NEW international student commencements continue to fall, dropping 9.5 per cent, or more than 32,000 students, as at the end of October.
According to government agency Australian Education International, total enrolments in Australia are down 1.4 per cent at 599,795 students.
The drop in commencements has worsened marginally from a 9.3 per fall as at end-September, but the fall in total enrolments has accelerated from a drop of 0.9 per cent.
The figures come as the government continues to be pressured by the international education sector to ease tighter visa restrictions on students that it fears are discouraging applications.
As previously reported in The Australian, research by the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy has highlighted that students seeking an Australian visa have to have substantially more money behind them to qualify compared with the US, Canada and Britain.
In a statement today the Australian Technology Network of universities said the visa system was "threatening to the derail'' the industry.
"We have a ridiculous situation whereby the level of proof required by students from our key markets of China and India are substantially more onerous than for that required by students from Singapore and Malaysia,'' Ross Milbourne, ATN chairman and vice chancellor of University of Technology, Sydney, said.
International students seeking a local visa need to prove they have sufficient funds to cover tuition fees and living costs for the duration of their stay, which for a three-year degree would amount to at least $108,000, the Curtin Institute said. In comparison, it is about $40,500 in the US and $23,000-$25,000 in Canada, Britain and New Zealand.
As of October, enrolments in higher education remain 8.4 per cent up on a year ago, while commencement growth has slowed to 1.9 per cent. But the sector is braced for a substantial drop in numbers next year, especially in the second semester with some universities budgeting for falls of as much as 25 per cent.
The Curtin Institute has forecast that falling international student numbers in higher education could cost the economy as many as 19,000 jobs by 2012.
TAFEs and their agents are warning of between 30 per cent and 40 per cent decline in commencements next year, TAFE Directors Australia said yesterday.
Commencements in vocational education and training are down 8.2 per cent as of October. Enrolments are up just 0.4 per cent.
The English language college sector, which feeds both higher education and VET, remains the worst hit with enrolments down 18 per cent and commencements down 22.3 per cent.
(Source: The Australian)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday 1 December 2010
Monday 25 October 2010
Top unis warn on loss of quality
THE academic integrity and international competitiveness of Australia's universities faces being seriously compromised.
This would occur if the Gillard government goes ahead with plan to approve thousands of additional student places without a corresponding boost to the sector's funding.
According to the coalition of the country's eight elite universities, known as the Group of Eight, the federal government's proposal to provide an additional 110,000 undergraduate student places by 2020, and 235,000 by 2030, is putting quantity over quality and will result in much higher fees or greatly diminished academic standards.
The Group of Eight has also expressed concerns that Australian universities are being driven into a one-size-fits-all regime, which lowers the standards of the best and props up the underperformers.
The group yesterday called on the Gillard government to either commit to billions of dollars to fund the proposed boost in university places, or allow tertiary institutions to make up the difference with sharply higher fees.
Without the funding, the Group of Eight says, the quality of tertiary education provided by Australian universities compared with other advanced countries will slide.
The warning follows a series of studies commissioned by the group, the reports of which have been obtained by The Australian.
Mike Gallagher, executive director of the Group of Eight, said the country's universities would struggle to maintain quality, while absorbing an additional 110,000 students by 2020 and 235,000 students by 2030.
From 2012, the government will remove the limit on the number of publicly funded undergraduate places, effectively undertaking to fund as many students as universities enrol.
But the federal government estimates that only 50,000 additional students by 2013 and 217,000 additional graduates by 2025 fall short of Group of Eight -- and subsequent Treasury -- projections.
Last year the government budgeted $491 million over four years, with a further $437m to target students from disadvantaged backgrounds. But the mid-year forward estimates increased the amount by $800m, suggesting the initial government predictions were wildly inadequate.
The Group of Eight estimates the additional places will cost an extra $3.6 billion a year (in 2008 dollars) by 2030. To maintain current staff-to-student ratios, among the highest in the world at over 20:1, will cost $1bn, while reducing them to 16:1 would cost further $7.5bn.
"We think the cost of growth needs to be shared. Government, general taxpayers and students will all have to pay more."
The Group of Eight says universities should be freed up to charge what they can, up to a 50 per cent increase on current fees.
"There are a whole lot of students who could afford to pay more but don't because the government won't let them," Mr Gallagher said.
He said the British government has recently proposed a sharp increase in fees. "Fee deregulation is unpalatable to government, but the issue is not going to go away," Mr Gallagher said. "The UK has just addressed it. It just takes a bit of leadership to say what is fair for the country and what's affordable for the country."
Australia is already the third-highest in OECD nations in how much individuals contribute to tertiary education -- behind only the US and Korea.
Marcia Devlin, a professor of higher education at Deakin University, said it was disappointing that students should foot the bill.
She said there were numerous other sources of potential funding, including industry, professional associations, alumni and philanthropy.
A spokesman for Tertiary Education Minister Chris Evans said the government was committed to a review of cluster funding rates -- or what the government pays universities for enrolling students in different disciplines -- "so that funding for teaching and learning remains internationally competitive".
The Go8 is also concerned that all universities are being driven into a one-size-fits-all regime, which lowers the standards of the best and props up the under-performers. Currently, there are three institutions in the top 100 of the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings -- Australian National University, Melbourne and Sydney.
Other institutions represented by the Go8 are the universities of NSW, Queensland, Western Australia, Adelaide and Monash. Every member of the Gillard cabinet gained their first degree at a Go8 university.
The aggressive stance on funding by the Go8 is at odds with the traditional polite lobbying of vice-chancellors and could reflect the fine balance of power now in government.
Peter Quiddington, a adjunct lecturer from the University of New England, who is about to publish a book on the failed lobbying efforts of vice-chancellors, applauded the Go8's more assertive approach.
"Vice-chancellors argue that if they don't ruffle feathers, there will be more in the future. And the government of the day has always rolled them. They are being ripped off blind."
A spokesman for senator Brett Mason, who has carriage of higher education for the opposition, said: "The Go8's paper raises many issues and ideas that are very important in developing . . . policy."
Source: The Australian.com.au
This would occur if the Gillard government goes ahead with plan to approve thousands of additional student places without a corresponding boost to the sector's funding.
According to the coalition of the country's eight elite universities, known as the Group of Eight, the federal government's proposal to provide an additional 110,000 undergraduate student places by 2020, and 235,000 by 2030, is putting quantity over quality and will result in much higher fees or greatly diminished academic standards.
The Group of Eight has also expressed concerns that Australian universities are being driven into a one-size-fits-all regime, which lowers the standards of the best and props up the underperformers.
The group yesterday called on the Gillard government to either commit to billions of dollars to fund the proposed boost in university places, or allow tertiary institutions to make up the difference with sharply higher fees.
Without the funding, the Group of Eight says, the quality of tertiary education provided by Australian universities compared with other advanced countries will slide.
The warning follows a series of studies commissioned by the group, the reports of which have been obtained by The Australian.
Mike Gallagher, executive director of the Group of Eight, said the country's universities would struggle to maintain quality, while absorbing an additional 110,000 students by 2020 and 235,000 students by 2030.
From 2012, the government will remove the limit on the number of publicly funded undergraduate places, effectively undertaking to fund as many students as universities enrol.
But the federal government estimates that only 50,000 additional students by 2013 and 217,000 additional graduates by 2025 fall short of Group of Eight -- and subsequent Treasury -- projections.
Last year the government budgeted $491 million over four years, with a further $437m to target students from disadvantaged backgrounds. But the mid-year forward estimates increased the amount by $800m, suggesting the initial government predictions were wildly inadequate.
The Group of Eight estimates the additional places will cost an extra $3.6 billion a year (in 2008 dollars) by 2030. To maintain current staff-to-student ratios, among the highest in the world at over 20:1, will cost $1bn, while reducing them to 16:1 would cost further $7.5bn.
"We think the cost of growth needs to be shared. Government, general taxpayers and students will all have to pay more."
The Group of Eight says universities should be freed up to charge what they can, up to a 50 per cent increase on current fees.
"There are a whole lot of students who could afford to pay more but don't because the government won't let them," Mr Gallagher said.
He said the British government has recently proposed a sharp increase in fees. "Fee deregulation is unpalatable to government, but the issue is not going to go away," Mr Gallagher said. "The UK has just addressed it. It just takes a bit of leadership to say what is fair for the country and what's affordable for the country."
Australia is already the third-highest in OECD nations in how much individuals contribute to tertiary education -- behind only the US and Korea.
Marcia Devlin, a professor of higher education at Deakin University, said it was disappointing that students should foot the bill.
She said there were numerous other sources of potential funding, including industry, professional associations, alumni and philanthropy.
A spokesman for Tertiary Education Minister Chris Evans said the government was committed to a review of cluster funding rates -- or what the government pays universities for enrolling students in different disciplines -- "so that funding for teaching and learning remains internationally competitive".
The Go8 is also concerned that all universities are being driven into a one-size-fits-all regime, which lowers the standards of the best and props up the under-performers. Currently, there are three institutions in the top 100 of the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings -- Australian National University, Melbourne and Sydney.
Other institutions represented by the Go8 are the universities of NSW, Queensland, Western Australia, Adelaide and Monash. Every member of the Gillard cabinet gained their first degree at a Go8 university.
The aggressive stance on funding by the Go8 is at odds with the traditional polite lobbying of vice-chancellors and could reflect the fine balance of power now in government.
Peter Quiddington, a adjunct lecturer from the University of New England, who is about to publish a book on the failed lobbying efforts of vice-chancellors, applauded the Go8's more assertive approach.
"Vice-chancellors argue that if they don't ruffle feathers, there will be more in the future. And the government of the day has always rolled them. They are being ripped off blind."
A spokesman for senator Brett Mason, who has carriage of higher education for the opposition, said: "The Go8's paper raises many issues and ideas that are very important in developing . . . policy."
Source: The Australian.com.au
Saturday 16 October 2010
The Fall of International Education
I came across this news from the age and think that we are in the cross-road of international education in Australia. Subject matter is Indian students in Australia!!
Indian student enrolments at Australian universities are set to plunge by at least 80 per cent in the 2011 academic year, a leading academic says.
Melbourne University vice-chancellor Glyn Davis warns that higher education across the country, including Victoria where it is the state's biggest export earner, is taking a massive hit after reports of attacks against students from the sub-continent.
"According to our best sources ... the fall in applications from India into Australian tertiary education ... are predicting at around 80 per cent, some institutions are reporting up to 90," Professor Davis told reporters in Melbourne.
"We did have a system where everything was growing. It's no longer true, so we are going to have to go back and look again."
Monash University is expected to cut staff numbers by more than 300 in 2011 due to drastically reduced international student revenues, the National Tertiary Education Union says.
But Melbourne University, with a more diverse mix of foreign students, is "better prepared" to weather the storm, a university spokesman said.
Prof Davis said Australia was the only country in the world where international student numbers were dropping.
"Every other country is seeing an increase in international students," he said.
"We are the only country in the world that is having this sharp fall, which tells you that whatever the factors are that are driving it, they're about what we do in Australia."
If the international student market continues to soften, universities will need to increase pressure of the federal government for more investment, Prof Davis said.
He conceded that the consequences of lost income would be felt by Australian students but would not confirm whether fees would rise.
"We would all prefer to see public investment (rather) than further increases in student fees, but it may be that, in the mix of things that get talked about, student fees is part of them," he said.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said a variety of factors, including the high Australian dollar, some immigration changes and fierce competition in the region had put pressure on enrolments, but the government would continue to promote Australia as a desirable country to study in.
"We do want to see international students come and study here, so we'll keep working with the Victorian government, with individual universities on international education, but there are a range of factors putting pressure on at this time."
Prof Davis said Australia had never been the first destination of choice for Indian students, but actual or perceived violent attacks had not helped the cause.
"There's no doubt that the climate in India was deeply critical of the way Australians had handled it, and there was also no doubt it was going to affect people's willingness to come here," he said.
"We were already in a market where we weren't necessarily an attractive destination - this ensured that we were not an attractive destination.
"It takes a long time to rebuild a reputation ... almost overnight we've shown that.
"You only do it through patient diplomacy, you do it through endless delegations, you do it through scholarships, and you have to work very hard with the community at home to make it clear that there are ... really disturbing consequences."
(Source: http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/indian-student-numbers-to-drop-80-20101014-16l8j.html)
Indian student enrolments at Australian universities are set to plunge by at least 80 per cent in the 2011 academic year, a leading academic says.
Melbourne University vice-chancellor Glyn Davis warns that higher education across the country, including Victoria where it is the state's biggest export earner, is taking a massive hit after reports of attacks against students from the sub-continent.
"According to our best sources ... the fall in applications from India into Australian tertiary education ... are predicting at around 80 per cent, some institutions are reporting up to 90," Professor Davis told reporters in Melbourne.
"We did have a system where everything was growing. It's no longer true, so we are going to have to go back and look again."
Monash University is expected to cut staff numbers by more than 300 in 2011 due to drastically reduced international student revenues, the National Tertiary Education Union says.
But Melbourne University, with a more diverse mix of foreign students, is "better prepared" to weather the storm, a university spokesman said.
Prof Davis said Australia was the only country in the world where international student numbers were dropping.
"Every other country is seeing an increase in international students," he said.
"We are the only country in the world that is having this sharp fall, which tells you that whatever the factors are that are driving it, they're about what we do in Australia."
If the international student market continues to soften, universities will need to increase pressure of the federal government for more investment, Prof Davis said.
He conceded that the consequences of lost income would be felt by Australian students but would not confirm whether fees would rise.
"We would all prefer to see public investment (rather) than further increases in student fees, but it may be that, in the mix of things that get talked about, student fees is part of them," he said.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said a variety of factors, including the high Australian dollar, some immigration changes and fierce competition in the region had put pressure on enrolments, but the government would continue to promote Australia as a desirable country to study in.
"We do want to see international students come and study here, so we'll keep working with the Victorian government, with individual universities on international education, but there are a range of factors putting pressure on at this time."
Prof Davis said Australia had never been the first destination of choice for Indian students, but actual or perceived violent attacks had not helped the cause.
"There's no doubt that the climate in India was deeply critical of the way Australians had handled it, and there was also no doubt it was going to affect people's willingness to come here," he said.
"We were already in a market where we weren't necessarily an attractive destination - this ensured that we were not an attractive destination.
"It takes a long time to rebuild a reputation ... almost overnight we've shown that.
"You only do it through patient diplomacy, you do it through endless delegations, you do it through scholarships, and you have to work very hard with the community at home to make it clear that there are ... really disturbing consequences."
(Source: http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/indian-student-numbers-to-drop-80-20101014-16l8j.html)
Tuesday 5 October 2010
Transnational Education Experiences
In the last 8 days, I spent my week working in Shanghai and I realised how much I enjoy working with students from Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade (SIFT). The class I taught was under the umbrella of RMIT Bachelor of Business (International Business) program. Thus, I expected the students to be worldly...or at least..... internationally in their views to the business and education.
I wasn't wrong when I went to teach them on the first day because most of them showed a high level of enthusiasm and understanding of key global issues. This is totally different from what I read from research on Chinese students (or myth about Chinese students). Some, not all, of them were quiet and passive in the first 60 minutes. Later on, when we broke the ice, I started to see the sparkling in their eyes when we started to talk about issues such as offshoring, outsourcing, Wal-MART in China, how Justin Bieber becomes global brand etc etc. I must admit the very first class at SIFT for me went very well and the very first lesson I learnt from this class is student-centered approach can become a reality when teachers shift the focus from the 'context of knowledge' in the classroom to the 'context of learning' among students.
I wasn't wrong when I went to teach them on the first day because most of them showed a high level of enthusiasm and understanding of key global issues. This is totally different from what I read from research on Chinese students (or myth about Chinese students). Some, not all, of them were quiet and passive in the first 60 minutes. Later on, when we broke the ice, I started to see the sparkling in their eyes when we started to talk about issues such as offshoring, outsourcing, Wal-MART in China, how Justin Bieber becomes global brand etc etc. I must admit the very first class at SIFT for me went very well and the very first lesson I learnt from this class is student-centered approach can become a reality when teachers shift the focus from the 'context of knowledge' in the classroom to the 'context of learning' among students.
Saturday 18 September 2010
Turning off the tap
Very interesting article from the age:
Over the past 18 months a number of factors have led to a fall in the number of overseas students wanting to study in Australia. And universities, which rely on international student fees after years of government underfunding, are panicking.
Education observers around the world are now questioning whether Australia's business model for international education was such a good one after all.
Commentators such as Horst Albert Glaser, emeritus professor at Germany's University of Duisburg-Essen, are also questioning the morality of taking fees from foreign students from developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region to prop up Australian universities.
But in Australia such issues do not take centre stage. What's brewing here is deep frustration among universities that recent government policy changes are fuelling the drop-off in foreign students.
In an attempt to stamp out visa rorting, and weaken the link between immigration and education, the federal government last year introduced more stringent rules governing student visas, and tightened immigration regulations.
That has caused a slowdown in the rate of foreign students starting courses. As the problem worsens there is growing disquiet in Victoria's universities that the honey pot is drying up.
The issue is a political hot potato because universities rely on foreign student fees for an average of 16 per cent of their total funding, and use much of that revenue to cross-subsidise domestic students.
As Stephen King, dean of the business and economics faculty at Monash, suggested on the website Core Economics recently: ''If you are an undergraduate HECS student and you are sitting next to a foreign fee-paying student, turn to them and say 'thank you'. After all, they are paying for your education.''
He warns: ''If the university sector ends up in financial crisis it is taxpayers who will be bailing them out.''
Melbourne University's higher education expert, Simon Marginson, argues the downturn is primarily due to immigration policy changes, not a fall in demand, though that is also occurring.
''This export industry cannot be expected to grow forever,'' he says, ''and the long-term quality and reputation of Australian international education, including its commercial capacity, depends on the resources we put into it.''
Melbourne University education economist Ross Williams likens the government's strangling of the supply of foreign students to a ''tap being turned off a little''.
He predicts the damage to universities will reverberate through the economy, with fewer foreign students affecting property prices (since foreign students form a large part of the rental market) and dampening demand for ancillary services such as cafes around universities.
Universities heavily reliant on international students are on shaky ground. Central Queensland University is the most vulnerable as it relies on foreign students for 44 per cent of total revenue.
Victorian institutions at risk are Ballarat University (31 per cent), RMIT University (26 per cent) and Swinburne University of Technology (20 per cent). The picture is not much rosier for larger universities such as Monash University (18 per cent), Melbourne University (16 per cent) and La Trobe University (13 per cent).
Monash University is bracing for a 5 per cent fall in foreign student enrolments next year and a 10 per cent drop the year after.
Vice-chancellor Ed Byrne says university budgets are feeling the squeeze. ''There's been a systematic underfunding of domestic students, so no Australian university gets enough money from government or fees to pay our costs,'' he says. ''Our costs are dependent on the international markets, so not only do international students bring vast economic earnings to the state, not only do they contribute culturally enormously to our campuses, they also are key factors in university budgets in this country.
''For a state like Victoria, I think this is potentially the most serious economic thing on the horizon.'' International education is Victoria's top export earner, bringing in $5.8 billion last year.
At Swinburne University, foreign student numbers are down 10 per cent on last year. Forecasts for next year suggest that will shrink to about 80 per cent of 2009 levels. Vice-chancellor Ian Young believes the government must encourage more international students to come to Australia.
''The real danger in Australia is sending a message out into the market that we're really not interested in having international students come to Australia. So the market is basically voting with their feet and saying if [Australia] doesn't want us, there are other places we can go,'' he says.
Foreign student numbers are reasonably steady at La Trobe University says international director Liz Stinson, but the university is planning for a drop.
''I personally think we have been let down. We have done our darndest to both deliver high-quality education and to obey the law … We've all been working away at this for 10 years and I think there is a collective sense in the industry that we have been let down by government,'' she says.
In a sign of growing alarm, the Group of Eight leading universities has warned that a crippling downturn in foreign student numbers would imperil universities.
They have called on politicians to take urgent action to pull the international education industry from the brink of potential disaster. They want changes to student visa arrangements to ensure legitimate students are not discouraged from applying to Australia.
And they argue that tightening visas to deal with problems in the training sector, particularly so-called dodgy colleges, has resulted in ''collateral damage'' to universities.
John Phillimore from the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy at Curtin University says a slump in foreign student numbers would lead to massive job losses, increased class sizes and fewer courses.
Any suggestion that universities are just crying wolf was put to rest in a recent report by Professor Phillimore and fellow Curtin University colleague Paul Koshy, which warns of alarming consequences if the government does not reconsider its policies. In a description of the worst-case scenario - ''the perfect storm'' - they warn that by 2015 foreign student enrolments in higher education could plunge from about 214,000 in 2010 to about 148,000 in 2015, resulting in 36,182 fewer jobs and a collapse of $7 billion in university revenues.
Professor Phillimore told The Age the perfect storm scenario was a plausible outcome.
In the past 18 months, a cocktail of factors have conspired to put international education under severe pressure. They include a stronger Australian dollar, the impact of the global financial crisis, and fierce competition from countries such as the US.
Australia's reputation as a study destination has also taken a hammering, with attacks on foreign students, the collapse of private colleges, the immigration debate during the election campaign and tougher student visa rules.
''The impact of most of these factors has yet to be fully felt,'' the Curtin report warns. However, there are already signs of flattening demand. Government data shows foreign student enrolments in higher education are down 6.3 per cent for the year to June 2010.
Enrolments in English language courses are hardest hit, falling more than 20 per cent. Reports from student recruitment agents suggest enrolments could fall by up to 40 per cent. This is alarming for universities as English language courses are a pathway to higher education in subsequent years. Similarly, immigration data shows visas granted to students applying from overseas fell by a staggering 25 per cent in 2009-10.
David Buckingham, principal adviser to the office of the vice- chancellor at Monash University, is worried.
''The administrative conditions imposed by the Australian visa system are actually far more onerous than [those that] apply with competitor countries,'' he says. ''It's treating the students and their families almost as if they are money launderers, rather than those who are actually prepared to pay a significant amount in the education of their children.''
Under current visa arrangements, the family of a Chinese student wanting to do an undergraduate course at Monash would need to show it had up to $150,000 in the bank for six months before the date of the visa application, he says.
In comparison, Britain requires students to show a bank deposit of about $40,000 held for 28 days. The US merely asks the student to show adequate funds for self-sufficiency.
No one is arguing that we need to go back to days of easy visas, he says, but ''the visa system should be geared to sort the wheat from the chaff''.
In the absence of government action, universities such as Melbourne University are doing what they can to prepare for hard times ahead.
Deputy vice-chancellor global engagement Sue Elliott says: ''[Considering] the outlook for 2011 and particularly 2012, we are concerned. We are intensifying our engagement with schools, and internationally, but we are also seeking to diversify our student source countries as well.''
RMIT deputy vice-chancellor international Stephen Connelly is also president of the International Education Association of Australia. He wants to see the establishment of a parliamentary secretary for international education.
''What's happening now is a reaction to decisions by government that have been ill informed and poorly implemented with no overarching strategy and no vision. If they got those things right there wouldn't be a problem,'' he says.
In response to questions from The Age last week, then immigration minister Chris Evans defended the government's visa changes. He said the government would work collaboratively with the sector to ''ensure these reforms strike the right balance between making the visa application process easier for genuine students, while imposing appropriate checks on those who may seek to abuse the system''.
In the Gillard government's new ministerial line-up Chris Bowen takes over as immigration minister while the education portfolio is split, into schools, skills and tertiary education. Chris Evans has the skills and tertiary education portfolio and both ministers can expect intense lobbying by universities.
In the meantime, Melbourne University's Professor Marginson, is adamant that Australia would provide a stronger university education to local and international students if the quality of teaching and research could be guaranteed through adequate government funding.
It's a view shared by educators who argue foreign students' greatest attribute is not their ability to pay fees. Says Melbourne's Sue Elliott: ''If we were not reliant on international students for income, we would still seek to have international students in our classrooms from across the world … [the true value] is those very important links that are made. Those sorts of connections are priceless.''
Those priceless connections are now at stake as questions about the morality of using developing countries to fund education in Australia loom large. Professor Marginson notes the morality issue is rarely discussed.
''A sign,'' he says, ''of how our one-sided and almost solely commercial approach to international education has emptied out the moral content of our educational relationship with the Asia-Pacific region.''
Over the past 18 months a number of factors have led to a fall in the number of overseas students wanting to study in Australia. And universities, which rely on international student fees after years of government underfunding, are panicking.
Education observers around the world are now questioning whether Australia's business model for international education was such a good one after all.
Commentators such as Horst Albert Glaser, emeritus professor at Germany's University of Duisburg-Essen, are also questioning the morality of taking fees from foreign students from developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region to prop up Australian universities.
But in Australia such issues do not take centre stage. What's brewing here is deep frustration among universities that recent government policy changes are fuelling the drop-off in foreign students.
In an attempt to stamp out visa rorting, and weaken the link between immigration and education, the federal government last year introduced more stringent rules governing student visas, and tightened immigration regulations.
That has caused a slowdown in the rate of foreign students starting courses. As the problem worsens there is growing disquiet in Victoria's universities that the honey pot is drying up.
The issue is a political hot potato because universities rely on foreign student fees for an average of 16 per cent of their total funding, and use much of that revenue to cross-subsidise domestic students.
As Stephen King, dean of the business and economics faculty at Monash, suggested on the website Core Economics recently: ''If you are an undergraduate HECS student and you are sitting next to a foreign fee-paying student, turn to them and say 'thank you'. After all, they are paying for your education.''
He warns: ''If the university sector ends up in financial crisis it is taxpayers who will be bailing them out.''
Melbourne University's higher education expert, Simon Marginson, argues the downturn is primarily due to immigration policy changes, not a fall in demand, though that is also occurring.
''This export industry cannot be expected to grow forever,'' he says, ''and the long-term quality and reputation of Australian international education, including its commercial capacity, depends on the resources we put into it.''
Melbourne University education economist Ross Williams likens the government's strangling of the supply of foreign students to a ''tap being turned off a little''.
He predicts the damage to universities will reverberate through the economy, with fewer foreign students affecting property prices (since foreign students form a large part of the rental market) and dampening demand for ancillary services such as cafes around universities.
Universities heavily reliant on international students are on shaky ground. Central Queensland University is the most vulnerable as it relies on foreign students for 44 per cent of total revenue.
Victorian institutions at risk are Ballarat University (31 per cent), RMIT University (26 per cent) and Swinburne University of Technology (20 per cent). The picture is not much rosier for larger universities such as Monash University (18 per cent), Melbourne University (16 per cent) and La Trobe University (13 per cent).
Monash University is bracing for a 5 per cent fall in foreign student enrolments next year and a 10 per cent drop the year after.
Vice-chancellor Ed Byrne says university budgets are feeling the squeeze. ''There's been a systematic underfunding of domestic students, so no Australian university gets enough money from government or fees to pay our costs,'' he says. ''Our costs are dependent on the international markets, so not only do international students bring vast economic earnings to the state, not only do they contribute culturally enormously to our campuses, they also are key factors in university budgets in this country.
''For a state like Victoria, I think this is potentially the most serious economic thing on the horizon.'' International education is Victoria's top export earner, bringing in $5.8 billion last year.
At Swinburne University, foreign student numbers are down 10 per cent on last year. Forecasts for next year suggest that will shrink to about 80 per cent of 2009 levels. Vice-chancellor Ian Young believes the government must encourage more international students to come to Australia.
''The real danger in Australia is sending a message out into the market that we're really not interested in having international students come to Australia. So the market is basically voting with their feet and saying if [Australia] doesn't want us, there are other places we can go,'' he says.
Foreign student numbers are reasonably steady at La Trobe University says international director Liz Stinson, but the university is planning for a drop.
''I personally think we have been let down. We have done our darndest to both deliver high-quality education and to obey the law … We've all been working away at this for 10 years and I think there is a collective sense in the industry that we have been let down by government,'' she says.
In a sign of growing alarm, the Group of Eight leading universities has warned that a crippling downturn in foreign student numbers would imperil universities.
They have called on politicians to take urgent action to pull the international education industry from the brink of potential disaster. They want changes to student visa arrangements to ensure legitimate students are not discouraged from applying to Australia.
And they argue that tightening visas to deal with problems in the training sector, particularly so-called dodgy colleges, has resulted in ''collateral damage'' to universities.
John Phillimore from the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy at Curtin University says a slump in foreign student numbers would lead to massive job losses, increased class sizes and fewer courses.
Any suggestion that universities are just crying wolf was put to rest in a recent report by Professor Phillimore and fellow Curtin University colleague Paul Koshy, which warns of alarming consequences if the government does not reconsider its policies. In a description of the worst-case scenario - ''the perfect storm'' - they warn that by 2015 foreign student enrolments in higher education could plunge from about 214,000 in 2010 to about 148,000 in 2015, resulting in 36,182 fewer jobs and a collapse of $7 billion in university revenues.
Professor Phillimore told The Age the perfect storm scenario was a plausible outcome.
In the past 18 months, a cocktail of factors have conspired to put international education under severe pressure. They include a stronger Australian dollar, the impact of the global financial crisis, and fierce competition from countries such as the US.
Australia's reputation as a study destination has also taken a hammering, with attacks on foreign students, the collapse of private colleges, the immigration debate during the election campaign and tougher student visa rules.
''The impact of most of these factors has yet to be fully felt,'' the Curtin report warns. However, there are already signs of flattening demand. Government data shows foreign student enrolments in higher education are down 6.3 per cent for the year to June 2010.
Enrolments in English language courses are hardest hit, falling more than 20 per cent. Reports from student recruitment agents suggest enrolments could fall by up to 40 per cent. This is alarming for universities as English language courses are a pathway to higher education in subsequent years. Similarly, immigration data shows visas granted to students applying from overseas fell by a staggering 25 per cent in 2009-10.
David Buckingham, principal adviser to the office of the vice- chancellor at Monash University, is worried.
''The administrative conditions imposed by the Australian visa system are actually far more onerous than [those that] apply with competitor countries,'' he says. ''It's treating the students and their families almost as if they are money launderers, rather than those who are actually prepared to pay a significant amount in the education of their children.''
Under current visa arrangements, the family of a Chinese student wanting to do an undergraduate course at Monash would need to show it had up to $150,000 in the bank for six months before the date of the visa application, he says.
In comparison, Britain requires students to show a bank deposit of about $40,000 held for 28 days. The US merely asks the student to show adequate funds for self-sufficiency.
No one is arguing that we need to go back to days of easy visas, he says, but ''the visa system should be geared to sort the wheat from the chaff''.
In the absence of government action, universities such as Melbourne University are doing what they can to prepare for hard times ahead.
Deputy vice-chancellor global engagement Sue Elliott says: ''[Considering] the outlook for 2011 and particularly 2012, we are concerned. We are intensifying our engagement with schools, and internationally, but we are also seeking to diversify our student source countries as well.''
RMIT deputy vice-chancellor international Stephen Connelly is also president of the International Education Association of Australia. He wants to see the establishment of a parliamentary secretary for international education.
''What's happening now is a reaction to decisions by government that have been ill informed and poorly implemented with no overarching strategy and no vision. If they got those things right there wouldn't be a problem,'' he says.
In response to questions from The Age last week, then immigration minister Chris Evans defended the government's visa changes. He said the government would work collaboratively with the sector to ''ensure these reforms strike the right balance between making the visa application process easier for genuine students, while imposing appropriate checks on those who may seek to abuse the system''.
In the Gillard government's new ministerial line-up Chris Bowen takes over as immigration minister while the education portfolio is split, into schools, skills and tertiary education. Chris Evans has the skills and tertiary education portfolio and both ministers can expect intense lobbying by universities.
In the meantime, Melbourne University's Professor Marginson, is adamant that Australia would provide a stronger university education to local and international students if the quality of teaching and research could be guaranteed through adequate government funding.
It's a view shared by educators who argue foreign students' greatest attribute is not their ability to pay fees. Says Melbourne's Sue Elliott: ''If we were not reliant on international students for income, we would still seek to have international students in our classrooms from across the world … [the true value] is those very important links that are made. Those sorts of connections are priceless.''
Those priceless connections are now at stake as questions about the morality of using developing countries to fund education in Australia loom large. Professor Marginson notes the morality issue is rarely discussed.
''A sign,'' he says, ''of how our one-sided and almost solely commercial approach to international education has emptied out the moral content of our educational relationship with the Asia-Pacific region.''
Monday 6 September 2010
Overseas student numbers plummet
The fall in international student commencements accelerated in July as numbers from India plummeted with the crackdown on student visa fraud and tougher migration policies.
The falls are hitting vocational and English language courses heavily but these also feed students into universities, which are braced for the effects as well.
The figures, compiled by Australian Education International, have been revealed as the international education sector lobbies government for support and for adjustments to be made to the visa rulings.
Year-to-date new student commencements across the whole international sector were down 7.4 per cent at the end of July compared with a year ago.
The English college sector was worst hit, with a fall of 23 per cent, while the vocational sector dropped 8.6 per cent.
The drop is mainly in registrations from India, where much of the visa fraud had been concentrated. Year-to-date commencements from India have fallen by 20,000 students, or 40 per cent, to 30,500.
Melbourne University migration expert Lesleyanne Hawthorne said the vocational and English college sectors were experiencing a necessary reversal after fast growth as students and colleges took advantage of the previous study to migration pathway.
The old system awarded bonus points for permanent residency for a plethora of courses, including hairdressing and cookery.
However, the government's recent changes would keep students intent on migrating focused on doing quality courses and securing employee sponsorship, she said.
"We are having a shake-out that was inevitable. The steps that have been taken federally to say enrolment in an Australian course isn't an automatic entitlement to permanent residency was a necessary statement," Professor Hawthorne said.
(source: The Australian)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/overseas-student-numbers-plummet/story-e6frg6nf-1225913528166
Commencements in the higher education sector, however, were up 5.6 per cent.
The falls are hitting vocational and English language courses heavily but these also feed students into universities, which are braced for the effects as well.
The figures, compiled by Australian Education International, have been revealed as the international education sector lobbies government for support and for adjustments to be made to the visa rulings.
Year-to-date new student commencements across the whole international sector were down 7.4 per cent at the end of July compared with a year ago.
The English college sector was worst hit, with a fall of 23 per cent, while the vocational sector dropped 8.6 per cent.
The drop is mainly in registrations from India, where much of the visa fraud had been concentrated. Year-to-date commencements from India have fallen by 20,000 students, or 40 per cent, to 30,500.
Melbourne University migration expert Lesleyanne Hawthorne said the vocational and English college sectors were experiencing a necessary reversal after fast growth as students and colleges took advantage of the previous study to migration pathway.
The old system awarded bonus points for permanent residency for a plethora of courses, including hairdressing and cookery.
However, the government's recent changes would keep students intent on migrating focused on doing quality courses and securing employee sponsorship, she said.
"We are having a shake-out that was inevitable. The steps that have been taken federally to say enrolment in an Australian course isn't an automatic entitlement to permanent residency was a necessary statement," Professor Hawthorne said.
(source: The Australian)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/overseas-student-numbers-plummet/story-e6frg6nf-1225913528166
Commencements in the higher education sector, however, were up 5.6 per cent.
Friday 13 August 2010
Internationalisation of Business Schools: A thought from AMLE
The forces that have limited the internationalization of higher education generally and business school globalization in particular, especially in the United States, are numerous and complex. At the broadest level, they include the same factors that
have traditionally limited the globalization of U.S.business: a large, prosperous, and somewhat isolated domestic market for goods and services.They also include the relatively recent advent of technologies to allow for the full globalization of
services as described above. But given that many U.S. companies are now fully globalized—“transnational” in the Bartlett and Ghoshal sense—it seems time, indeed overdue, for U.S. business schools to follow suit.
Business schools and their leaders themselves recognize this shortfall. Indeed, at an AACSB meeting in early 2009, Pankaj Ghemawat, a professor of global strategy at IESE Business School, suggested that most of the cross-border collaborations among
business schools offered little genuine integration of courses and curricula, remarking, “If that’s all we do, we risk becoming a specialized segment of the travel and hospitality industry (Mangan, 2009: pa.9). Edward A. Snyder, then dean of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, said,
”It’s time to stop pretending that we’re doing more than we really are“ (Mangan, 2009: A29).
Blair H. Sheppard,dean of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, has probably offered the boldest response to these critiques, pushing forward with an
expanded version if its ”cross-continent MBA,” under which students spend significant periods working and studying at campuses in Britain, China, India, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Duke’s main campus in North
Carolina (Mangan, 2009). But on balance, business schools in the United States and around the world have not progressed very far in terms of their globalization,
even as other private, public, and nonprofit organizations have. AMLE has provided a platform for research, debate, and discussion of the challenges of globalizing
U.S. (and non-U.S.) business schools and of the related phenomenon of the internationalization of management curriculum.
In the very first issue of Academy of Management (Learning and Education aka AMLE), Henry Mintzberg and Jonathan Gosling (2002) reflected on a “new” approach to management education as exemplified in the International Masters Program in Practicing Management (IMPPM), which included collaboration among business schools in India, France, the U.K., Canada, Japan, and Korea.
They argued that living and working in different contexts allow managers to “live cross-cultural experiences as authentically as possible” (Mintzberg& Gosling, 2002: 66). Yet, since this article was published, AMLE has featured relatively few
papers that have addressed this important topic. While some potential contributions may have been “left on the floor” as a result of the review process, we need much more innovative thinking around this topic. I see great potential for exploring
questions such as
• What is a global business school? How should it be defined? How can “globalness” (in the business school context) be measured?
• What mechanisms exist for advancing global business education? How can success and failure of these efforts be measured?
Just a thought :)
have traditionally limited the globalization of U.S.business: a large, prosperous, and somewhat isolated domestic market for goods and services.They also include the relatively recent advent of technologies to allow for the full globalization of
services as described above. But given that many U.S. companies are now fully globalized—“transnational” in the Bartlett and Ghoshal sense—it seems time, indeed overdue, for U.S. business schools to follow suit.
Business schools and their leaders themselves recognize this shortfall. Indeed, at an AACSB meeting in early 2009, Pankaj Ghemawat, a professor of global strategy at IESE Business School, suggested that most of the cross-border collaborations among
business schools offered little genuine integration of courses and curricula, remarking, “If that’s all we do, we risk becoming a specialized segment of the travel and hospitality industry (Mangan, 2009: pa.9). Edward A. Snyder, then dean of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, said,
”It’s time to stop pretending that we’re doing more than we really are“ (Mangan, 2009: A29).
Blair H. Sheppard,dean of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, has probably offered the boldest response to these critiques, pushing forward with an
expanded version if its ”cross-continent MBA,” under which students spend significant periods working and studying at campuses in Britain, China, India, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Duke’s main campus in North
Carolina (Mangan, 2009). But on balance, business schools in the United States and around the world have not progressed very far in terms of their globalization,
even as other private, public, and nonprofit organizations have. AMLE has provided a platform for research, debate, and discussion of the challenges of globalizing
U.S. (and non-U.S.) business schools and of the related phenomenon of the internationalization of management curriculum.
In the very first issue of Academy of Management (Learning and Education aka AMLE), Henry Mintzberg and Jonathan Gosling (2002) reflected on a “new” approach to management education as exemplified in the International Masters Program in Practicing Management (IMPPM), which included collaboration among business schools in India, France, the U.K., Canada, Japan, and Korea.
They argued that living and working in different contexts allow managers to “live cross-cultural experiences as authentically as possible” (Mintzberg& Gosling, 2002: 66). Yet, since this article was published, AMLE has featured relatively few
papers that have addressed this important topic. While some potential contributions may have been “left on the floor” as a result of the review process, we need much more innovative thinking around this topic. I see great potential for exploring
questions such as
• What is a global business school? How should it be defined? How can “globalness” (in the business school context) be measured?
• What mechanisms exist for advancing global business education? How can success and failure of these efforts be measured?
Just a thought :)
Wednesday 28 July 2010
US News Business School Ranking (Marketing)
Best Business Schools Specialty Rankings: Marketing
Ranked in 2010
1 Northwestern University (Kellogg) Evanston, IL
2 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) Philadelphia, PA
3 Duke University (Fuqua) Durham, NC
4 Stanford University Stanford, CA
5 Harvard University Boston, MA
6 Columbia University New York, NY
University of Chicago (Booth) Chicago, IL
8 University of Michigan--Ann Arbor (Ross) Ann Arbor, MI
9 University of California--Berkeley (Haas) Berkeley, CA
10 University of California--Los Angeles (Anderson) Los Angeles, CA
Ranked in 2010
1 Northwestern University (Kellogg) Evanston, IL
2 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) Philadelphia, PA
3 Duke University (Fuqua) Durham, NC
4 Stanford University Stanford, CA
5 Harvard University Boston, MA
6 Columbia University New York, NY
University of Chicago (Booth) Chicago, IL
8 University of Michigan--Ann Arbor (Ross) Ann Arbor, MI
9 University of California--Berkeley (Haas) Berkeley, CA
10 University of California--Los Angeles (Anderson) Los Angeles, CA
Tuesday 13 July 2010
International Students and Racism
As a former international students and a teacher who has been working with international students in the last 3-4 years, I can't stand some attitudes that my students have to put up with. I am not saying that most of them had experienced racism. Some of them do..and racism comes in different forms. I found this excerpt from the Australia Association of Social Science and it motivates me to write about this topic. I states:
"International students are often viewed only in terms of their economic usefulness to the host country, and the focus is on expenditure, rather than their income situation. Although street crime victimisation is reported, there are many other types of crimes or abuses and perpetrators: employers who exploit, educational colleges which behave rapaciously and unethically, the behaviour of some immigration agents and landlords, to name a few. For example, some landlords, it is claimed will not rent to Indian students. This constitutes racial discrimination. There have been claims of landlords expecting sex for rent (and sometimes in addition to rent). There are cases of exploitation through overcrowding, poor conditions such as no smoke alarms.
Understanding the context of the student can complete the policy picture."
This is ridiculous form any points of view. What can we do to protect our students? I, personally, think that the University and State government MUST work together to protect our students. I know this is seen as an old-fashioned argument by some people but, to me, it is the sustain way to protect our student and to ensure we provide a fair service to them, while they are in our country.
Thursday 8 July 2010
International Education Industry
Due to greater mobility of people, social and technology revolutions, and emerging market of foreign degrees, the higher education sector has transformed tremendously. In this scenario, Australia’s effective position taking strategies in global higher education has resulted in the increase of overseas student population from 1% to 9% between 1993 and 2003 (AEI, 2005a; Marginson, 2007) Australia also has the advantage of its global geostrategic location which positions it as the nearest Anglo-Saxon country to Asia Pacific. Thus providing Asian students a regional alternative for Anglo-American education (Marginson, 2007). Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, China, Indonesia and India are among the top source countries for Australian higher education (Mazzarol & Hosie, 1996). Mazzarol (2006) predicts that there are significant possibilities for Australia to utilize education as global positioning good for the students from Asia Pacific region.
America and UK are the leading host countries for international education securing 28% and 12% respectively of the proportion of world’s foreign students (OECD; 2005, as cited in Marginson, 2006, p25). Consequently Australian government terms them as Australia’s major competitors in international education (AEI, 2005b). The global positional market of education is fashioned by the US positional market. US host 26 of the top 40 research universities of the world (SJTIHE, 2004, as cited in Marginson, 2006). Thus prove to be the top destination for the prospective international students. However, America’s supremacy in the global scenario of international education is not sustained by active marketing strategies but is a byproduct of the quality of its research universities as well as the most important factor of it being a super power, politically as well as economically. Because of lack of active marketing, global war and visa issues, in 2003-2004 the foreign student enrolment in US experienced a sharp decline of 2.4 percent (IIE 2004, as cited in Marginson, 2006). After 9/11 and Iraq war, US universities also experienced decline in the student enrolment form Muslim countries, whereas in Australia it increased significantly (Marginson, 2007). Despite current trends in the decline of international student enrolment in US universities, America remains to be the world leader in education and will continue to be the standard by which the quality of education will be judged worldwide. In this context the Melbourne’s Vice Chancellors forum’s decision to make efforts to position Melbourne as a knowledge city comparable to Boston seems to be logical and plausible.
In the face of this unidirectional global competition, segmenting the Asia-Pacific region, India and Muslim countries for future marketing strategies may prove to be the success factor in sustaining the multi billion dollar industry of international education in Australia. However targeting potential students in these countries pose additional questions as to what are the factors that motivate a student to select a particular foreign study destination. Gray, Fam & Llanes (2003), conducted a research in three countries, namely Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore, investigating the motivational factors that inspire students in making study destination choices and the media they use to gain information about foreign universities. They used five brand positioning dimensions which can play a role in inspiring prospective international students, ‘university’s learning environment (including excellent staff, facilities and research resources), reputation (including brand name, achievements and high standard of education), graduate career prospects (including graduated’ employment prospects and expected income, and employers’ views of graduates), destination image (including political stability, safety and hospitality) and cultural integration (including religious freedom and cultural diversity)’ (p.115). Gray et al found that graduate career prospects and reputation were the common motivating factors among the three nations reviewed. Moderate importance was given to the university’s learning environment and destination image. And cultural integration issues were given the least importance.
Wednesday 30 June 2010
Global Marketing for Australian Education
I have received a number of emails from the readers of "Global Marketing for Australian Education". One of the questions is why do we need to think about marketing for education? Shouldn't education be free?
As an author of the book, I would like to share with you my intention when I wrote this book. It was not my intention to promote the concept of hard marketing for international education service. In fact, I have been interested in product development, communication improvement and transnational education offer. Thus, the book focuses on how to develop proper international education service to students from around the world. This book also focuses on consumer behavior by examining international students and various reference groups. It is my hope that we will not use marketing to manipulate students. We, on the other hand, should learn how to improve the quality of international education services.
** The book is available online at
www.amazon.com
www.amazon.co.uk
Book on Demand
Tuesday 29 June 2010
National and Organizational Culture
The emphasis on the central role of national culture has continued in recent years. For example, the most recent large scale project, GLOBE (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Javidan, House, Dorfman, Gupta, Hanges, & de Luque, 2004), while not explicitly using the term 'constraint', emphasizes that the relationship between national culture and organizational culture is strong with organizations mirroring the countries where they are found, which seems consistent with the idea of a constraint.
Johns (2006: 396) states explicitly that 'national culture constrains variation in organizational cultures'. His argument relies significantly on empirical work by Hofstede (1980, 2001) and on the work by Chatman and Jehn (1994), the latter who concluded that industry explained a substantial portion of the variance in organizational culture. Accordingly, Johns argues that 'the contextual imperative suggested by these findings stands in sharp contrast to the common view that cultures are shaped essentially through internal processes' (2006: 396).
There are, however, several issues with these conclusions. First, Gerhart and Fang (2005), in their re-analysis of Hofstede's data, show that country differences explain only a small percentage of the variance in individual level cultural values, suggesting that mean differences between countries are small relative to differences (i.e., variance) within countries. This considerable within-country variance at the individual level would be expected to contribute to variance in organizational cultures. Second, Gerhart (2008), in his re-analysis of Chatman and Jehn's (1994) data collected in the USA, shows that organizational differences, in fact, explained more variance in cultural values than did industry differences. This re-analysis casts doubt on the argument that organizational differences in culture are as constrained as is believed. Additional evidence shows considerable variation in organizational culture and strategies within other countries such as China (Krug & Hendrischke, 2008; Tsui, Wang, & Xin, 2006), suggesting room for managerial discretion. Third, no empirical research to date actually provides a direct estimate of the magnitude of the relationship between national culture and organizational culture. Conclusions about national culture as a constraint on organizational culture would be more compelling with such evidence.
Finally, from a conceptual point of view, Johns's (2006) conclusion that constraints such as national culture are a 'contextual imperative' which constrains internal management discretion stands in sharp contrast to frameworks in the strategy literature such as the resource based view (RBV) (Barney, 1986, 1991) and related human resources (HR) management perspectives (e.g., Barney & Wright, 1998) that organizational culture (together with related HR practices) is a factor that organizations can use to create value and to differentiate themselves.
Johns (2006: 396) states explicitly that 'national culture constrains variation in organizational cultures'. His argument relies significantly on empirical work by Hofstede (1980, 2001) and on the work by Chatman and Jehn (1994), the latter who concluded that industry explained a substantial portion of the variance in organizational culture. Accordingly, Johns argues that 'the contextual imperative suggested by these findings stands in sharp contrast to the common view that cultures are shaped essentially through internal processes' (2006: 396).
There are, however, several issues with these conclusions. First, Gerhart and Fang (2005), in their re-analysis of Hofstede's data, show that country differences explain only a small percentage of the variance in individual level cultural values, suggesting that mean differences between countries are small relative to differences (i.e., variance) within countries. This considerable within-country variance at the individual level would be expected to contribute to variance in organizational cultures. Second, Gerhart (2008), in his re-analysis of Chatman and Jehn's (1994) data collected in the USA, shows that organizational differences, in fact, explained more variance in cultural values than did industry differences. This re-analysis casts doubt on the argument that organizational differences in culture are as constrained as is believed. Additional evidence shows considerable variation in organizational culture and strategies within other countries such as China (Krug & Hendrischke, 2008; Tsui, Wang, & Xin, 2006), suggesting room for managerial discretion. Third, no empirical research to date actually provides a direct estimate of the magnitude of the relationship between national culture and organizational culture. Conclusions about national culture as a constraint on organizational culture would be more compelling with such evidence.
Finally, from a conceptual point of view, Johns's (2006) conclusion that constraints such as national culture are a 'contextual imperative' which constrains internal management discretion stands in sharp contrast to frameworks in the strategy literature such as the resource based view (RBV) (Barney, 1986, 1991) and related human resources (HR) management perspectives (e.g., Barney & Wright, 1998) that organizational culture (together with related HR practices) is a factor that organizations can use to create value and to differentiate themselves.
Sunday 13 June 2010
My new book: Global Marketing for Australian Education: Lessons and Strategies
My recent book "Global Marketing for Australian Education: Lessons and Strategies" is now available in most major bookshops and online. The book discusses various aspects of marketing strategies for international education service. I would like to share with you the descriptions of this book.
"International Education has become a global industry, driven by aggressive marketing overseas of degree programs by universities. Actors in international education are contributing to the new phase of international education industry. International education providers, thus, need to acknowledge the developments, understand marketing strategies and address the challenges of the future. By investigating Australian international education industry, this book explores the concepts and practices of international marketing strategies from Australian educational institutions. Marketing lessons and strategies from Australian international education are the highlight of this book."
The book is also available online at www.amazon.com
Monday 24 May 2010
Strategies and international education
Despite sustained growth in international education (Bohm, et al., 2003, UNESCO, 2006)investigation into the marketing of international education remains limited and is largely based around international student choice [e.g. Joseph and Joseph (2000); Lawley (1998)] and student perception [e.g. Gatfield, Barker and Graham (1999); Patterson, Romm and Hill (1998)]. In the early 1980s, Kotler and Murphy (1981) called for the development of marketing strategy within the university sector. Yet by the late 1980s Pokarier and Ridings (1998) found institutional strategic planning regarding international student recruitment still to be at a low standard. More recently, Maringe (2004) calls for the adoption of marketing principles by university managers while in a review of marketing within the higher education sector, Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2006) f ind research of marketing within higher education remaining at a “relatively pioneer stage” (p. 334).
Within the small body of extant studies, marketing tactics of universities in the United Kingdom are investigated by Naude and Ivy (1999) who find tactic operationalisation
differences based on institutional age. Mazzarol and Hosie (1996) find no evidence of
consistent international education marketing strategy in Australian universities and Maringe and Foskett (2002) recommend that marketing should become an integ al part of institutional operations. Mazzarol (1998), using student recruitment as a measure for market success, identifies factors considered to have a critical impact on market success and then subsequently develops a model of competitive advantage for education institutions recruiting internationally (Mazzarol and Soutar, 1999). The positioning of university brands in Asian markets is considered by Gray, Fam and Llanes (2003). To date, no studies with a secondary school focus have been identified. This brings about the fundamental need to investigate marketing strategies from an educational institution point of view.
Within the small body of extant studies, marketing tactics of universities in the United Kingdom are investigated by Naude and Ivy (1999) who find tactic operationalisation
differences based on institutional age. Mazzarol and Hosie (1996) find no evidence of
consistent international education marketing strategy in Australian universities and Maringe and Foskett (2002) recommend that marketing should become an integ al part of institutional operations. Mazzarol (1998), using student recruitment as a measure for market success, identifies factors considered to have a critical impact on market success and then subsequently develops a model of competitive advantage for education institutions recruiting internationally (Mazzarol and Soutar, 1999). The positioning of university brands in Asian markets is considered by Gray, Fam and Llanes (2003). To date, no studies with a secondary school focus have been identified. This brings about the fundamental need to investigate marketing strategies from an educational institution point of view.
Friday 23 April 2010
University Ranking in Europe
An expert group on the assessment of university-based research was established by the European Commission in July 2008. The main objective was to "identify parameters to be observed in research assessment and to analyse major assessment and ranking systems to establish a more valid comparative methodological approach".
Now the group has delivered its final report proposing wide-ranging changes in the world ranking of universities and calling for a more fine-tuned assessment methodology.
The EU Commission asked for the development of a multidimensional methodology to capture more dimensions of academics' work. It also asked the group to identify the types of users of measurements of the quality of university-based research, take stock of the main methodologies in use and identify data requirements for a new multidimensional approach.
The group had 15 distinguished members from 12 EU member states and Australia, and two international organisations. It was headed by Professor Wolfgang Mackiewcz of the Free University of Berlin.
In its report, the group says universities should be funded more for what they do than what they are. Competitive funding "should be based on institutional evaluation systems and on diversified performance indicators".
Although university ranking systems have been widely used since their introduction in 2003, assessment experts have serious reservations about the methodologies used. Besides this, the ranking systems tend to focus on the 100 top ranked institutions.
The EU group wants to make a new and coherent methodology to assess the research produced by European universities. And this should be relevant to the 17,000 higher education institutions around the world.
In a foreword to the report, Commissioner Janez Potocnik, who commissioned the report and who participated in the conference before the report was launched, quotes Einstein: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".
The group claims that "the absence of appropriate, verifiable and trustworthy data can undermine the usefulness of cross-national comparisons and benchmarking". It then makes reference to a 2007 article by RV Florian in Scientrometics: "Research has found that the results of the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Rankings of World Universities are not replicable, thus calling into question the comparability and methodology used."
The methodology recommended by the group is an assessment based on fit-for-purpose, with combined quantitative indicators and data with qualitative information undertaken at the level of 'knowledge clusters'.
Such knowledge clusters should be based on an administrative unit such as a faculty, department, school, teams, centres, institutes, interdisciplinary issue-driven clusters, the report says. They should allow for aggregation to the institutional level.
The group has developed an outline for a "multi-dimensional research assessment matrix" that links specified users with their defined properties and objectives to specific data, quantifiable and qualitative indicators and specific assessment methods.
Based on this exercise, the group demonstrates the method in several case studies: on research excellence initiatives in Australia and Germany; individual universities in Belgium and Finland; national evaluation agencies and processes in France, Germany, Norway, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK; and on global rankings such as Webometrics, the ARWU, THE-QS rankings, as well as performance rankings of scientific papers and the Leiden ranking on bibliometric indicators.
To take the project forward, the report proposes:
* Establishment of a European observatory for assessment of university-based research.
* Investment in developing a shared information infrastructure.
* The launch of a pilot for a multidimensional research assessment matrix.
* Adapting the multidimensional matrix to web-based technology.
* Launching a project of pilot indicators to measure the social and economic impact of research.
* Developing a financial model to cover the full cost of university-based research.
Now the group has delivered its final report proposing wide-ranging changes in the world ranking of universities and calling for a more fine-tuned assessment methodology.
The EU Commission asked for the development of a multidimensional methodology to capture more dimensions of academics' work. It also asked the group to identify the types of users of measurements of the quality of university-based research, take stock of the main methodologies in use and identify data requirements for a new multidimensional approach.
The group had 15 distinguished members from 12 EU member states and Australia, and two international organisations. It was headed by Professor Wolfgang Mackiewcz of the Free University of Berlin.
In its report, the group says universities should be funded more for what they do than what they are. Competitive funding "should be based on institutional evaluation systems and on diversified performance indicators".
Although university ranking systems have been widely used since their introduction in 2003, assessment experts have serious reservations about the methodologies used. Besides this, the ranking systems tend to focus on the 100 top ranked institutions.
The EU group wants to make a new and coherent methodology to assess the research produced by European universities. And this should be relevant to the 17,000 higher education institutions around the world.
In a foreword to the report, Commissioner Janez Potocnik, who commissioned the report and who participated in the conference before the report was launched, quotes Einstein: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts".
The group claims that "the absence of appropriate, verifiable and trustworthy data can undermine the usefulness of cross-national comparisons and benchmarking". It then makes reference to a 2007 article by RV Florian in Scientrometics: "Research has found that the results of the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Rankings of World Universities are not replicable, thus calling into question the comparability and methodology used."
The methodology recommended by the group is an assessment based on fit-for-purpose, with combined quantitative indicators and data with qualitative information undertaken at the level of 'knowledge clusters'.
Such knowledge clusters should be based on an administrative unit such as a faculty, department, school, teams, centres, institutes, interdisciplinary issue-driven clusters, the report says. They should allow for aggregation to the institutional level.
The group has developed an outline for a "multi-dimensional research assessment matrix" that links specified users with their defined properties and objectives to specific data, quantifiable and qualitative indicators and specific assessment methods.
Based on this exercise, the group demonstrates the method in several case studies: on research excellence initiatives in Australia and Germany; individual universities in Belgium and Finland; national evaluation agencies and processes in France, Germany, Norway, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK; and on global rankings such as Webometrics, the ARWU, THE-QS rankings, as well as performance rankings of scientific papers and the Leiden ranking on bibliometric indicators.
To take the project forward, the report proposes:
* Establishment of a European observatory for assessment of university-based research.
* Investment in developing a shared information infrastructure.
* The launch of a pilot for a multidimensional research assessment matrix.
* Adapting the multidimensional matrix to web-based technology.
* Launching a project of pilot indicators to measure the social and economic impact of research.
* Developing a financial model to cover the full cost of university-based research.
Thursday 22 April 2010
Unemployment and Business
The unemployment rate for the OECD area was broadly stable in February 2010 compared with January. The headline rate fell 0.1 percentage point but this reflected the partial unwinding of effects that led to a temporary increase in Korea's January rate. Month on month, the general picture is of broad stability across all OECD countries, a trend reinforced by the March figures for the United States and Canada, which were unchanged at 9.7% and 8.2%, respectively.
Sunday 11 April 2010
Situation in Thailand
The Thailand of today is not quite the France of 1789 — there is no history of major tensions between rich and poor here, and most of the country is peaceful despite the noisy protests. But more than ever Thailand’s underprivileged are less inclined to quietly accept their station in life as past generations did and are voicing anger about wide disparities in wealth, about shakedowns by the police and what they see as the longstanding condescension in Bangkok toward people who speak provincial dialects, especially from the northeast.
The deference, gentility and graciousness that have helped anchor the social hierarchy in Thailand for centuries are fraying, analysts say, as poorer Thais become more assertive, discarding long-held taboos that discouraged confrontation.
The haves in Thailand have a lot — the country has one of the most inequitable income distributions in Asia, a wider gap between rich and poor than in China, Malaysia, the Philippines or Vietnam, according to a World Bank report.
Four years of political turmoil have brought clearer divisions between wealthy families and their domestic staff, between the patrons of expensive restaurants and the waiters who serve them, between golfing businessmen and the legions of caddies who carry their bags.
“This is a newfound consciousness of a previously neglected part of Thai society,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, one of the country’s leading political scientists and a visiting scholar at Stanford University’s FSI-Humanities Center. “In the past they were upset, but they weren’t cohesive as a force and coherent in their agenda. New technologies have enabled them to unify their disparate voices of dissatisfaction.”
The role of technology in bringing together the protesters has been crucial. The leaders of the protest movement have used community radio stations, mobile-phone messaging and the Internet to forge an identity for lower-income Thais and connect a vast constellation of people in villages and towns.
At times the protests in Bangkok could be described as flash mobs of the disaffected. Protesters, who wear trademark red shirts, have converged on government buildings, banks and military bases across the city guided by text messages.
The deference, gentility and graciousness that have helped anchor the social hierarchy in Thailand for centuries are fraying, analysts say, as poorer Thais become more assertive, discarding long-held taboos that discouraged confrontation.
The haves in Thailand have a lot — the country has one of the most inequitable income distributions in Asia, a wider gap between rich and poor than in China, Malaysia, the Philippines or Vietnam, according to a World Bank report.
Four years of political turmoil have brought clearer divisions between wealthy families and their domestic staff, between the patrons of expensive restaurants and the waiters who serve them, between golfing businessmen and the legions of caddies who carry their bags.
“This is a newfound consciousness of a previously neglected part of Thai society,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, one of the country’s leading political scientists and a visiting scholar at Stanford University’s FSI-Humanities Center. “In the past they were upset, but they weren’t cohesive as a force and coherent in their agenda. New technologies have enabled them to unify their disparate voices of dissatisfaction.”
The role of technology in bringing together the protesters has been crucial. The leaders of the protest movement have used community radio stations, mobile-phone messaging and the Internet to forge an identity for lower-income Thais and connect a vast constellation of people in villages and towns.
At times the protests in Bangkok could be described as flash mobs of the disaffected. Protesters, who wear trademark red shirts, have converged on government buildings, banks and military bases across the city guided by text messages.
Friday 2 April 2010
China trade tensions with US
China’s trade disputes with the U.S. have been “amplified” and in some cases are no worse than those with other countries, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said ahead of a visit to Washington this month by President Hu Jintao.
Kirk declined to single out China as a protectionist nation in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt” airing this weekend. The U.S. and China, with $409 billion in annual trade, have a complex relationship that holds “great promise,” Kirk said.
“Our challenges with China I think get amplified because there’s so much attention focused on China,” Kirk said. “But we have challenges throughout Asia.”
President Barack Obama would like to complete at least one of three pending trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama this year, Kirk said. While he declined to say which accord would come first, Kirk said the administration is making “good progress” on resolving labor and tax issues with Panama.
Bipartisan cooperation will be required on trade issues to keep the U.S. competitive with other countries that are lowering tariffs, Kirk said. He has met with representatives of labor unions and congressional Democrats over the past 14 months to try to defuse the emotions surrounding trade, Kirk said.
Kirk declined to single out China as a protectionist nation in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt” airing this weekend. The U.S. and China, with $409 billion in annual trade, have a complex relationship that holds “great promise,” Kirk said.
“Our challenges with China I think get amplified because there’s so much attention focused on China,” Kirk said. “But we have challenges throughout Asia.”
President Barack Obama would like to complete at least one of three pending trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama this year, Kirk said. While he declined to say which accord would come first, Kirk said the administration is making “good progress” on resolving labor and tax issues with Panama.
Bipartisan cooperation will be required on trade issues to keep the U.S. competitive with other countries that are lowering tariffs, Kirk said. He has met with representatives of labor unions and congressional Democrats over the past 14 months to try to defuse the emotions surrounding trade, Kirk said.
Monday 29 March 2010
Top 15 Business school Ranking: 2010
1) London business School
2) Wharton (U Penn.)
3)Harvard Business School
4)Stanford University GSB
5) Insead
6)Columbia Business School
7)IE Business School/Spain
8)MIT Sloan School of Management
9)Hong Kong Uni. Business School
10) IESE Business school/Spain
11) India Institute of Management
12)STERN (New York University)
13)Dartmouth College: TUCK
14)IMD/Switzerland
15) Yale School of Management
(Source: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings)
2) Wharton (U Penn.)
3)Harvard Business School
4)Stanford University GSB
5) Insead
6)Columbia Business School
7)IE Business School/Spain
8)MIT Sloan School of Management
9)Hong Kong Uni. Business School
10) IESE Business school/Spain
11) India Institute of Management
12)STERN (New York University)
13)Dartmouth College: TUCK
14)IMD/Switzerland
15) Yale School of Management
(Source: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings)
Tuesday 23 March 2010
Global university rankings 2007: interview with Simon Marginson December 12, 2007 by globalhighered
Editor’s note: The world is awash in discussion and debate about university (and disciplinary) ranking schemes, and what to do about them (e.g. see our recent entry on this). Malaysia, for example, is grappling with a series of issues related to the outcome of the recent global rankings schemes, partly spurred on by ongoing developments, but also a new drive to create a differentiated higher education system (including so-called “Apex” universities). In this context Dr. Sarjit Kaur, Associate Research Fellow, IPPTN, Universiti Sains Malaysia, conducted an interview with Simon Marginson, Australian Professorial Fellow and Professor of Higher Education, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. The interview was conducted on 22 November 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: What is your overall first impression of the 2007 university rankings?
A: The Shanghai Jiao Tong (SHJT) rankings came out first and the ranking is largely valid. The outcome shows a domination of the large size based universities in the Western world, principally English-speaking countries and principally the US. There are no surprises in that when you look at the fact that the US spends seven times as much on higher education as the next nation, which is Japan, and that is seven times as much as a very big advantage in a competitive sense. The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) rankings are not valid, in my view, I mean you have a survey which gets 1% return, is biased to certain countries and so on. The outcome tends to show that similar kinds of universities do well as in the top 50 anyway as in the SHJT because research-strong universities also have strong reputations and that shows up strongly in the THES, but the Times one is more plural with major universities in a number of countries (the oldest, largest, and best established universities in a number of countries) appear in the top 100 who aren’t strong enough in research terms to appear in the SHJT. But I don’t put any real value on the Times results – they go up and down very fast. Institutions that are in the top 100 then disappearing from the top 200 two years later, like Universiti Malaya did. It doesn’t mean too much.
Q: In both global university rankings, UK and US universities still dominate the top ten places. What’s your comment on this?
A: Well, it’s predictable that they would dominate in terms of a research measure because they have the largest concentration of research power – publications in English language journals, which mostly are edited from these countries and to their scholars in numbers. The Times is partly driven by research (only 1/5 of it is) and partly driven by the number of international students that people have – they tend to go to the UK and Australia more than they go to US but they tend to be in English-speaking countries as well. At times one half (50%) is determined by reputation as they’re reputational surveys at which one is 40% and the other is 10%. Now, reputation tends to follow established prestige and the English language, where the universities have the prestige as well. But the other factor is that the reputational surveys are biased in favour of countries which use the Times, read the Times and know the Times (usually in the British Empire) so it tends to be UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong that put in a lot of survey returns whereas the Europeans don’t put in many; and many other Asian countries don’t put in many. So, that’s another reason why the English universities would do well. In fact the English universities do very well in the Times rankings – much better than they should really, considering their research strengths.
Q: What’s your comment on how most Asian universities performed in this year’s rankings?
A: Look, I think the SHJT is the one to watch because that gives you realistic measures of performance. The problem with SHJT is it tends to be a bit delayed – so that there’s a delay between the time you performed and the time it shows up in the rankings because the citation and publication measures are operating off the second half of the 90s; in the HiCis, Thomson HiCis count used by SHJT. So when the first half of the 2000 starts to show up, you’re going to see the National University of Singapore go up from the top 200 into the top 100 pretty fast. You will expect the Chinese universities will follow as well, a bit slower, so that Tsinghua and Peking Uni, Fudan, and Jiao Tong itself will move towards the top 200 and top 100 over time because they are really building up to many strengths. That would be a useful trend line to follow. Korean universities are also going to improve markedly in the rankings over time, with Seoul National leading the way. Japan’s already a major presence in the rankings of course. I wouldn’t expect any other Asian country, at this point, to start to show up strongly. It’s not the reason why the Malaysian universities should suddenly move up the research ranking table when they are not investing any more in research than they were before. It will be a long time before Malaysia starts creating an impact in the SHJT because if those China policy tomorrow requires universities to build on their basic research strengths which will involve sending selected people off abroad all the time for PhDs, establishing enough strengths in USM, UKM and UM and a couple more for major research bases at home and to have the capacity to train people at PhD level at home and so on, and be performing a lot of basic research. To do that you have to pay competitive salaries, you got to (like Singapore does) bring people back who might otherwise want to work in the US or UK…and that means paying something like UK salaries or if not, American ones. Then you’ll settle them down, and it’ll take them 5 years before they do their best output. Malaysia is perhaps better at marketing than it is with research performance because it has an International Education sector and because the government is quite active in promoting the university sector offshore and that’s good and that’s how it should be.
Q: What about the performance of Australian universities?
A: They performed as they should in the SHJT, which is to say we got 2 in the top 100. That’s not very good in the sense that when you look at Canada which is a country which is only slightly wealthier and about 2% bigger and a similar kind of culture and quality and it does much better. I mean it has 2 in the top 40 because it spends a lot more on research. Australia would do better in the SHJT if more than just ANU was being funded specially for research. Sydney, Queensland and West Australia were in the top 150, which is not a bad result and New South Wales is in the top 200, Adelaide and Monash were in the top 300 as is Macquarie I think. So it’s 9 in the top 300, which is reasonably good but there’s none in the top 50, which is not good. Australia is not there yet in being regarded a serious research power. In the THES rankings, Australian universities did extremely well because the survey vastly favours those countries which use the Times, know the Times and tend to return the surveys in higher than average numbers and Australia is one of those and because Australia’s International education sector is heavily promoted and because Australia has a lot of international students, which pushes its position up in the Internationalisation indicator. So Australia comes out scoring well in the THES rankings, having 11 universities in the top 100 and that’s just absurd when you look at the actual strengths of Australian universities and even their reputation worldwide, and they’re not strong in the same sense overall as research-based institutions. I’d say the same for British universities too – I mean they did too well. I mean University College London (UCL) this year is 9th in the ranking and stellar institutions like Stanford and University of California Berkeley were 19th and 22nd — this doesn’t make any sense and it’s a ludicrous result.
Q: It is widely acknowledged that in the higher education sector the keys to global competition are research performance and reputation. Do you think the rankings capture these aspects competently?
A: Well, I think the SHJT is not bad with research performance. There’s a lot of ways you can do this and I think using Nobel Prize is not really a good indicator because while the people who receive the prize in the Science and Economics are usually good people; someone said people who are just as good just never receive a prize – you know, because it’s submission-based and it’s all very open; it’s arguable as to whether it’s pure merit. I mean anyone who gets a prize has merit but it doesn’t mean it’s the highest merit of anyone possible that year. Given that the Nobel counts towards 30% of the total, I think it’s probably a little exaggerated in its impact. So I’d take that out and I’ll use something like the citation per head measure, which also appears in the THES rankings actually using similar data but which can be done with the SHJT database as well. But there are a lot of problems – one of the issues is the fact that for some disciplines, for example, cite more than others. Medicine cites much more heavily than engineering so that a university strong in medicine tends to look rather good in the Jiao Tong indicators compared to universities strong in engineering and many of the Chinese and universities in Singapore and Australia too are particularly strong in engineering so that doesn’t help them. But once you start to manipulate the data, you’re on a bit of a slippery slope downwards because there are many other ways you can do it. I think the best measures are probably those developed by Leiden University citation where they control for the size of the university and they control for the disciplines. They don’t take it any further than that and they are very careful and transparent when they do that. So that’s probably the best single set of research outcomes measures but there are always arguments both ways when you’re trying to create a level playing field and recognising true merit. The Times doesn’t measure reputation well when you have a survey with a 1% return rate and which is biased towards 4 or 5 countries and under-represents most of the others. That’s not a good way to measure reputation so we don’t know reputation from the point of view of the world, as the THES are basically UK university rankings.
Q: What kinds of methodological criticisms would you have against the SHJT in comparison to the THES?
A: I don’t think there’s anything that the THES does better; except that the SHJT uses the citation per head measure which is probably a good idea. The SHJT uses a per head measure of research performance as a whole which is probably a less valuable way to take into account size but I think the way Leiden does it is better than either in terms of size measure. That’s the only thing the THES does better and everything else the THES does a good deal worse so I wouldn’t want to implicate the THES in any circumstances. The other problem with the Times is the composite indicator — how do you equate student-staff ratio which is meant to be measured with teaching capacity? How can you give that 20% to research and 20% to reputation? What does that mean? Why? Why not give teaching 50%, why not give research 50%? I mean it’s so arbitrary. There’s no theory at the base of this. It’s just people sitting in a market research company and Times office, guessing about how to best manipulate the sector. The Social Science should be very critical of this kind of thing, regardless of how well or how badly the university is doing.
Q: In your opinion, have these global university rankings gained the trust or the confidence of mainstream public and policy credibility?
A: They’ll always get publicity if they come from apparently authoritative sources and they appear to cover the world. So it’s possible, as with the Times, to develop a bad ranking and get a lot of credibility but the Times now has lost a good deal of ground and the reason why it’s losing credibility, first in the informed circles like Social Science, then with the policy makers, then with the public and the media. And it’s results are so volatile and universities get treated so harshly by going up and down so fast when their performance is not changing. So everyone is now beginning to realize that there is no real relationship between the merit and the university and the outcome of the ranking. And once that happens, the ranking has no ground – it’s gone, it’s finished; and that’s what’s happening to the Times. I mean it will keep coming out for a bit longer but it might stop altogether because its credibility is really reducing now.
Q: To what extent do university rankings help intensify global competition for HiCi researchers or getting international doctoral students or the best postgraduate students?
A: I think the Jiao Tong has had a big impact in focusing attention on the number of countries in getting universities into the top 100 or even the top 500 for that matter (and in some countries the top 50 or top 20) and that is leading in some nations, you could name China and Germany for example, as places where the concentration of research investment is occurring to try to boost the position on individual universities and even disciplines because Jiao Tong also measures mean in 5 discipline areas as well, as does the Times. I think that kind of policy effect will continue and certainly by having a one world ranking, which is incredible such as the Jiao Tong, will help intensify global competition and lead everyone to see the world in terms of a single competition in higher education, particularly in research performance, which focuses attention on the high quality of researchers who comprise most of the research performers. I mean, studies show that 2-5% of researchers in most countries produce more than half of the outcomes in terms of publications and grants. Having this is helpful and it’s a good circumstance.
Q: Do you have any further comments on the issue of whether university rankings are on the right track? What’s your prediction for the future?
A: I think bad rankings tend to undermine themselves over time because their results are not credible. Good ranking systems are open to refinement and improvement and they tend to get stronger, and that’s exactly the case with the Jiao Tong. I think the next frontier with the rankings is the measurement of teaching performance and student quality. The added point of exit — whether it’s done as an evaluated thing or just as a once-off measure. The OECD is in the early stages of developing internationally comparable indicators of student competence – it might use just competency tests like problem solving skills, it may use discipline-based tests in areas like Physics which are common to many countries. It’s more difficult to use disciplines but on the other hand if you just use skills without knowledge, it’s also limited and perhaps open to question. The OECD has got many steps and problems in trying to do this and there are questions as to how this can be done — whether it’s within the frame of the institution or whether through national systems. There are many other questions about this and the technical problems are considerable just to get cross-country measures which are similar but this may well happen when you have ranking capacity on the basis of student outcomes, probably becomes more powerful than research performance in some ways; at least in terms of the international market. I mean research performance probably distinguishes universities from institutions and gives them prestige but teaching outcomes are also important. Once you can measure and establish comparability across countries and measure teaching outcomes that way, then it could be a new world.
End
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Q: What is your overall first impression of the 2007 university rankings?
A: The Shanghai Jiao Tong (SHJT) rankings came out first and the ranking is largely valid. The outcome shows a domination of the large size based universities in the Western world, principally English-speaking countries and principally the US. There are no surprises in that when you look at the fact that the US spends seven times as much on higher education as the next nation, which is Japan, and that is seven times as much as a very big advantage in a competitive sense. The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) rankings are not valid, in my view, I mean you have a survey which gets 1% return, is biased to certain countries and so on. The outcome tends to show that similar kinds of universities do well as in the top 50 anyway as in the SHJT because research-strong universities also have strong reputations and that shows up strongly in the THES, but the Times one is more plural with major universities in a number of countries (the oldest, largest, and best established universities in a number of countries) appear in the top 100 who aren’t strong enough in research terms to appear in the SHJT. But I don’t put any real value on the Times results – they go up and down very fast. Institutions that are in the top 100 then disappearing from the top 200 two years later, like Universiti Malaya did. It doesn’t mean too much.
Q: In both global university rankings, UK and US universities still dominate the top ten places. What’s your comment on this?
A: Well, it’s predictable that they would dominate in terms of a research measure because they have the largest concentration of research power – publications in English language journals, which mostly are edited from these countries and to their scholars in numbers. The Times is partly driven by research (only 1/5 of it is) and partly driven by the number of international students that people have – they tend to go to the UK and Australia more than they go to US but they tend to be in English-speaking countries as well. At times one half (50%) is determined by reputation as they’re reputational surveys at which one is 40% and the other is 10%. Now, reputation tends to follow established prestige and the English language, where the universities have the prestige as well. But the other factor is that the reputational surveys are biased in favour of countries which use the Times, read the Times and know the Times (usually in the British Empire) so it tends to be UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong that put in a lot of survey returns whereas the Europeans don’t put in many; and many other Asian countries don’t put in many. So, that’s another reason why the English universities would do well. In fact the English universities do very well in the Times rankings – much better than they should really, considering their research strengths.
Q: What’s your comment on how most Asian universities performed in this year’s rankings?
A: Look, I think the SHJT is the one to watch because that gives you realistic measures of performance. The problem with SHJT is it tends to be a bit delayed – so that there’s a delay between the time you performed and the time it shows up in the rankings because the citation and publication measures are operating off the second half of the 90s; in the HiCis, Thomson HiCis count used by SHJT. So when the first half of the 2000 starts to show up, you’re going to see the National University of Singapore go up from the top 200 into the top 100 pretty fast. You will expect the Chinese universities will follow as well, a bit slower, so that Tsinghua and Peking Uni, Fudan, and Jiao Tong itself will move towards the top 200 and top 100 over time because they are really building up to many strengths. That would be a useful trend line to follow. Korean universities are also going to improve markedly in the rankings over time, with Seoul National leading the way. Japan’s already a major presence in the rankings of course. I wouldn’t expect any other Asian country, at this point, to start to show up strongly. It’s not the reason why the Malaysian universities should suddenly move up the research ranking table when they are not investing any more in research than they were before. It will be a long time before Malaysia starts creating an impact in the SHJT because if those China policy tomorrow requires universities to build on their basic research strengths which will involve sending selected people off abroad all the time for PhDs, establishing enough strengths in USM, UKM and UM and a couple more for major research bases at home and to have the capacity to train people at PhD level at home and so on, and be performing a lot of basic research. To do that you have to pay competitive salaries, you got to (like Singapore does) bring people back who might otherwise want to work in the US or UK…and that means paying something like UK salaries or if not, American ones. Then you’ll settle them down, and it’ll take them 5 years before they do their best output. Malaysia is perhaps better at marketing than it is with research performance because it has an International Education sector and because the government is quite active in promoting the university sector offshore and that’s good and that’s how it should be.
Q: What about the performance of Australian universities?
A: They performed as they should in the SHJT, which is to say we got 2 in the top 100. That’s not very good in the sense that when you look at Canada which is a country which is only slightly wealthier and about 2% bigger and a similar kind of culture and quality and it does much better. I mean it has 2 in the top 40 because it spends a lot more on research. Australia would do better in the SHJT if more than just ANU was being funded specially for research. Sydney, Queensland and West Australia were in the top 150, which is not a bad result and New South Wales is in the top 200, Adelaide and Monash were in the top 300 as is Macquarie I think. So it’s 9 in the top 300, which is reasonably good but there’s none in the top 50, which is not good. Australia is not there yet in being regarded a serious research power. In the THES rankings, Australian universities did extremely well because the survey vastly favours those countries which use the Times, know the Times and tend to return the surveys in higher than average numbers and Australia is one of those and because Australia’s International education sector is heavily promoted and because Australia has a lot of international students, which pushes its position up in the Internationalisation indicator. So Australia comes out scoring well in the THES rankings, having 11 universities in the top 100 and that’s just absurd when you look at the actual strengths of Australian universities and even their reputation worldwide, and they’re not strong in the same sense overall as research-based institutions. I’d say the same for British universities too – I mean they did too well. I mean University College London (UCL) this year is 9th in the ranking and stellar institutions like Stanford and University of California Berkeley were 19th and 22nd — this doesn’t make any sense and it’s a ludicrous result.
Q: It is widely acknowledged that in the higher education sector the keys to global competition are research performance and reputation. Do you think the rankings capture these aspects competently?
A: Well, I think the SHJT is not bad with research performance. There’s a lot of ways you can do this and I think using Nobel Prize is not really a good indicator because while the people who receive the prize in the Science and Economics are usually good people; someone said people who are just as good just never receive a prize – you know, because it’s submission-based and it’s all very open; it’s arguable as to whether it’s pure merit. I mean anyone who gets a prize has merit but it doesn’t mean it’s the highest merit of anyone possible that year. Given that the Nobel counts towards 30% of the total, I think it’s probably a little exaggerated in its impact. So I’d take that out and I’ll use something like the citation per head measure, which also appears in the THES rankings actually using similar data but which can be done with the SHJT database as well. But there are a lot of problems – one of the issues is the fact that for some disciplines, for example, cite more than others. Medicine cites much more heavily than engineering so that a university strong in medicine tends to look rather good in the Jiao Tong indicators compared to universities strong in engineering and many of the Chinese and universities in Singapore and Australia too are particularly strong in engineering so that doesn’t help them. But once you start to manipulate the data, you’re on a bit of a slippery slope downwards because there are many other ways you can do it. I think the best measures are probably those developed by Leiden University citation where they control for the size of the university and they control for the disciplines. They don’t take it any further than that and they are very careful and transparent when they do that. So that’s probably the best single set of research outcomes measures but there are always arguments both ways when you’re trying to create a level playing field and recognising true merit. The Times doesn’t measure reputation well when you have a survey with a 1% return rate and which is biased towards 4 or 5 countries and under-represents most of the others. That’s not a good way to measure reputation so we don’t know reputation from the point of view of the world, as the THES are basically UK university rankings.
Q: What kinds of methodological criticisms would you have against the SHJT in comparison to the THES?
A: I don’t think there’s anything that the THES does better; except that the SHJT uses the citation per head measure which is probably a good idea. The SHJT uses a per head measure of research performance as a whole which is probably a less valuable way to take into account size but I think the way Leiden does it is better than either in terms of size measure. That’s the only thing the THES does better and everything else the THES does a good deal worse so I wouldn’t want to implicate the THES in any circumstances. The other problem with the Times is the composite indicator — how do you equate student-staff ratio which is meant to be measured with teaching capacity? How can you give that 20% to research and 20% to reputation? What does that mean? Why? Why not give teaching 50%, why not give research 50%? I mean it’s so arbitrary. There’s no theory at the base of this. It’s just people sitting in a market research company and Times office, guessing about how to best manipulate the sector. The Social Science should be very critical of this kind of thing, regardless of how well or how badly the university is doing.
Q: In your opinion, have these global university rankings gained the trust or the confidence of mainstream public and policy credibility?
A: They’ll always get publicity if they come from apparently authoritative sources and they appear to cover the world. So it’s possible, as with the Times, to develop a bad ranking and get a lot of credibility but the Times now has lost a good deal of ground and the reason why it’s losing credibility, first in the informed circles like Social Science, then with the policy makers, then with the public and the media. And it’s results are so volatile and universities get treated so harshly by going up and down so fast when their performance is not changing. So everyone is now beginning to realize that there is no real relationship between the merit and the university and the outcome of the ranking. And once that happens, the ranking has no ground – it’s gone, it’s finished; and that’s what’s happening to the Times. I mean it will keep coming out for a bit longer but it might stop altogether because its credibility is really reducing now.
Q: To what extent do university rankings help intensify global competition for HiCi researchers or getting international doctoral students or the best postgraduate students?
A: I think the Jiao Tong has had a big impact in focusing attention on the number of countries in getting universities into the top 100 or even the top 500 for that matter (and in some countries the top 50 or top 20) and that is leading in some nations, you could name China and Germany for example, as places where the concentration of research investment is occurring to try to boost the position on individual universities and even disciplines because Jiao Tong also measures mean in 5 discipline areas as well, as does the Times. I think that kind of policy effect will continue and certainly by having a one world ranking, which is incredible such as the Jiao Tong, will help intensify global competition and lead everyone to see the world in terms of a single competition in higher education, particularly in research performance, which focuses attention on the high quality of researchers who comprise most of the research performers. I mean, studies show that 2-5% of researchers in most countries produce more than half of the outcomes in terms of publications and grants. Having this is helpful and it’s a good circumstance.
Q: Do you have any further comments on the issue of whether university rankings are on the right track? What’s your prediction for the future?
A: I think bad rankings tend to undermine themselves over time because their results are not credible. Good ranking systems are open to refinement and improvement and they tend to get stronger, and that’s exactly the case with the Jiao Tong. I think the next frontier with the rankings is the measurement of teaching performance and student quality. The added point of exit — whether it’s done as an evaluated thing or just as a once-off measure. The OECD is in the early stages of developing internationally comparable indicators of student competence – it might use just competency tests like problem solving skills, it may use discipline-based tests in areas like Physics which are common to many countries. It’s more difficult to use disciplines but on the other hand if you just use skills without knowledge, it’s also limited and perhaps open to question. The OECD has got many steps and problems in trying to do this and there are questions as to how this can be done — whether it’s within the frame of the institution or whether through national systems. There are many other questions about this and the technical problems are considerable just to get cross-country measures which are similar but this may well happen when you have ranking capacity on the basis of student outcomes, probably becomes more powerful than research performance in some ways; at least in terms of the international market. I mean research performance probably distinguishes universities from institutions and gives them prestige but teaching outcomes are also important. Once you can measure and establish comparability across countries and measure teaching outcomes that way, then it could be a new world.
End
Monday 22 February 2010
Asian Management: Challenges and Opportunities in Turbulent Times Macau, SAR, China, December 12-14, 2010
The Asia Academy of Management invites papers for its seventh conference on the theme of Challenges and
Opportunities in Turbulent Times. No leader in any company would deny that the first decade of the 21st century
has had its disproportionate share of turbulent times. Businesses s in Asia have been affected by, and responded,
to the heightened risks, that have accompanied Asia’s continued rise in prominence in the world economy.
As with the diversity across Asia nations in culture, society and economic systems, the effect of such challenges,
alongside managers’ responses to these challenges have been highly variant. It is now time to collectively reflect
on our experiences in these turbulent times and move forward with a development of an improved understanding
of the creative strategies that have been, and will be, developed to handle the challenges and capture the
opportunities in these turbulent times.
Given the variety in firm responses, Asian firms’ experiences and strategies in turbulent times can provide new
insights to the development and extension of core management theories. The Seventh Asia Academy of
Management conference will accordingly focus on how Asian managers should lead their organizations in an era
characterized by these unprecedented challenges. More specifically, issues related to the broad theme of the
conference include, but are not restricted to, the following:
• What are the major changes in the environment in Asia and in the world. What are the specific challenges
that Asian managers have had to confront in the first decade of the 21st century?
• How are Asian firms responding to the new sources of turbulences in the environment? What are the
changes in the strategies of Asian firms?
• How do Asian firms perceive the future environment in Asia and in the world?
• What have Asian managers learned from their experiences in these turbulent times? How can they move
their organizations forward? What are the obstacles and challenges in front of them in implementation?
• What are the characteristics that Asian leaders need to possess in this era? How should today’s Asian
leaders be different from those in the past? What are the new skills that need to be acquired and
developed?
• What are the changes that Asian firms need to make so that they can remain viable and competitive in
this era? What should managers do to implement these changes?
Opportunities in Turbulent Times. No leader in any company would deny that the first decade of the 21st century
has had its disproportionate share of turbulent times. Businesses s in Asia have been affected by, and responded,
to the heightened risks, that have accompanied Asia’s continued rise in prominence in the world economy.
As with the diversity across Asia nations in culture, society and economic systems, the effect of such challenges,
alongside managers’ responses to these challenges have been highly variant. It is now time to collectively reflect
on our experiences in these turbulent times and move forward with a development of an improved understanding
of the creative strategies that have been, and will be, developed to handle the challenges and capture the
opportunities in these turbulent times.
Given the variety in firm responses, Asian firms’ experiences and strategies in turbulent times can provide new
insights to the development and extension of core management theories. The Seventh Asia Academy of
Management conference will accordingly focus on how Asian managers should lead their organizations in an era
characterized by these unprecedented challenges. More specifically, issues related to the broad theme of the
conference include, but are not restricted to, the following:
• What are the major changes in the environment in Asia and in the world. What are the specific challenges
that Asian managers have had to confront in the first decade of the 21st century?
• How are Asian firms responding to the new sources of turbulences in the environment? What are the
changes in the strategies of Asian firms?
• How do Asian firms perceive the future environment in Asia and in the world?
• What have Asian managers learned from their experiences in these turbulent times? How can they move
their organizations forward? What are the obstacles and challenges in front of them in implementation?
• What are the characteristics that Asian leaders need to possess in this era? How should today’s Asian
leaders be different from those in the past? What are the new skills that need to be acquired and
developed?
• What are the changes that Asian firms need to make so that they can remain viable and competitive in
this era? What should managers do to implement these changes?
Wednesday 27 January 2010
Human Resource Development and the Emerging Needs of the World
This is the last paper from ICBME conference and some key points that I learnt from this presentation include:
1)The scope of HRD: from 72-95 there is no agreement of the definition of HRD. Scope is limited to organisational context, not the HRD in the societal context. HRD challenges include national environment, organisational factors, professional environment (i.e. emphasis on stakeholders, emphasis on strategic planning), global environment (leadership, technological change).
2) Comparison of traditional and modern HRD: limited to organisation VS. extension beyond that boundaries. Modent HRD is flexible to encompass multiple theories from multi-disciplines. Modern views are more into the critical perspectives of HRD (pragmatism).
3) HRD and its link to knowledge, skills and capabilities of individuals should be emphasised in the modern world.
1)The scope of HRD: from 72-95 there is no agreement of the definition of HRD. Scope is limited to organisational context, not the HRD in the societal context. HRD challenges include national environment, organisational factors, professional environment (i.e. emphasis on stakeholders, emphasis on strategic planning), global environment (leadership, technological change).
2) Comparison of traditional and modern HRD: limited to organisation VS. extension beyond that boundaries. Modent HRD is flexible to encompass multiple theories from multi-disciplines. Modern views are more into the critical perspectives of HRD (pragmatism).
3) HRD and its link to knowledge, skills and capabilities of individuals should be emphasised in the modern world.
Tuesday 26 January 2010
Live from the ICBME Conference
I am attending an International conference on Business and Management Education in Bangkok. The paper that I am listening to (while I'm writing thins blog) is culture and leadership. The presenter identifies Long-Term Orientation (LTO) and tried to identify the concept of perseverance as a consistent effort to achieve goal and business culture in East Asia. He said that Chinese business look at long-term prospect of business and it plays an important role in goal-setting in the Chinese business context. Connection in the sense of relationship and thrift were compared in this paper. Very interesting to listen to the dimensions of LTO (thrift, connection and perseverance).
In terms of power structure, he discussed power asymmetry or the interdependency among business partners (i.e. suppliers and manufacturer). His pointed is in global business, big manufacturers such as P&G and WALMART seem to hold power over their suppliers and influence the pattern of global business and consumption.
In terms of power structure, he discussed power asymmetry or the interdependency among business partners (i.e. suppliers and manufacturer). His pointed is in global business, big manufacturers such as P&G and WALMART seem to hold power over their suppliers and influence the pattern of global business and consumption.
Sunday 17 January 2010
New way to think 'Curriculum' in business education
Existing curricula and accompanying forms of pedagogy and assessment based on rigid borders and hierarchies between forms of knowledge, formal and informal learning spaces, individual and group identities, ages and stages of learning and between educators and learners seem increasingly outmoded in the global era. At the same time new spaces and possibilities have emerged for a creative re-imagining of what counts as relevant knowledge and of teaching and learning. Curricula must enable learners to participate in an increasingly and irreversibly global economy where new technologies have transformed the nature, speed and scale of production and exchange. They must also produce the capabilities to support sustainable livelihoods in a context where economic crisis has precipitated the production and reproduction of inequality along the lines of race, ethnicity, class and gender. At a political level the development of global and regional blocs and changes in the role of the nation state and of decentralization and localization have implications for how citizenship is defined and taught and for the politics and processes of curriculum reform.
Cultural globalization has also involved contradictory processes. On the one hand Western forms of culture and knowledge have assumed hegemonic status whilst on the other non-western, including indigenous and fundamental religious identities, have re-asserted themselves. Mass migrations have broken old associations between place and identity and created new, hybridized ethnicities and forms of difference. Curricula must empower learners to assess the relevance of different forms of knowledge, to negotiate new borders of group and individual identity and to understand and engage with diversity
Thursday 14 January 2010
International Business Conference
I am off to attend an International Business Education conference in Bangkok next week. In fact, the conference looks like an integration of business management and business education conference. What I expect most from this conference is to listen to the keynote speaker, Dr. Evangelos Afendras from AIT, who will deliver a speech on Phronesis and the redesign of MBAs. The conference will be held at Asian Institute of Technology and the paper that I will present is from my previous project. This is the link to my paper.
When I come back from Thailand, I will share with you the conference stories as usual.
When I come back from Thailand, I will share with you the conference stories as usual.
Tuesday 5 January 2010
Border
Impressive strands of research have convincingly shown, over the last decades, the emergent reality of increasing world-level interconnection in almost every field of social action. Corresponding theories, models and research designs, however, while conceptualizing this new reality in terms of incessant processes of the diffusion of specifically “modern” (i.e. mainly “Western”) models, policies and organizational patterns, and of the growing harmonization and standardization of fields of social action along “world-cultural” lines, have not gone unchallenged. Rather, cross-cultural studies and alternative social theorizing have pointed to much more complex developments of regional fragmentation, regionalization, and (re-) diversification; of multiple forms of adoption, transformation and hybridization of world-level models and ideas; and of the impact of specifically cultural – i.e. mental, semantic, religious etc. – cleavage or “border” lines. Thus, “multiple modernities”, “entangled histories”, social-cultural hybridization, and “culture-specific world of meaning” repeatedly raise the issue of identifying theories that allow one to systematically analyze, and explain, the intricate interaction of global processes with local agency, or of world-level forces with the self-evolutionary patterns of culture-specific meaning.
Friday 1 January 2010
Border and Space in Education (the Theme for 2010 World Congress Comparative Education Conference)
‘Border’ is a key concept for analyzing the relationship between education and society at all levels. Borders can be national, regional, social or psychic; they can be fixed or shifting. Borders and ‘lines’ can be material (walls), psychological (in peoples’ minds) or metaphorical (the ‘glass ceiling’ for women’s careers). Discussions of borders are part of discussions of space, and of space-time.
‘Space’ can be absolute/concrete/fixed/measurable (rooms, properties, cities, territories) but also relative (flows and exchanges of energy, peoples, money and information in space and time); and relational (linked to how people operate together in or across these spaces). Space is something produced by human activity and in turn conditions it.
Educational space is where ‘difference’ is conceived, reproduced or contested. Our interests would be the linkages between material space (institutional buildings, camps), representations of space (maps and organizational charts as well as metaphors) and spaces of representation, (the lived or experienced space, our feelings and emotions, our senses of security or insecurity). Spaces are made in the living of our lives, and since they are always being made, the possibility remains for them to be made differently. ‘Border-crossers’, physically and psychologically, can defy or challenge structures, and can reclaim power or identity.
The production and control of space and borders is always tied up with questions of power and politics; and also with the production of inequality. Spaces and their uses can be classed, gendered, racialised, and sexualized. The production of space is also therefore linked to the production of identities, to spaces for assembly, or to keeping ‘others’ in their place, materially or symbolically – whether ‘members of the nation-state’, ‘believers’ or ‘the disabled’. Our educational concerns therefore link to inclusion and exclusion.
Reāļbordering is an aspect of globalization, and it is thought that all themes would have globalization as a backdrop if not a direct concern, and as an opportunity as well as a threat. There would be concerns about responsibility across and within borders (for climate change, arms trade, movements of peoples). But also the concerns are about borders in terms of social divisions, the invisible and visible lines between groups, and how education can challenge those borders which deny freedoms, rights and capabilities. Then, what are the educational spaces for contestation of inequality, for interruption?
‘Space’ can be absolute/concrete/fixed/measurable (rooms, properties, cities, territories) but also relative (flows and exchanges of energy, peoples, money and information in space and time); and relational (linked to how people operate together in or across these spaces). Space is something produced by human activity and in turn conditions it.
Educational space is where ‘difference’ is conceived, reproduced or contested. Our interests would be the linkages between material space (institutional buildings, camps), representations of space (maps and organizational charts as well as metaphors) and spaces of representation, (the lived or experienced space, our feelings and emotions, our senses of security or insecurity). Spaces are made in the living of our lives, and since they are always being made, the possibility remains for them to be made differently. ‘Border-crossers’, physically and psychologically, can defy or challenge structures, and can reclaim power or identity.
The production and control of space and borders is always tied up with questions of power and politics; and also with the production of inequality. Spaces and their uses can be classed, gendered, racialised, and sexualized. The production of space is also therefore linked to the production of identities, to spaces for assembly, or to keeping ‘others’ in their place, materially or symbolically – whether ‘members of the nation-state’, ‘believers’ or ‘the disabled’. Our educational concerns therefore link to inclusion and exclusion.
Reāļbordering is an aspect of globalization, and it is thought that all themes would have globalization as a backdrop if not a direct concern, and as an opportunity as well as a threat. There would be concerns about responsibility across and within borders (for climate change, arms trade, movements of peoples). But also the concerns are about borders in terms of social divisions, the invisible and visible lines between groups, and how education can challenge those borders which deny freedoms, rights and capabilities. Then, what are the educational spaces for contestation of inequality, for interruption?
New Business and New Way of Learning
2009 was a big year for me. As an academic, there was a huge demand from the university and students for us to redefine our concept of teaching and learning. We know we need to keep on 'improving' our way of teaching..how to do it?...this is a big question I kept asking myself.
I did a number of activities to find the best solution for the abovementioned question.Je ne sais quoi kepts on running in my head when I went to the class, conducting a couple of projects with my mates, or reading articles on this topic. I think it's a real complication for people like me to understand points I raise. I hope this year I might start to see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel.
I did a number of activities to find the best solution for the abovementioned question.Je ne sais quoi kepts on running in my head when I went to the class, conducting a couple of projects with my mates, or reading articles on this topic. I think it's a real complication for people like me to understand points I raise. I hope this year I might start to see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)