How does globalization interact with higher education?, Essays (university) of Culture and Globalization

Download How does globalization interact with higher education? and more Essays (university) Culture and Globalization in PDF only on Docsity! 1 REVIEW ESSAY How does globalization interact with higher education?- The continuing lack of consensus Anneliese Dodds London School of Economics Introduction An increasing volume of articles, books and conference papers consider the impact of globalization on higher education. Yet, despite this proliferation of research on globalization, multiple different conceptualizations of the term, views of the effects resulting from it, and counsels on how to respond to it, persist. This review essay attempts to ascertain whether a particular meaning of globalization, and perspective on its effects and the appropriate response to them, are becoming standardized across academia. To do so, it content-analyses a representative sample of new scholarship, mapping the various approaches of current researchers towards globalization. In order to obtain an up-to-date view of the meaning and perception of ‘globalization’ amongst contemporary scholars, a sample of all articles (excluding book reviews) contained within nine widely-read higher education and education journals published in the year 2005 was examined in depth1. Overall, forty-one articles within the journals contained substantial references to globalization. 1 The journals analyzed comprise Comparative Education (containing six relevant articles); European Journal of Education (four relevant articles); Higher Education (eight relevant articles); Higher Education Policy (fifteen relevant articles); Higher Education Quarterly (two relevant articles); Journal of Higher Education – Columbus (one relevant article); 2 The journals were chosen as covering (but not necessarily being limited to) higher education issues, as frequently deploying a comparative focus, and as being broadly rather than narrowly based (covering a range of issues rather than focusing on one aspects of education such as evaluation or teaching methods, and employing a variety of disciplinary approaches). The sample was, therefore, relatively restricted, considering only a small number of non-specialist journals (albeit relatively popular ones), and not including other textual resources such as journalistic resources or monographs. Nonetheless, the journals chosen can reasonably be seen as good resources for assessing the current state of scholarship concerning globalization and higher education, since they all offer a rigorously peer-reviewed vehicle for researchers to present new work (albeit sometimes in truncated form) to a wide international audience. As a result, the analysis of this sample enables a wide-ranging assessment of whether a particular conceptualization of globalization, and view of its effects, is becoming generalized across the academy- or whether a diversity of approaches exists, with no fixed overall view of the relationship between globalization and higher education. The first section of this review essay indicates the various salient conceptualizations of globalization used in the sampled articles. It demonstrates that whilst many contemporary researchers use ‘globalization’ to refer to the proliferation of cross-border flows and pressures, significantly more use the term to refer to specific trends (especially, to marketization), or to particular ideological positions (especially, support for the use of market mechanisms). The review essay Minerva (three relevant articles); Research in Higher Education (no relevant articles); and the Review of Higher Education (two relevant articles). 5 In contrast to such ‘global flows’, involving cross-border movements of already- existing factors (such as culture and information), ‘global pressures’ consist of the creation and growth of entirely new factors such as new institutions and new groups of people. Globalization qua global pressures has generally been conceptualized as the proliferation of transnational corporations and of transnational ‘classes’. Hence, transnational corporations have been identified by some authors as new institutions which are able to operate in ways which were not possible for more ‘traditional’, nationally-based companies. Emphasis on the freedom of transnational corporations to relocate as the key feature of ‘globalization’ has been described as ‘strong’ globalization (Yeates, 2001, pp.9-10). Some, such as Ohmae, have made the normative claim that national barriers to TNCs, as globalizing institutions, should be removed (Ohmae, 1995). In addition to such new institutions, Leslie Sklair has identified a new group of people ‘under globalization’, a ‘transnational capitalist class’, which might reasonably also be described as a ‘globalizing pressure’. This ‘class’, concentrated in finance and government, is able to move location just as TNCs might, depending on local circumstances (Sklair, 1997). The transnational capitalist class might also be expanded to refer to the worldwide movement of academics, given the widespread outsourcing of teaching from ‘core’ to ‘peripheral’ countries (through outposts of western universities) (see Skeldon, 2005), and the movement of promising scholars in the opposite direction. A number of the articles sampled refer to globalization as intensified ‘global flows’. Hence, a number examine the proliferation of new flows of information: of telecommunications, communications and information technologies (Dion, 2005, 6 p.296; Mok, 2005a, p.217; Thune & Welle-Strand, 2005, p.503); of “knowledge” (Scott, 2005, p.302); and of “the internet” (Pritchard, 2005, p.434). Some also note the connection between information exchange and the exchange of culture. Hence, Muhammad states that “[w]ith globalization, one could say that the culture of any nation will change, as information flow quickens, and the internet reduces personal distance” (Muhammad, 2005, p.354). Equally, Rizvi notes that the intensification of communications and links between individuals lead to a situation where the “new cultural space” of globalization means that “social identities are no longer tied unambiguously to territories” (Rizvi, 2005, p.337). On the other hand, cultural exchange was also seen as leading to the growth of “global desires”, which might be decoupled from national aspirations (Nsamenang, 2005, p.278). Some of the sampled articles also identified globalization with intensified global economic flows, such as “economic transactions” (Mok, 2005a; 2005b), albeit to a lesser extent. Perhaps surprisingly, although one of the articles sampled did identify globalization with the “freer and more large-scale mobility of capital and people between economies and societies” (Lasonen, 2005, p.397), none explicitly associated it with the cross-border movement of students. This is rather surprising, given that the intensity of such flows has greatly increased over the past two decades, to the extent that Van Vught et al. explicitly describe the recruitment of international students as “the globalization game” (Van Vught et al., 2002, p.112). Similarly, despite the prevalence of definitions of globalization as global pressures in the wider literature, these were not extensively adopted in the articles sampled. Globalization was seen as providing a pressure for change (Colardyn & Gordon, 2005, 238; Dion, 2005, 296; Meister-Scheytt & Scheytt, 2005, 92), but not as itself constituting a pressure/ pressures. 7 Globalization as trends: marketization In addition to constituting global flows or pressures, globalization has also been identified with particular global “trends” (Altbach, 2001). Not all contemporary trends in higher education are necessarily international, nor indeed global; this is especially the case with massification. Nonetheless, one particular global trend has frequently been identified with globalization: the extension of market-based principles to govern formerly public services. Perhaps the most extensive use of this definition of globalization in an analysis of changes to higher education is provided by Currie and Newson. Currie develops a “conception of globalization that combines a market ideology with a corresponding material set of practices drawn from the world of business”: managerialism, accountability, and privatization (Currie, 1998, pp.1, 5). Such ‘marketization’ has also been identified by Bruch and Barty with the sale of educational services to paying customers (Bruch & Barty, 1998, 32). Globalization-as-marketization can be divided into two strands. The first concerns the promotion of competition between domestic HEIs and those from other countries (Mok & Tan, 2004, 6-7). Globalization-as-marketization can also, however, apply to the promotion of national economic effectiveness through the medium of national higher education systems. Hence, Roger King notes that recent UK government reforms to higher education have been motivated by the view that universities are “the key” to the maintenance and enhancement of “national comparative advantage in an increasingly economically competitive world”, in the “language of globalization” (King, undated). 10 acceptance of normative assessments of educational systems by international bodies. The authors coined the term “globalization comparativism” to refer to those assessments of education systems which adopted such a normative position, as opposed to “development comparatism”, whose judgements on national education systems were not value-laden (Cussó & D’Amico, 2005). The relationship between globalization and internationalization A final conceptual ambiguity concerns the relationship between ‘globalization’ and ‘internationalization’. Some theorists have been happy to use the concepts of globalization and internationalization almost interchangeably (see for example Moran & Wood, 1996). Others have described globalization as a particularly “intense” form of internationalization (Hirst & Thompson, 1999). However, ‘internationalization’ is generally seen as a less critical concept within academia than is ‘globalization’. As Bruch and Barty note, there “are many staff in UK Higher Education Institutions at all levels who believe and argue that internationalization is good in its own right” (Bruch & Barty, 1998, p.21); but there may, perhaps, be fewer who would welcome globalization in the same way. For Scholte, “international” exchanges can occur only “between country units, while ‘global’ transactions occur within a planetary unit” (Scholte, 2005, p.65). The elision of internationalization and globalization is, he maintains, normatively objectionable, as this suggests that “world social relations are- and can only be- organized in terms of country units, state governments, and national communities” (Scholte, 2005, p.56). In a similar but subtly different vein, Scott has noted the “neo-imperialist” tones of “internationalism” which can potentially conflict with the ‘non-national’ processes of globalization (Scott, 1998, p.124). 11 Most articles in the sample which explicitly differentiated between globalization and internationalization followed Scott and Scholte’s approach, by maintaining that globalization referred to denationalized transactions, whereas internationalization referred to transactions occurring between countries (see for example Van Vught et al., 2005, p.106; Smeby & Trondal, 2005, p.452). Dale suggested that unlike internationalization, globalization rendered the whole process of “comparing” educational systems, and thus the intellectual enterprise of comparative education, highly problematic. This was due to the fact that globalization made intractable what he claimed were the latent problems entailed by “methodological nationalism” (Dale, 2005, p.123). In addition, other articles within the sample suggested that the interrelationship between globalization and internationalization may be more complex than at first appears. Scott suggested in his article within the sample that globalization should not be regarded “simply as a higher form of internationalization”, but that the relationship between the two concepts may be dialectical, especially if internationalization was identified with neoimperialism (Scott, 2005, p.124). Some sampled articles directly contradicted Scott on this point, with, for example, Lasonen maintaining that “internationalization is both a process parallel to globalization and, on the other hand, a step towards it” (Lasonen, 2005, p.397, italics added). Other authors suggested that internationalization may actually be a strategy adopted by HEIs in the face of globalization. Hence, Van Vught et al. maintained that “many European university leaders” felt that “internationalization” could be “interpreted as the policy-based internal response to globalization” (Van Vught et al., 2005, p.106), a claim repeated by Thune and Welle-Strand (Thune and Welle-Strand, 2005, p.595). Overall, the relationship between internationalization and globalization appears to remain highly contested amongst contemporary researchers. 12 The perceived impacts of globalization The sampled articles discerned a wide variety of different consequences arising from globalization, however it was conceptualized. As Douglass noted, “all globalization is local” (Douglass, 2005b, p.447) to the extent that any effects would be felt by different academics and HEIs in different countries and regions. Nonetheless, four broad views concerning the impact of globalization recurred within the articles sampled: globalization as leading to a concentration of linguistic and/or economic power; to increased competition between HEIs; to HEIs being viewed as a means of stimulating national competitive advantage; and to changes in the nature of information and, relatedly, culture. Globalization leading to a concentration of linguistic and economic power A number of theorists have claimed that the most important consequence of globalization is an increase in the power imbalance between central and peripheral nations, institutions and languages. The latter issue is described by Pennycook, who has detailed the spread of English as the “global lingua franca” (Pennycook, 1994). Altbach has drawn attention to the growing strength of the “traditional academic center” of the English-speaking countries of the North and the larger countries of the EU (Altbach, 2001). Certain HEIs have even earned the epithet of ‘mega-universities’; universities with a student enrolment of over one hundred thousand. This point has been linked by some authors to the concentration of economic power in trans-national corporations. Hence, Scholte claims that “the past half-century of intense globalization has yielded conditions of considerable oligopoly in the world economy” (Scholte, 2005, p.183), and Altbach maintains that the consolidation of “norms, values, language, scientific innovations, and 15 Globalization leading to HEIs being involved in the maintenance/ development of national competitive advantage As Scott notes, “[r]ightly or wrongly politicians believe investment in higher education can be translated into comparative economic advantage” (Scott, 1998, p.110). Similarly, Guy Neave has suggested that during recent times, “education is less part of social policy but is increasingly viewed as a subsector of economic policy” (Neave, 1988, p.274). This emphasis on higher education’s new economic role suggests that HEIs have become increasingly involved in two interconnected areas; the direct production of technology, often in combination with business; and the training of workers for the new global economy. The new role of HEIs as technology producers has had two consequences. Firstly, HEIs have increasingly come to collaborate with business to create knowledge- based goods. Such joint production is often located in the institution, as business and industry “increasingly are entering into partnerships with academic researchers and institutions of higher education for the development of new products and processes” (Morey, 2003, p.71). Secondly, this new role of HEIs has had an impact on the nature of their scientific education and research (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1997). As Sporn maintains, trends “show an increased demand for technology transfer” and “for a combination of basic and applied research” rather than basic research only (Sporn, 2003, p.120). HEIs are also increasingly expected to tailor education to the needs of the new knowledge economy. This is especially clear in the increased importance placed on international education, especially within business schools. As Bruch and Barty maintain, “[i]n an increasingly interdependent world, where communications networks are expanding rapidly, cultural isolation becomes untenable”, and HEIs 16 are increasingly required to provide individuals with the ‘global skills’ required by global business (Bruch & Barty, 1998, p.18). Some of the sampled articles maintained that globalization had led to an increasing pressure on HEIs to become involved in the quest to maintain national competitive advantage (Huang, 2005, p.163; Mok, 2005b, p.59; Sehoole, 2005, p.164). Rhoads and Rhoades suggest that this process is so highly developed that the university’s role is increasingly restricted to serving the “generation of capital” (Rhoads and Rhoades, 2005, p.251). Overall, however, this was not an area that was intensively investigated by the articles within the sample. Globalization leading to changes in the nature of information and of access to it Globalization can be seen as challenging the existing status of information in three ways: by increasing access to information, commodifying information, and contesting previously privileged information. HEIs are particularly implicated in the globalization of information through their role in the creation of the internet and in distance learning, both of which have clearly increased access to information (Evans, 1995, p.260). The vast amount of information available through the internet has of course greatly increased access to previously spatially-bound sources, although some might question the quality of all the additional information thus provided. Globalization is also sometimes linked with the commodification of information. Scholte and Morey have noted that content, once passed through electronic processing systems, has become increasingly controlled by business and by for- profit organizations such as the Fathom company which includes a number of 17 universities as members (Scholte, 2005, p.171; Morey, 2003, p.74). Rather than information comprising a factor of production, i.e. one element of the infrastructure facilitating other processes of accumulation, under globalization, information and communications have themselves become commodities (Mosco, 1988). Finally, despite trends towards standardization, some analysts have maintained that globalization has resulted in challenges to traditional ‘rationalist’ conceptions of knowledge. Martin Albrow in particular has maintained that globalization has resulted in a decline in the status of ‘modern’ rationality, in favour of non- rationalist knowledges such as religious revivalism, ecocentrism and postmodernist thought (Albrow, 1996). Whether or not globalization has led to such radical consequences is debatable, but increased global flows of both people and information may have led to the adoption of an increasing reflexive attitude towards gaining and producing knowledge, as intercultural encounters intensify. A number of the articles sampled noted the effects of globalization on information, although generally only in terms of increased access to information. Hence, Smeby and Trondal (2005, p.453), Guri-Rosenblit (2005a, p.467), and Marks (2005, p.624) draw attention to developments in information and communication technologies, especially the development of ‘virtual’ courses, which they see as increasing access to information and thus altering academics’ practices and traditional higher education systems. Abdulkari and Sinlarat refer to globalization as leading to information flows which “ignore” “national borders…space and time”, and “have made the transfer of knowledge seemingly limitless, countless, and timeless” (Abdulkari, 2005, p.149; Sinlarat, 2005, p.266). However, none of the articles examined referred to globalization leading to a contestation of previously privileged information, nor to the commodification of information. 20 approach to globalization. Of itself, however, accommodation need not imply stasis; it may be necessary to significantly reform higher education systems before they can be deemed compatible with the current globalized economy. Two of the articles sampled noted accommodation as a possible approach towards globalization. Lasonen suggested that globalization could be met through an emphasis on “competence across the whole range of educational provision and forms of knowledge production and application from basic education to higher education and to research and product development of a high standard” (Lasonen, 2005, p.397). Similarly, Nsamenang stressed the development of skills appropriate to the “global village” as well as to national and local contexts, as a means of facing up to globalization (Nsamenang, 2005, p.278). Another, contrasting approach towards globalization relates to HEIs’ role in creating and disseminating information. Such an approach could be adopted critically, as a method of stimulating an independent but well-informed response from students to globalizing processes. Henry et al., for example, note the need for universities not only to provide students with “a set of facts about the ‘new realities’ of globalization”, but also with the “skills of inquiry and analysis” which might enable a more critical engagement with a globalized world (Henry et al., 2001, p.152). A number of the articles sampled endorsed this view towards the role of HEIs in the context of globalization. Hence, Sadlak advocates that HEIs should “try to reflect on how globalization affects our society and its institutions”; Carr and McLachlan maintain that the “complexity of socio-economic change consequent from globalization” increases the demands on universities to provide answers to global challenges; and Rivzi calls for an internationalization of university curricula 21 as a means of facing up to globalization (Sadlak, 1998, p.107; Carr & McLachlan, 2005, p.200; Rizvi, 2005, p.339). From this perspective, HEIs have an important role to play in debating globalization, whether this leads to eventual accommodation or to resistance. Conclusion Globalization remains a contested concept, within studies of higher education as in many other fields. Rather than globalization being taken to refer unambiguously to global flows, pressures, or trends, its meaning continues to depend on the particular perspective adopted by contemporary researchers. The same conflict is apparent concerning the impacts which are reputed to globalization, and with regards the appropriate response to globalization amongst academics and HEIs more generally. Perhaps the only apparent point of consensus amongst contemporary researchers is the claim that globalization affects HEIs, rather than HEIs themselves being implicated in the promotion of globalization. As noted above, however, this position underplays the often important role of HEIs in encouraging cross-border flows and pressures, and global trends such as marketization. References (Articles which formed part of the sample are underlined). Abukari, A. (2005) Conceptualising Lifelong Learning: a reflection on lifelong learning at Lund University (Sweden) and Middlesex University (UK), European Journal of Education, 40(2), 143-154. Albrow, M. (1996) The global age: state and society beyond modernity (Cambridge, Polity Press). 22 Altbach, P.G. (2001) Higher Education and the WTO: Globalization Run Amok, International Higher Education, 23, 2-4. Amin, A. (1997) Placing globalization, Theory, Culture and Society, 14(2), 123-37. Arocena, R. & Sutz, J. (2005) Latin American Universities: From an original revolution to an uncertain transition, Higher Education, 50, 573–592. Bandawe, C. R. (2005) Psychology brewed in an African pot: Indigeneous Philosophies and the Quest for Relevance, Higher Education Policy, 18(3), 289- 300. Bruch, T. & Barty, A. (1998) Internationalizing British Higher Education: Policy Perspectives, in: P. Scott (Ed) The globalization of Higher Education, (Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press), 18-31. Carr, S. C. & McLachlan, M. (2005) Knowledge flow and capacity development: an introduction to the special issue, Editorial, Higher Education Policy, 18(3), 199- 205. Colardyn, D. & Gordon, J. (2005) Editorial, European Journal of Education, 40(3), 237-246. Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (1985) Report on efficiency studies in universities (London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals). 25 international trends and mutual observations; a Festschrift in honour of Ulrich Teichler (London: Kluwer Academic), 1-14. Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds) (1997) Universities and the global knowledge economy: a triple helix of university-government-industry relations (London: Pinter). Evans, T. (1995) Globalisation, post-Fordism, and open and distance education, Distance Education, 16, 256-269. Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond left and right: the future of radical politics (Cambridge: Polity). Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005a) 'Distance Education' and 'E-learning': Not the Same Thing, Higher Education, 49(4), 467-493. Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005b) Eight Paradoxes in the Implementation Process of E- learning in Higher Education, Higher Education Policy, 18, 5–29. Heffernan, T. & Poole, D. (2005) In search of ‘‘the vibe’’: Creating effective international education partnerships, Higher Education, 50, 223-245. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rivzi, F. and Taylor, S. (2001) The OECD, Globalisation and Education Policy (Oxford: Elsevier Science). Hirst, P.Q. & Thompson, G. (1999) Globalization in Question: the international economy and the possibilities of governance (Cambridge: Polity). 26 Huang, F. (2005) Qualitative Enhancement and Quantitative Growth: changes and trends of China’s Higher Education, Higher Education Policy, 18(2), 117-130. Imam, S. R. (2005) English as a global language and the question of nation- building education in Bangladesh, Comparative Education, 41(4), 471-486. Johnson, L. (1997) The internationalisation of higher education in the Netherlands, Journal of Iinternational Education, 8(1), 28-35. King, R. (undated) Globalization and Higher Education. Available online at www.acu.ac.uk/yearbook/may2003/kingfull.pdf (accessed October 2005). Lasonen, J. (2005) Reflections on interculturality in relation to education and work, Higher Education Policy, 18(4), 397-407. Lingard, R. and Rizvi, F. (1998) Globalization, the OECD, and Australian Higher Education, in: J. Currie and J. Newson (Eds), Universities and globalization: Critical perspectives, (London: Sage), 257-273. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. (trans. G. Bennington and B. Massumi) (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Manning, N. & Shaw, I. (1999) The transferability of welfare models: a comparison of the Scandinavian and state socialist models in relation to Finland and Estonia, in: C. Jones Finer (Ed), Transnational Social policy (Oxford: Blackwell). 27 Marceau, J. (1989) A family business? The making of an international business elite, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Marks, A. (2005) Changing spatial and synchronous structures in the history and culture of learning- A Heideggerian analysis of the history of the English university, Higher Education, 50, 613-630. Mazawi, A. E. (2005) The academic profession in a rentier state: the professoriate in Saudi Arabia, Minerva, 43(3), 221–244. Mehralizadeh, Y. (2005) New Reforms in the Management of the University: Transition from Centralized to Decentralized (University-Based Management) in Iran, Higher Education Policy, 18(1), 67–82. Meister-Scheytt, C. & Scheytt, T. (2005) The Complexity of Change in Universities, Higher Education Quarterly, 59(1), 76–99. Mok, K.-H. (2005a) Riding over socialism and global capitalism: changing education governance and social policy paradigms in post-Mao China, Comparative Education, 41(2), 217-240. Mok, K.-H. (2005b) Globalization and educational restructuring: University merging and changing governance in China, Higher Education, 50(1), 57-88. Mok, K.-H. & Tan, J. (2004) Globalization and marketization in education: a comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar). 30 Sadlak, J. (1998) Globalization and Concurrent challenges for Higher Education, in: P. Scott (Ed) The globalization of Higher Education, (Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press), 100-107. Scholte, J.A. (2005) Globalization: a critical introduction (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). Scott, P. (2005) Essay Review: Universities and the Knowledge Economy, Minerva, 43, 297–309. Scott, P. (1998) Massification, internationalisation and globalization, in: P. Scott (Ed) The globalization of Higher Education, (Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press), 108-129. Sehoole, M.T.C. (2005) The politics of mergers in higher education in South Africa, Higher Education, 50, 159-179. Sinlarat, P. (2005) Changing the culture of Education in Thai Universities, Higher Education Policy, 18(3), 265-269. Skeldon, R. (2005) WP-T15: Globalization, Skilled Migration and Poverty Alleviation: Brain Drains in Context (Brighton: University of Sussex, Development Research Centre). Sklair, L. (1997) The Transnational Capitalist Class (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell). Smeby, J.-C. & Trondal, J. (2005) Globalisation or europeanisation? International contact among university staff, Higher Education, 49(4), 449- 466. 31 Sporn, B. (2003) Trends relating to higher education reforms in Europe: an overview, in: H. Eggins (Ed) Globalization and reform in higher education (Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press). Thune, T. & Welle-Strand, A. (2005) ICT for and in internationalization processes: A business school case study, Higher Education, 50(4), 593-611. Turpin, T. & Cooper, R. (2005) Technology, adaptation, and public policy in developing countries: the ‘ins and outs’ of the digital divide, Minerva, 43(4), 419– 427. Van Vught, F., Van der Wende, M., Westerheijden, D. (2002) Globalization and internationalization: Policy agendas compared, in: J. Enders and O. Fulton (Eds), Higher Education in a globalizing world: international trends and mutual observations; a Festschrift in honour of Ulrich Teichler (London: Kluwer Academic), 103-120. Yeates, N. (2001) Globalization and social policy (London: Sage). Wordcount: 6992