&-Finally, the spread of systems or models in contemporary global higher education bears a number of differences from that of the 18th and 19thcenturies, in which the export of higher education system was viewed in the context of colonization and imperialism. Not only is the cross-border influence of system and model a common feature of contemporary higher education, in which an education system of a country never exist in vacuum and is always influenced by education systems elsewhere, but it also takes place in a different global context.
The influences or spill-over effects of higher education in the form of policy copy or policy learning are considered as part of the convergence effects of globalization process and facilitated by international organizations such as UNESCO, World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO). Each country actively seeks out good practices and experiences in higher education elsewhere, which can be adapted and applied in its context. Even though such a phenomenon has mutual influences affecting every country, it appears that the American and European higher education systems dominate the contemporary global higher education (Altbach, 2007a). In effect, like its predecessor in the earlier centuries, the current global education transfer has fostered dependency, which its critics refer to neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism (Mok, 2007).
'$
environment" (Knight, 2007, p. 208). Since the impacts of globalization are inevitable and uneven, so is internationalization as a response by HEIs to the force of globalization (Altbach, 2007a; Knight, 2007; Marginson, 2007; Van der Wende, 2007). It is impossible for a higher education institution to exist in isolation in the 21st century and the success of its global engagement depends on numerous factors including resource base, strategy, and historical and cultural contexts. Marginson and Van der Wende (2007a) stresses the inevitability, uneven impacts, and successes of globalization and internationalization that,
globalization is FGLa single or universal phenomenon. It is nuanced according to locality (local area, nation, world region), language(s) of use, and academic cultures;
and it plays out very differently according to the type of institution. In a networked global environment in which every university is visible to every other, and the weight of the global dimension is increasing, it is no longer possible for nations or for individual higher education institutions to completely seal themselves off from global effects… Likewise, globalization does not take place on a level playing field. Nations and institutions bring varying capacities and agendas to global exchange. Cross-border flows between nations are not symmetrical. Nor is every national system engaged with every other to the same extent or intensity... Globalization can also vary according to policy, governance and management. Nations, and institutions, have space in which to pilot their own global engagement. But this self-determination operates within limits, that constrain some nations and institutions more than others, and complete abstention by national systems of higher education is no longer a strategic choice. (pp. 5-6) The increased importance of internationalization of higher education has been reflected in the increase of research study in the field and the shift of education policies, strategies, and activities associated with internationalization from a marginal to a central issue in contemporary higher education institutions (Kehm & Teichler, 2007). Moreover, the
'%
growing volume, scope, and complexity in internationalization have manifested in both traditional international elements of higher education such as student mobility and use of common language, and new emerging features of internationalization including new modes of educational delivery, academic programs, providers, etc. Furthermore, the increased complexity of internationalization is partly engendered by the tendency of linking internationalization with other aspects of higher education, leading to growing "fuzziness"
characterized by unclear demarcations of concept (Kehm & Teichler, 2007, p. 262). In effect, internationalization is increasingly multi-dimensional and multi-faceted.
In addition to the growing importance and complexity, the impacts of internationalization are so diffuse that they penetrate all levels of higher education from individual to supranational levels (Sanderson, 2008). At institutional level, internationalization has become an expanded mission for many universities around the globe, which have moved from marginal, ad hoc, and reactive manner to more centrally administered, strategically organized, and proactive stances toward internationalization process (Altbach et al., 2009). At supra-national level, various regional and global agencies, frameworks, and policies have been established to play active roles in higher education space. UNESCO, WTO/GATS, and the Bologna process are a few examples of these. Besides, the debate about internationalization in contemporary global higher education apparently reaches the saturation point and there is call for a shift from such saturate rhetoric to concrete actions taken by stakeholders at various levels (Tadaki & Tremewan, 2013). Concrete political forms of internationalization need to be established to benefit various educational stakeholders.
Contemporary internationalization of higher education has experienced both quantitative increase and qualitative transformation. Teichler (1999) calls the substantial qualitative change the "quantum leaps" (p. 9). According to Teichler (1999), there are three quantum leaps in internationalization of higher education in Europe - the shift from a
'&
predominantly vertical pattern of academic cooperation and mobility toward that of equal terms, the move from casuistic action toward systematic and strategic policies of internationalization, and the transformation from disconnected specific international activities along with internationalization of the core activities toward an integrated internationalization of higher education. In light of these transformations, Teichler (1999, pp. 18-19) also develops a typology of national approaches toward internationalization, consisting of four types: (1)OGMD<: = AFL=JF9LAGF9DAR9LAGF, in which international collaboration is preferred but their HEIs face the problem of inequality in partnership; (2)DA>= GJ<=9L@AFL=JF9LAGF9DAR9LAGF, in which internationalization is indispensable; (3)LOG9J=F9K, in which their academics have the options of striving for either more national or more international visibility; and (4) AFL=JF9LAGF9DAR9LAGF : Q AEHGJL, in which internationalization mainly refers to hosting foreign students and publishing research in the languages of host countries.
Of various features of contemporary internationalization of higher education, inequality has been a central aspect of global higher education landscape. The European and North American universities, with their research prowess and reputation for excellence, are seen to be playing central roles in the global higher education system while non-European universities in the South are at the periphery of the system and play marginal roles (Altbach, 1998, 2007a, 2007b; Altbach et al., 2009). A number of factors are seen to contribute to this feature including history, academic tradition, language, etc. As a result, the institutions at the periphery are dependent on the European and American universities for knowledge and leadership. The European and American higher education models have influenced HEIs all over the world and this gives them certain advantages. Nevertheless, some non-European universities have made effort in gaining world-class university status and joining the world league of universities while some critics argue that HEIs in developing countries should focus on their local, national, and regional needs (S. W. Ng, 2012). Those academic institutions are
''
often confronting formidable challenges in adapting the foreign-imported education models to fit their diverse cultural contexts and to achieve their development goals. Apart from education models, inequality has also been observed in other international dimensions of higher education including both the traditional elements such as student and staff mobility and the new emerging initiatives like cross-border collaborative degree programs (Altbach, 2007a).
The mobility of international students, though a traditional element of international higher education, has undergone considerable changes. In addition to the exponentially increasing volume, the mobility of students and scholars is also characterized by inequality in nature. Globally, student mobility is a South-North phenomenon and consists of two main trends: Asian students entering degree programs in North America, Western Europe, Australia, and Japan; and the mobility of students within Europe (Altbach et al., 2009). Moreover, this international activity is becoming more commercialized. The cross-border movement of international students has become a profitable commercial business, in which the fee-paying international students are important sources of revenues for host countries and their institutions. Furthermore, the motivations driving the movement are becoming more diverse;
ranging from personal gains for international students, to revenue generation for host institutions and offsetting labor shortage for host countries, and to capacity building for the sending countries and their institutions. At individual level, some academic talents have been induced by push and pull factors to seek professional careers and even establish permanent residence in host countries, resulting in brain-drain and weakened academic institutions for developing countries (Altbach, 2007a).
Language also plays important role in internationalization of higher education, particularly the student mobility and inequality of the system. English has risen to be the dominant language of scientific communication (Altbach, 1998, 2007a, 2007b; Altbach et al., 2009). This has been reinforced by the fact that the majority of top universities, which
'(
produce the great bulk of knowledge and research, are in English-speaking countries. In addition, the internet and ICT have also strengthened the dominant role of English. As a result, key scientific and academic journals are published in English. The flow of international students entering Anglo-Saxon countries is proportionally high. For instance, three main Anglophone countries – the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia – receive about 70 percent of all the Asian students studying abroad while over 50 percent of international students study in the three countries and Canada (R. Hughes, 2008). The dominant role of English in the global higher education has placed non-English speaking countries and their HEIs at considerable disadvantages and exacerbated the existing global academic inequality.
Not only do they fail to attract the most brilliant and talented scholars; but also their knowledge, research, and educational values have been marginalized, and the prospects of mutual understanding and cultural diversity have diminished. To tackle this issue, many HEIs in non-English speaking countries have established various academic programs in English but doing so may bring other risks such as the threats to their national identity and cultural values.
Another element of internationalization of higher education which has experienced dramatic increase in higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world is international institutional partnership. It is no longer a choice but a key feature of contemporary global higher education (Altbach, 2007a; Chan, 2004). The uncertainty inherent in the globalization process and the severe global competition for fund and the talented resulted from the massification and marketization of higher education in recent decades are considered to be the main causes compelling various higher education institutions to form strategic alliances (Chan, 2004). In addition to the exponentially increasing volume, this dimension of internationalization has also witnessed considerable transformation in terms of selection criteria, forms of partnership and origins of universities involved in the partnership. The criteria for selecting institutional partners have currently shifted from pragmatic reasons to
')
geographical dimensions and shared values (Chan, 2004). Apart from international institutional agreements, universities around the world have actively entered various forms of partnership including franchising arrangements, double degree programs, twinning, and sandwich programs (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Furthermore, although the partnership is often arranged between universities from developed countries and those from developing world, partnerships among universities of same groups and regions are also on the rise. When partnerships between HEIs in Northern developed countries and those in Southern developing countries are formed, they are often unequal (Altbach, 2007; Habib, 2012). HEIs in developed countries with their superior resources, technology and methodological tools often dictate their pre-determined agendas and goals into the partnership agreements and process while universities in developing countries play passive and dependent roles.
%FL=JF9LAGF9DAR9LAGF 9F<L@=, M: DA;, JAN9L= #GG<K =: 9L=G>$ A?@=J! <M;9LAGF A transforming feature of higher education affecting internationalization is the tendency of treating higher education as private goods rather than public goods. Traditionally, higher education has been viewed as public goods. In this perspective, higher education benefits both society and individuals; therefore, society has responsibility to fund and manage higher education. Nevertheless, the emerging dominance of neoliberal ideology argument, which advocates the larger roles of market to replace government in the provision of services, combined with public financial constraints have affected various social sectors including higher education (Altbach et al., 2009). Severely affected by the budget cut from their respective governments, universities around the world, especially in the developed Anglophone countries with their education models of marketable values and with the advantage of English as lingua franca, have vigorously engaged in revenue-generating activities including charging full tuition fees from local students, recruiting fee-paying foreign students, and establishing offshore commercial branch campuses and academic programs.
'*
The public-private goods debate of higher education has continued as critics of the private goods argument have pointed out various qualities of higher education, which fall under the criteria of public goods. Those qualities include the externalities of knowledge and research with significant contribution to human society and community (Marginson, 2010, 2011). In addition, according to this argument, treating higher education as private goods may negatively affect such core functions of university as teaching, learning, basic research, and community services due to the inherent negative features of market model such as severed social inequality and restricted access to public knowledge. In cross-border global higher education, there are concerns about quality assurance, increase of foreign ‘diploma mills,’ and consumer protection (Marginson, 2010, 2011). Moreover, the emerging trend of treating higher education as private goods or commodities could lead to the commercialization and commodification of higher education (Altbach, 2007b).
Despite the on-going public-private goods debate of higher education, it appears that the private goods argument has increasingly dominated contemporary higher education policy and practices and this dominance appears to continue into the foreseeable future. This foresight is reflected in the current tendency of developed countries with well-established higher education systems in regarding international higher education as potential sources of revenues for their institutions and economies. For instance, foreign students and education exports have become an important source of substantial income for Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) and economy while the Australian government is active and strategic in promoting this service industry (Marginson & McBurnie, 2004). The tendency of treating higher education as private goods has coincided with the growing trend toward supra-national policy development in higher education (Watson, 2009), engendering the inclusion of higher education into such international trade agreements as the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
'+
The integration of higher education into international trade framework embedded in WTO/GATS exemplifies the subjugation of politics and ideology by the market-driven policy in contemporary global higher education. In Altbach’s terms, the global higher education can be described as "an academic world fraught with inequalities in which market and commercial forces increasingly dominate" (2007a, p. 138). Although the WTO/GATS framework is initially designed to protect the sellers and providers, largely the Western developed countries; developing countries will be compelled into membership through induced perceived benefits obtained from participating in the agreement (Altbach, 2007a). Therefore, their participation in the global framework of commerce and exchange in higher education may bring certain risks for them including the loss of intellectual and cultural autonomy, leading to a new form of neocolonialism. The framework will significantly impact the commercial cross-border education; whether it will bring benefits to all stakeholders as the proponents of this agreement have claimed or contain shortcomings as its critics have warned (Altbach, 2007a; Knight, 2002, 2008; Marginson, 2008, 2011). Nevertheless, despite the rise of economic or commercial aspects of globalization emphasizing the market model and competition in higher education, a survey of existing literature indicates that the paradigm of cooperative internationalization focusing on academic and socio-cultural aspects of higher education remains vigorous (Kehm & Teichler, 2007).
In addition to the dominance of neoliberal ideology underlying the market force in the global higher education, there are also increased influences on the core activities in higher education from the ‘periphery’ including supranational organizations, national authorities, and institutional management (Kehm & Teichler, 2007). These ‘periphery’ actors are becoming influential because they are important sources of fund for research conducted in this field of study. Nevertheless, more attention is called for such core areas of higher education as teaching, learning and research as well as the key education stakeholders including students
',
and faculty. This is because teaching and research are the core functions of HEIs and internationalization takes place at various levels ranging from individual level to institutional and faculty/department levels and to regional and global levels (Sanderson, 2008). The importance of internationalization at individual and institutional levels is based on the fact that the real process of internationalization takes place at these levels although the national or sector levels may exercise greater influences on international programs/activities through their funding and regulatory frameworks (Knight, 2004). In addition, it is the students who are often the intended beneficiary of internationalization activities.
The literature in the field of internationalization also suggests a variety of terms and components of the intended outcome of internationalization for the students. Global perspectives, global citizenry and intercultural competency are just a few examples of the terms used to refer to particular knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes acquired by the students participating in internationalization programs/activities in order to function successfully in multi-cultural environment of the globalized world (Deardorff, 2006; Gacel-Ávila, 2005; Lunn, 2008). In addition to the global citizenry and intercultural competence, there are a number of other related terms and concepts developed by scholars in the field to refer to the expected benefits of internationalization at individual level, including global competence, intercultural sensitivity, and intercultural effectiveness (Hunter, White, &
Godbey, 2006; Olson & Kroeger, 2001; Stone, 2006).
! E=J?AF?"=9LMJ=K G> GFL=EHGJ9JQ %FL=JF9LAGF9DAR9LAGF
In addition to such traditional domains of internationalization as mobility of scholars and use of common languages, contemporary internationalization of higher education has witnessed the increasing volume and types of academic mobility. Not only students and scholars but also academic programs and providers move across borders (Knight, 2002).
'-According to Knight (2002), there are four types of border academic mobility: (1) cross-border mobility of educational services as in the form of distance education; (2) traditional student mobility; (3) cross-border movement of institutions providing educational services;
and (4) cross-border mobility of people providing educational services such as professors and researchers. Having categorized as cross-border supply, consumption abroad, commercial presence, and presence of natural persons respectively; the four modes of cross-border academic mobility have been included in the negotiation of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). In Asia-Pacific region, nations could be classified in terms of cross-border education into five groups: (1) developed exporter nations with a strong domestic capacity and a minor role as importers of education including Australia and New Zealand; (2) developed nations with a strong domestic capacity but active as importers, particularly of English-language education, including Japan and Korea; (3) developed or intermediate nations with inadequate domestic capacity, active as both importers and exporters, including Singapore, Taiwan, and Malaysia; (4) intermediate nations with inadequate domestic capacity, active as importers while relatively underdeveloped as exporters, including China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc.; and (5) relatively undeveloped nations, characterized by both low domestic participation and weak demand for cross-border education, including Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar (Marginson & McBurnie, 2004).
The past decades have seen an emergence of new types of providers, forms of delivery, and arrangements of collaborative partnership. New higher education providers such as commercial IT and media companies, corporate universities, and professional associations have all involved in educational provision using face-to-face and virtual modes through various collaborative arrangements such as twinning, franchising, articulation, validation, and joint or double degree arrangements (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Kim, 2002; Knight, 2008).
Some providers establish physical presence through branch campuses, independent
($
institutions, and acquisitions or mergers with local institutions of higher education; while others are virtual. The exponentially increasing opportunities for distance and cross-border education are made possible by the continuing breakthroughs in information and communication technology.
Furthermore, internationalization of higher education has recently extended well beyond forms into contents of educational activities and profoundly affects the core activities of universities including teaching, learning and research (Altbach et al., 2009). The force of globalization has selective effects on higher education activities by privileging particular fields of study and skills while marginalizing the others. For instance, key areas such as technology and life sciences have gained more focus and higher priority as a result of the rising demand of global knowledge society. Particularly, American-style Master of Business Administration (MBA) degrees have become more popular across the globe and have been offered in many countries. Such skills as effective communication, critical thinking, problem solving, and teamwork are considered valuable for all students including those in the non-European and non-Anglophone contexts. Furthermore, research is valued over teaching and learning, and it has become a key criterion in gaining prestige and reputation in the global ranking systems. As a result, most of the top universities in the world are comprehensive research universities.
An emerging key feature of internationalization of higher education in the 21stcentury, which is closely enmeshed with other dimensions of higher education and provides a prime example of how universities no longer operate in vacuum, is global university ranking system, in which universities are constantly compared with others using particular sets of criteria.
University ranking is an issue of both applause and criticism; nonetheless, it is increasingly becoming an important issue in international higher education (Altbach et al., 2009; Ishikawa, 2009; Marginson & Van der Wende, 2007b). Because global university ranking can influence
(%
the decision making of talented academics and governments, it is costly for HEIs to ignore their standings in the global university ranking. Therefore, many universities, especially the internationally-oriented ones including non-Western and non-Anglophone universities, set up various strategies along with committed resources to gain prestige and reputation through improving their positions in the global ranking systems. In effect, the global university ranking systems have stimulated intra-national and inter-national competition in higher education sector. Two known international ranking systems are the Academic Ranking of World University of Shanghai Jiao Tong University and- /0AE=K $ A?@=J! <M;9LAGFranking.
These rankings are, nonetheless, criticized for their methodological flaws, which often favor large comprehensive research-intensive universities, universities with strong sciences, and universities that use English as medium of instruction and language of research (Ishikawa, 2009; Marginson & Van der Wende, 2007b). Therefore, there is an appeal for improved methodology and enhanced transparency of the existing global ranking systems in order that they benefit all relevant stakeholders, especially the students.
Another important development of contemporary internationalization in the past decades is the emerging regional process of harmonization and integration of higher education.
This phenomenon has resulted from the growing trend toward supra-national policy development in higher education including regional qualification recognition, quality assurance, and student and staff mobility (Watson, 2009). The Bologna process drawing more than 40 European countries into a European higher education area is the most successful example of regional integration process of higher education (Altbach et al., 2009). Similar processes are also taking place in other regions including Africa, Latin America, and Asia though they are less concrete and successful. In Asia, a number of regional agencies and networks such as the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization - Regional Center for Higher Education (SEAMEO-RIHED) and ASEAN University Network (AUN) are
(&
working to promote regional identity, collaboration, student and scholar mobility, credit transfer system, and mutual quality assurance and standard recognition (Piniti, 2009;
Supachai, 2009). Nonetheless, despite the progress made, Asia faces numerous challenges in its harmonization process in the field of higher education including the perceived regional diversity and territorial conflicts.
Of All, the most recent development associated with internationalization of higher education has been the emergence of education hubs representing the third generation of cross-border activities, the mobility of students and scholars being the first generation and the movement of programs and providers the second generation (Knight, 2011). Defined as “a planned effort to build a critical mass of local and international actors strategically engaged in education, training, knowledge production, and innovation initiatives,” education hubs, according to Knight (2011, pp. 233-4), can be divided into three types depending on the rationales and nature of activities - student hub, skilled workforce hub, and knowledge/innovation hub. In 2010, a number of countries including Singapore, Malaysia, Special Administrative Zone of Hong Kong, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) seriously tried to establish themselves as education hubs with various drivers, approaches, and expectations. However, given that more countries claim to be education hubs while at the same time they are preoccupied with competition and global ranking, it is easy that the term ‘education hub’ slips from its intended meaning of a worthy innovation and risks becoming just a fad or a brand (Knight, 2011).
Looking into the future, it is hard to foresee the course of internationalization but a few scenarios have been made about the future development of internationalization. Marijk van der Wende (2007) constructs four scenarios for the future of internationalization of higher education in the member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). They are open networking, servicing local communities, new public
('
management, and higher education inc.; each of which has its own implications for higher education. In the first scenario of open networking, internationalization is furthered through intensive networking and deepened harmonization of higher education systems as the impacts of Bologna process expand beyond the region. In the second scenario of servicing local communities, there is growing skepticism about internationalization, leading to the contraction of international programs/activities and the focus on servicing the needs of local and regional communities. The scenario of new public management is driven by the shrinking budget as experienced by many developed countries. The new public management tools including financial incentives and increased accountability will be used by various national specialized higher education institutions to compete in foreign education markets for scarce financial resources. The last scenario is driven by trade liberation in education as manifested in WTO/GATS. In this scenario, HEIs will be engaged in international division of labor and in fierce global competition for talented academics and resources. Despite the neatly-laid scenarios above, the reality of possible future course of internationalization, according to Van der Wende (2007), may combine different elements from the above scenarios.