful consideration of the local context. Copying Western and

11
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

Australian institutional policies and practices will further reinforce the notion of American
hegemony and there emerges another fundamental discourse as to whether
internationalization becomes recolonization in the post-modern era. It is thus important to
realize that internationalization is perceived differently in the West and in developing
societies.

5. What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education?

Here, we understand that the nature of competitiveness and economic driven orientation
is being particularly highlighted in the internationalization of higher education in the Asian-
Pacific region. The discussions above have obviously shown that transnational education will
cause the problematic issues of including the hegemony of Western knowledge and
pedagogies and commodification of knowledge through which cost and effectiveness and
profit are of prime focus. Critical reflection on how the higher education systems in the
Asia-Pacific region have been impacted by the international criteria and practices determined
by the Anglo-American paradigm can help address the following fundamental questions:
 What is missing in the process of internationalization?
 What should internationalization of higher education aim at?
 For what purposes should the HEIs exist in the post-colonial era?

It is unquestionable that the notion of international education comprises the primary goal
of international exchanges that provide opportunities for countries to learn from one another
or for those less developed countries to receive assistance from their counterparts (Ninnes &
Hellsten 2005) but it does not mean the less developed have to copy policies and practices
from the developed. To refrain from being recolonized, scholars especially in the Asia-Pacific
region must learn from the West and guard against duplicating without proper adaptation and
analysis (Mok 2008). We should not look down on but honor our rich and splendid cultures in
Asia (Mok 2007). Restructuring HEIs by means of adopting Western standards, marketization
and corporatization are then the salient features in transnational education nowadays.
Impacted by the tidal wave of these market driven forces, the most prominent challenge of
the higher education policy includes the gradual diminishment of cultural values and civic
missions that higher education used to promote. Hence, what is missing in the
internationalization process is higher education that should emphasize the vision of preparing
future leaders and citizens to address global issues (Husen 1990) and challenges like shaping
sustainable development and international solidarity in a highly independent globalized world.
However, these goals are becoming limited because HEIs would rather incline to the impetus
of income generation.

12
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

The research conducted by Romm, Patterson and Hill (1991) confirmed that failure of
social interaction with domestic students was a major source of course dissatisfaction for
international students. Research findings inform us that a number of factors affecting the
study life of overseas students, such as students‟ aspiration, perceptions of their courses and
institutions, the impact of culture and values on their learning environments, learning
autonomy and styles of learning (Cheng et al. 2009; Harman 2005). For example, the study of
Cheng et al. (2009) in Hong Kong has found that some overseas students indicated problems
with social integration with local students. There was limited interaction between local and
overseas students and local students did not have great interest in interacting with overseas
students. In this connection, Cheng et al. recommend that a whole-campus approach to social
and cultural integration has to be systematically fostered in the institutions. An open cultural
ethos has to be nurtured among academic and administrative staff, supporting services
providers and students. For humanistic reasons, therefore, internationalization should
integrate an intercultural dimension into teaching, research and community services (de Wit
1999) in order to enhance academic excellence and promote the notion of social
responsibility and civic engagement in societies. In this regard, the Association of American
Colleges and Universities (AACU) has endorsed global education to prepare students for the
global world of work as well as to bring about a shared future marked by justice, security,
equality, human rights and economic sustainability (Stromquist 2007).

We have a deep belief that internationalization of higher education will be undergoing a

“humanizing process” that issues facing all of mankind in the world are addressed. Bottery
(2005) argues that internationalization of education is concerned with more than the pursuit
of economic interests, but also with the development of human flourishing and with the need
to forge communities conducive to moral and spiritual growth. In the study conducted by Ng
and Tang (2008), many overseas students felt home sick and came across language barriers,
difficulties in adjusting their learning habits and problems of social integration in terms of
religions, ethnic diets and getting accustomed to life in Hong Kong. The issue whether
internationalization of higher education has really enhanced students‟ learning experiences
and improved education quality is worth exploring. Chan (2008) highlights that the creation
of a fair, just, tolerant and caring society is not one which can be left to the market. After all,
cross-cultural and multi-cultural understanding, tolerance and the creation of democratic
communities do not appear by themselves. There is a need to create a possibility of a
citizenship which transcends national boundaries: a planetary citizenship. In this regard, it
seems that there is need for a more moral and civic tune or to regain balance between
responding to market pressures and liberal and civic values in higher education (Haigh 2008).

13
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

Nevertheless, “citizenship” and “cultural awareness” as two of the most important aims in the
internationalization process are largely missing in higher education agendas. Knight‟s (2006)
survey with 526 HEIs in 95 countries on the aims and objectives of internationalization for
the International Association of University (IAU), UNESCO, has found that in the area of
“Rationales Driving Internationalization”, HEIs emphasize world-ranked “competitiveness”,
“strategic alliances” as the two most important rationales, whereas “cultural awareness” and
“international cooperation” were of comparatively low priorities at both national and
institutional levels respectively. On the other hand, in the area of “Benefits of
Internationalization”, “academic quality” and ”strengthened research” were ranked as the
most important benefits, but “national and international citizenship” and “brain gain” were
treated as least important at both national and institutional levels. The survey shows that
many HEIs neglect the important mission of socializing our university students to be active
citizens in the civil society of the nation and the world.

6. Conclusion: Humane and Civic Missions

Internationalization of higher education is a key site for exchanges and conflicts induced
by globalization. The main obstacle to achieving humane and civic missions is the culture of
contemporary HEIs, which does not reflect either the values or knowledge base needed by the
citizens of a sustainable future (Haigh 2008). Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations,
Sha Zukang, reiterated in the World Civic Forum 2009 in Seoul that institutions of higher
learning have a critical role to play in forming our future leaders, in advocating mutual
understanding, and in promoting a dialogue among stakeholders towards a global culture of
peace through innovative partnerships. Against the tide of excessive market-centered values,
commercialization of higher education and the danger of recolonization in terms of
knowledge and technology transfers, HEIs need to strive to enhance their engagement with
and contribution to the wider community through restructuring their curricula and visions of
education future. We need to create positive future by defining the real aims and missions of
higher education in the internationalization process. In this regard, there is a need to initiate
negotiations between governments and between HEIs at the international level so as to define
clearly the humanistic and civic missions in the process of internationalization where
democratic values, social justice and inter- and multi-cultural respect and understanding
should be embedded in the higher education curriculum so that our future leaders could be
equipped with civic courage and values of global citizenship. McIntosh (2005: 23) defines
global citizenship as “the ability to see oneself and the world around one, the ability to make
comparisons and contrast, the ability to see „plurality‟ as a result…” Ladon-Billings (2005)
highlights that global citizens are those with capacity to think critically, are willing to

14
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

dialogue with others, and are concerned for the rights and welfare of others.

HEIs could be motivated by both the finance-driven ethos and the communal aspirations
of civic engagement through reengineering their curricula. The academic and civic missions
of HEIs are integrally related to human rights, multilateralism and global citizenship (Scott
2003). Increasingly, universities around the world are expected to play a key role in
advancing the cause of humanity and citizenship. International education should be a vehicle
for students‟ self-enrichment (Marginson 2004). Haigh (2008) echoes by saying that
internationalization of higher education should be motivated by education for global
citizenship, rather than dominated more by the desire for income. It seems problematic to
integrate concepts of citizenship, social justice, ethics and sustainable development within
HEIs being oriented to goals of profit-making. Therefore, Haigh argues that the main
challenge facing internationalization and effective education for global citizenship are the
current trends in HEI. Internationalization of higher education should be committed to
encouraging democratic inclusivity and ethical living. We need to help HEIs imbed in the
missions and values that will provide the global society with a promising future. This will
affect the way courses and programs are delivered and life in the campus is conducted. This
also demands cultural change driven by educationists inside the campus and policy makers at
the system level.

At the system level, HEI internationalization policies and practices rely heavily on
government effort to support humane and civic missions that include education for
democratic values, global citizenship, world peace and sustainable development (Knight
2006). At the institutional level, if learning is linked to social change, pedagogy can help
reinvent the HEI as a community as relevant and positive influences for a sustainable future
for all. Therefore, university faculties engaged in internationalization can assist by designing
courses that promote responsible global citizenship (Haigh 2002). Education for global
citizenship can be a counterweight to the market and income driven forces in times of
globalization. In addition, educators at the institutional level can help promote change by
delivering the message that multicultural and intercultural characteristics of mankind in the
world are respected. They can also help transform HEIs into sustainable learning
communities that could support the learning needs of a future global citizenry.

15
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

References

Bauman, Z. (2002) Society under Siege. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bohm, A., Davis, T., Meares, D. and Pearce, D. (2002) Global Student Mobility 2025:
Forecasts of the Global Demand for International Higher Education. Australia: IDP
Education.

Bottery, M. (2005) “The Individualization of Consumption: A Trojan Horse in the Destruction

of Public Sector?”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 33,
No. 3, pp. 267-288.

Carrington, R., Meek, V. L. and Wood, F. Q. (2007) “The Role of Further Government
Intervention in Australian International Education”, Higher Education, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp.
561-577.

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2007) Cross-border Tertiary Education: A
Way towards Capacity Development. Paris: OECD.

Chan, D. K. K. and Mok, K. H. (2001) “Educational Reforms and Coping Strategies under
the Tidal Wave of Marketization: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong and the Mainland”,
Comparative Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 21-41.

Chan, W. Y. (2004) “International Cooperation in Higher Education: Theory and Practice”,

Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 32-55.

Chan, D. K. K. (2008) “Revisiting Post-colonial Education Development: Reflections on

some Critical Issues”, Comparative Education Bulletin: Special Issue: Education and
Development in Post-Colonial Societies, Vol. 11, pp. 21-36.

Cheng, Y. C., Ng, S. W., Cheung, C. K., Tang, S. Y. F., Choi, P. L., Yuen, Y. M. and Yuen, W.
W. (2009) Research Report on Promoting Hong Kong’s Higher Education Services to
Markets other than Chinese Mainland. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Trade Development
Council.

Curie, J. and Thiele, B. (2001) “Globalization and the Gendered Work Cultures of
Universities”, in A. Brooks and A. Mackinnon (Eds.), Gender and the Restructured

16
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

University - Changing Management and Culture in Higher Education. Buckingham:

Open University Press, pp. 90-115.

de Wit, H. (1999) “Changing rationales for the internationalization of higher education”,

International Higher Education, Available online at:
http://www.bc.edu.bc-orga/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/New15/text.html. [Retrieved on: 12
December, 2003]

de Wit, H. (2002) Internationalization of Higher Education in the United States of America

and Europe: A Historical, Comparative, and Conceptual Analysis. Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press.

Dunn, L. and Wallace, M. (2004) “Australian Academics Teaching in Singapore: Striving for
Cultural Empathy”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 41, No. 3.
pp. 303-304.

Fok, W. K. P. (2007) “Internationalization of Higher Education in Hong Kong”, International

Education Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 184-193.

Haigh, M. (2002) “Internationalization of the Curriculum: Designing Inclusive Education for

a Small World”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 49-66.

Haigh, M. (2008) “Internationalization, Planetary Citizenship and Higher Education”,

Compare, Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 427-440.

Harman, G. (2005) “New Directions in Internationalizing Higher Education: Australia‟s

Development as an Exporter of Higher Education Services”, Higher Education Policy,
Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 101-110.

Husen, T. (1990) Education and the Global Concern. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Knight, J. (2004) “Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales”,

Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 5-31.

Knight, J. (2006) IAU 2005 Internationalization Survey: Preliminary Findings Report. Paris:
International Association of Universities, UNESCO.

17
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

Ladson-Billings, G. (2005) “Differing Concepts of Citizenship: Schools and Communities as

Sites of Civic Development”, in N. Noddings (ed.), Educating Citizens for Global
Awarenes. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 69-80.

Lather, P. (1986) “Research as Praxis”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp.
257-277.

Lynch, K. (2006) “Neo-liberalism and Marketization: the Implications for Higher Education”,
European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-17.

MacEwan, A. (1994) “Notes on US Foreign Investment in Latin America”, Monthly Review,

Vol. 45, No. 8, p. 16.

McIntosh, P. (2005) “Gender Perspectives on Educating for Future Global Citizenship”, in N.

Noddings (ed.), Educating Citizens for Global Awareness, New York: Teachers College
Press, pp. 22-37.

Marginson, S. (2002) “The Phenomenal Rise of International Degrees Down Under:

Lucrative Lessons of US Institutions?”, Change, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 34-44.

Marginson, S. (2004) “Competition and Markets in Higher Education”, Policy Futures in

Education, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 175-244.

Marginson, S. and Wende, v. d. (2007) “Globalization and Higher Education”, OECD

Education Working Papers, No. 8, Paris: OECD.

Meek, C. L. (2002) International Higher Education and the Role of Government in

Educational Exports. Armidale: Center for Higher Education Management and Policy,
University of New England.

Mok, K. H. (2000) “Impact of Globalization: A Study of Quality Assurance Systems of

Higher Education in Hong Kong and Singapore”, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 148-174.

Mok, K. H. (2007) “Questing for Internationalization of Universities in Asia: Critical

Reflections”, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 11, No. 3-4, pp.
433-454.

18
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

Mok, K. H. (2008) “Positioning as Regional Hub of Higher Education: Changing Governance

and Regulatory Reforms in Singapore and Malaysia”, International Journal of
Educational Reform, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 35-55.

Ng, S. W. and Tang, S. Y. F. (2008) “The Challenges and Strategies of Internationalizing

Hong Kong‟s Higher Education in a Globalized World”, International Journal of
Education Reform, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 56-71.

Ninnes, P. and Hellsten, M. (2005) “Introduction: Critical Engagement with the

Internationalization of Higher Education”, in P. Ninnes and M. Hellsten (eds.),
Internationalizing Higher Education: Critical Explorations of Pedagogy and Policy.
Netherlands: Springer, pp. 1-8.

OECD (2007) “OECD Data Base”, Available online at:

http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_37455_38082166_1_1_1_37455,00.h
tml [Retrieved on: 30 December, 2007]

Romm, T., Patterson, P. and Hill, C. (1991) International Students in Australia: A Qualitative
Exploration of Pre-purchase Expectations, and Post-purchase Satisfaction. Wollongong:
University of Wollongong.

Shin, C. S. and Harman, G. (2009) “New Challenges for Higher Education: Global and
Asia-Pacific Perspectives”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 10, pp. 1-13.

Scott, P. (1998) The Globalization of Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press
and Society for Research into Higher Education.

Scott, P., (2003) “Challenges to Academic Values and Organization of Academic Work in a
Time of Globalization”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 295-306.

Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. L. (1997) Academic Capitalism, Politics, Policies and the
Entrepreneurial University. Baltmore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stromquist, N. P. (2007) Internationalization as a Response to Globalization: Radical Shifts in

University Environments, Higher Education, Vol. 53, pp. 81-105.

19
What is Missing in Internationalization of Higher Education in a Time of Globalization in the Asia-Pacific Region?

UGC (2009) “Non-Local Student Enrolment (Headcount) of UCG-Funded Programmes,

2007/08”, Available online at
http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/publication/report/figure2007/figures/12.pdf [Retrieved
on: 29 January, 2009]

Welch, A. (1996) Australian Education: Reform or Crisis. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

World Trade Organization (2007a) “What is WTO?”, Available online at:

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/gatsqa_e.htm [Retrieved on: 20 August,
2007]

World Trade Organization (2007b) “Trade Topics: Services GATS”, Available online at:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/education_e/education_e.htm [Retrieved on:
20 August, 2007]

Yang, R. (2000) “Tension between the Global and the Local: A Comparative Illustration of
the Reorganization of the China‟s Higher Education in the 1950s and 1990s”, Higher
Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 319-337.

Yang, R. (2002) “University Internationalization: Its meanings, Rationales and Implications”,

Intercultural Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 81-95.

Yang, R. (2003) “Globalization and Higher Education Development: A Critical Analysis”,

International Review of Education, Vol. 49, No. 3-4, pp. 269-291.

Zajda, J. (1998) “Globalizing Education: Designing a Renewed Agenda for Teacher

Education”, Education and Society, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 87-98.

20