(*
competition. In addition, while internationalization focuses on diplomatic exchanges and international agencies; globalization is preoccupied with the world of internet, mass tourism and global popular culture.
(+
ladder while professional schools and postsecondary vocational schools have lower status and mixed quality. At the bottom of the hierarchical stratum emerge garage universities in response to the rapidly growing demand for higher education and as a result of the weak system of regulating higher education in developing countries. These for-profit universities are usually temporary and have low quality.
The roles of technological revolution on higher education in developing countries, particularly with regard to the expansion of access and modes of delivery, cannot be neglected.
The online courses and distance education made possible by the technological advancement in information and communication enable a large number of students, who otherwise would miss higher education opportunities, to enroll in various HEIs in developing countries.
Developing countries like Thailand and Turkey, for instance, see a large portion of their higher education students enrolling in their national open universities (Salmi, 2002). However, the technological application in higher education raises a number of issues for developing countries and their HEIs including the national government's abilities to oversee higher education and to finance the infrastructure investment (Salmi, 2002).
In Southeast Asia, the national governments have maintained relatively high interest and considerable control over higher education institutions, many of which concentrate on only teaching (Lee, 2007). The governments' interest and control in higher education, reflected in their customary practices of appointing rectors and vice rectors to their public HEIs, result from the anticipated multiple roles of those HEIs such as producing future leaders and bureaucracy and preserving cultural tradition. Despite the important roles of HEIs as expected by their respective governments, many of the universities in the region are hardly involved in research activities due to the lack of facility and resources and the lack of necessary skills and experiences on part of the faculty, who devote most of their time on teaching and engaging in other income-generating activities. Another problem in higher
(,
education in the region is the mismatch between market needs and the output of higher education provision, resulting in unemployment and brain-drain (Lee, 2007). Although developing countries differ considerably in terms of strength and weakness, there are a number of common issues plaguing their higher education, including chronic under-funding, under-qualified and poorly rewarded faculty, poorly taught students, outdated curriculum, over-crowded classes, and under-resourced facilities (World Bank, 2000).
The problems are exacerbated by the explosive demand for higher education, resulting in an overstretched expansion of access. Driven by the increasing public demand for higher education as a result of the remarkable achievement in elementary and secondary education in the past decades, contemporary higher education in developing countries is pressured to expand access to include a wider cohort of students. At the same time, higher education in developing countries is also compelled by their society and governments to achieve equity and maintain quality while its funding base is dwindling partly because of the competing priorities in other sectors (Chapman & Austin, 2002). Due to the chronic under-funding, universities in developing countries are poorly equipped; their faculties are under-paid; and there is often lack of basic necessity including electricity, internet, and communication services (Bloom & Rosovsky, 2007). As a result, the expanded access and equity often take place at the expense of the quality of higher education.
Higher education institutions including the flagship universities in developing countries are staffed by under-qualified faculty and populated by incapable students. The rigid incentive schemes at HEIs discourage the talented from seeking academic positions while the small remuneration forces the faculty and staff to engage in moonlighting to supplement their modest salary (World Bank, 2000). The issue is worsened by the unproductive practices of corruption, nepotism, and politicization in recruitment process and promotion policy, all of which work to hinder the intellectual growth. In addition, that the students are recruited based
(-on criteria other than merits and the faculty and staff are not promoted based (-on their performance in teaching and research is a common feature in HEIs in developing countries.
Another common practice in the universities in developing countries is the simultaneous operation of informal fee-charging education programs along with formal public academic courses within the same universities. Facing the decreasing financial support from their governments and driven by the opportunities induced by a higher degree of autonomy, some public universities in developing countries run private classes to enroll fee-paying students along with regular public courses in order to generate revenues to alleviate their budget constraints and supplement the income of their faculty and staff. However, Chapman (2002), examining the case study of the National University of Laos, argues that such practice is sometimes counter-productive because the private fee-charging programs could distort the faculty and staff incentives and divert their attention from the regular public courses.
Therefore, such practice fails to strengthen the overall quality of education in the universities.
Another aspect of higher education in developing countries is the transformation of public/private relationship and their association with politicization, institutional autonomy, and academic freedom at HEIs. The past decades have seen the transformation of public/private partnership in higher education in developing countries (Chapman & Austin, 2002). The national governments gradually relinquish their financial control to the hands of their HEIs, which diversify their sources of financial supply including charging fees from students, resulting in the increasing trend of decentralization and privatization. Despite the increasing financial control, HEIs in developing countries continue to be heavily influenced by their respective governments who act to interfere in the organizational, managerial and academic work of the institutions. The political control of the national governments restrains the institutional autonomy and academic freedom, thereby hindering the research initiatives and intellectual growth at HEIs in developing countries (Lee, 2007; World Bank, 2000).
)$
%FL=JF9LAGF9DAR9LAGF AF =N=DGHAF? GMFLJA=K
Internationalization of higher education in developing countries is closely related to that of Western developed countries. For instance, the internationalization policy and strategy of developed countries and their higher education institutions (HEIs) in recruiting international students may have direct or indirect economic and academic impacts on developing countries and their HEIs. Similarly, the decisions taken by developing countries and their HEIs in hosting foreign campuses and academic programs may also influence the policies of developed countries and their HEIs, though not necessarily at the same extent. The relationship between the internationalization in Western developed countries and that of non-Western developing world is characterized by inequality and dependency. In other words, global higher education is unequal in that non-Western developing countries and their HEIs are dependent on their Western counterparts for education and leadership models (Altbach, 2007a; Altbach et al., 2009). Inequality and dependency are also manifested in other international aspects of higher education including the mobility of students, academic programs, and providers; language of research and science; production and distribution of knowledge; research publications, etc.
The uneven playing fields engendered by the historical development pattern of higher education have created formidable challenges for developing countries in modernizing and developing their higher education. The fact that universities in Western developed countries hold disproportional influence in setting international standards for scholarship, models of institutional management, and teaching and learning approaches because of their supremacy in resources, talents and language has placed universities in developing countries in disadvantageous positions (Altbach et al., 2009). As a result, higher education in small developing countries hardly enters into the global stage; their universities are barely present in the world university ranking or league tables, accounts for a tiny amount of the world’s
)%
research and knowledge, and are dominated by the global policy discourses, which often downplay the roles of indigenous knowledge and skills (Altbach et al., 2009).
Nonetheless, it appears that developing countries and their HEIs in Asia and other regions are making effort in playing more assertive roles in the area of internationalization of higher education. Many developing countries and their HEIs have moved from reactive to proactive stand toward cross-border higher education as some of them are increasingly assuming the role as sources of knowledge and human resources for other developing countries and even aiming at achieving world class status for their HEIs (Altbach et al., 2009;
Cross et al., 2011; P. T. Ng, 2011; Yang, 2011). Debates have been circulated among academics about the possibility of mainstreaming regional and local indigenous knowledge and academic values (Botha, 2010; S. W. Ng, 2012). These developments stem from the growing criticism and increased awareness about the risks of Western-dominated and neoliberal ideology-driven internationalization (Mok, 2007; Yang, 2003). However, despite the efforts, Western academic practices and values are apparently still predominant in the field of internationalization of higher education in the present and foreseeable future.
Internationalization of higher education in developing countries is increasing in both scope and depth. The motives driving internationalization in developing countries are educational, political and cultural. Particularly, capacity building is the key rationale for them in undertaking collaborative programs or activities with other countries including their former colonial masters (Altbach et al., 2009; Marginson & McBurnie, 2004). After gaining independence, newly independent states undertook massive effort in reconstructing their countries. Doing so requires all kinds of resources including human resources; therefore, students were sent by the national governments of developing countries to pursue higher education in developed countries, especially the Western European countries (Kuroda, 2007).
Currently, the cross-border mobility of students has seen a number of changes. There is a
)&
huge increase of privately-financed students; the individual and institutional motives driving this international dimension vary considerably and there are an increasing number of students moving within the same regions and among developing countries.
One associated risk of student mobility for developing countries is brain-drain. A number of push factors including limited resources and unfavorable political conditions in home countries and such pull factors as financial incentives and better prospects for career development in host countries and institutions are responsible for the migration of international scholars, whose talents and skills are in high demand in the global labor market, resulting in the loss of talent badly needed by developing countries to realize their development and modernization goals (Altbach, 2007a; Altbach et al., 2009; De Wit, 2008a).
The pattern of brain-drain for developing countries, though still a critical challenge, has recently changed to some extent. Some academics who leave their home countries maintain contacts with colleagues in their countries of origin through research collaboration and other joint academic activities. Some of them even return to their home countries when political, professional, and academic environment has improved. The terms ‘brain-drain,’ ‘brain gain,’
‘brain train,’ ‘brain circulation,’ and ‘brain exchange’ are used to indicate both the positive and negative consequences and the breadth and depth of complexity associated with this dimension of internationalization (Altbach et al., 2009; Marginson & McBurnie, 2004).
Regardless of the changes, brain-drain remains a serious challenge for many developing countries. Another form of brain-drain in developing countries is "camp-follower," in which the scholars in developing countries try to align their research effort toward the global mainstream research rather than focusing on local development priority (World Bank, 2000, p.
73). In addition to losing talented academics to other countries, higher education institutions in developing countries also suffer from internal brain-drain, which refers to the loss of
)'
brilliant faculty and staff to other local private firms, international organizations, and foreign agencies with more attractive incentives schemes (Bloom & Rosovsky, 2007; Ivié, 1991).
In the area of cross-border mobility of academic programs, developing countries mainly host programs from Western Anglophone countries. Some developing countries including Singapore invite well-known Western European providers to establish academic programs and campuses in their countries in order to serve their domestic markets as well as to attract international students in the regions and beyond (P. T. Ng, 2011); while some educational providers follow the market leads. Not all developing countries are active importers of academic programs; some small developing countries such as Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are characterized by both low domestic education and weak demand for cross-border education (Marginson & McBurnie, 2004). Meanwhile, some developing countries like Singapore and Malaysia are both active importers and exporters of educational programs;
they host foreign campuses and cross-border collaborative activities while exporting their academic programs to other developing countries (Daquila, 2013; Tham, 2013).
Although the mobility of academic programs and institutions provides many advantages for developing countries such as meeting the growing domestic demand for education and contributing to development of national higher education systems; there are a number of risks and challenges associated with this dimension of internationalization. One of the risks is the incompatibility between academic programs, which often follow the structures of the providers’ home countries, and the education systems, cultural norms, or labor market requirements of host countries (Altbach et al., 2009). Moreover, the increase of low-quality foreign education providers or ‘degree mills’ associated with this dimension of internationalization is worrisome for both developed and developing countries (Altbach &
Knight, 2007); nevertheless, the extent of damage done by foreign ‘degree mills’, which manage to elude the framework of quality standard and qualification of both home and host
)(
countries, can be immense for developing countries, in which the safeguard mechanism is relatively weak. In addition, cross-border internationalization programs have been used by some HEIs in developing countries to attract domestic students for commercial purposes. Of various forms of cross-border collaborative programs, franchising arrangements are often criticized of their dubious educational quality and values (Altbach, 2007a; Marginson &
McBurnie, 2004).
Developing countries and their HEIs are not equally dependent on their partner countries or institutions for education models, technology, methodology and resources; and the dependency in education policy and practice is sometimes fostered by international donors’
priority and policy. High-income developing countries such as Singapore and South Africa could manage to negotiate with their developed counterparts on relatively equal terms in forming partnership, while small developing countries like Cambodia and Laos could not (Chapman, 2002; Habib, 2012; Tan, 2010). In addition, in poor developing countries heavily relying on foreign development partners or agencies to fund their research, there are often disconnects or even conflicts between the local needs and interests and the donors’ priorities, which are often unpredictable and shifting (Altbach et al., 2009). As a result, the dependent relationship with and contradictory policy and priority of international development partners have trapped developing countries in poverty and stagnation for their education development.
In Asia and other regions, all contemporary universities are based on the European models and traditions and remains largely at the periphery of the unequal international knowledge system (Altbach, 1998, 2004). The European models of higher education were imposed in Asia during the colonization period or voluntarily imported by such countries as Japan and Thailand. Contemporary cross-border externalities or imports are important but not sufficient to constitute an effective strategy of capacity building in developing countries;
therefore, building national capacity, particularly building research capacity is the most
))
important factor for developing countries to improve their positions in the global landscape of higher education (Marginson, 2010; Marginson & McBurnie, 2004). In addition, the international education within nations of developing countries brings broader benefits than the privately funded offshore study. The benefits include expanded academic jobs, infrastructures, programs and administrative systems (Marginson & McBurnie, 2004). There is on-going debate among scholars about the establishment of Asian or other regional education models as alternatives to the dominant European models; but such arguments have not yet materialized.
In Asia, as one scholar put it, "no Asian country has currently established centers of excellence on its own academic system that are universally recognized or maintains a quality of higher learning that can exert academic influences at an international or global level"
(Huang, 2007, p. 431).
2.5 Philosophical, Theoretical and Ideological Foundations of Internationalization There are a number of ideals of international education exchange including cosmopolitan model, nation state university model, and regional integration model;
international understanding/international peace model; development policy/development aid policy; and international education market model (Kuroda, 2007). In the cosmopolitan model, universities are regarded as communities of universal knowledge and are open to all faculty members and students regardless of their backgrounds while the nation state university model aims primarily at serving national policy goals of the nation states. The regional integration model emphasizes internationalization and promotes educational integration in the regions.
In the international understanding/international peace model, the cross-border student and staff mobility is fueled by the peace building and international understanding motives. In the development policy/development aid policy model, sending students abroad and accepting foreign students are encouraged to access the knowledge, skills, technology and human
)*
resources needed for development and modernization of developing countries. Finally, there is an emerging trend of treating higher education as a tradable commodity and a source for generating revenues for higher educational institutions and their nations. Although the recent literature in the field of internationalization emphasizes the rise of international education market model and the shift from the former models to the latter in the context of intense globalization, “a complete substitution of the paradigm of cooperative internationalization by the paradigm of competitive globalization has not occurred” (Kehm & Teichler, 2007, p. 270).
Beside the above ideals of international education exchange, there are a number of theoretical foundations developed in an attempt to conceptualize the regional integration of higher education, including those deriving from neorealist and social structuralist perspectives, dependency theory of global knowledge system, and 'J-Mode' or 'Flying Geese Model' (Kuroda, 2009). According to the neorealist perspective, countries forming regional groups are bound by common threats from outside of the groups while, in the social structuralist perspective, countries establish regional groups because of their shared interests, values and identity. Another theoretical juxtaposition is between the dependency theory of global knowledge system, and the 'J-Model' or 'Flying Geese Model.' The dependency theory of global knowledge system describes the existing international system as hierarchy in which developing countries in the Southern periphery are dependent on developed countries in the Northern core for new knowledge production and dissemination. Meanwhile, an emerging theoretical foundation known as 'J-Model,' based on the application of economic development model of 'Flying Geese,' has been developed to explain the East Asian integration of higher education. In this model, states plays important role in education and the great achievement of the pioneer state, presumably Japan, prompts other states in the region to follow.
Besides, there are three ideological underpinnings of internationalization of higher education, namely idealism, instrumentalism, and educationalism; each of which influences
)+
the rationales, goals, approaches and strategies of internationalization and has its own areas of strengths and weaknesses (Stir, 2004). In the idealism, the goal of internationalization is to create a better moral world through addressing the issues of social injustice and inequality;
fostering mutual understanding, respect and tolerance; and preventing ethnocentrism, racism, and righteousness. This goal can be achieved through integrating international/intercultural/
global dimension into curriculum and pedagogical methods. However, the idealism can be criticized by its arrogance, victimization, and ethnocentrism (Stir, 2004).
The instrumentalism, on the other hand, emphasizes the pragmatic and economic roles of education. Higher education is seen as a commodity to be traded to "maximize profit, ensure economic growth, sustainable development, or to transmit desirable ideologies" of the national governments, transnational corporations, or supranational entities (Stir, 2004, p. 90).
Internationalizing higher education aims at increasing competitiveness in the global higher education, and attracting fee-paying international students and keeping the foreign talented to serve domestic labor market needs are considered by the instrumentalists as effective strategies to achieve their goals. However, the instrumentalism is blamed for its exploitative strategy resulting in the brain-drain and poverty trap for developing countries.
Finally, the educationalism places emphasis on the values of learning itself.
Internationalization in the form of student and staff exchange, according to this perspective, enriches the participants' educational and cultural experiences and contributes to their personal growth and self-actualization (Stir, 2004). Self-awareness and self-reflection along with intercultural competence are encouraged and cultivated to the beneficiary of internationalization, particularly the students. The educationalists, however, are criticized for the issue of academicentrism and the tendency to individualize social and global problems.