What should internationalization of higher education aim at

What should internationalization of higher education aim at WHAT SHOULD INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION AIM AT? Shun Wing NG Hong Kong Institute of Education OBJECTIVE OF THE PAPER Globalization and the evolution of the knowledge-based economy have caused dramatic changes to the character and functions of higher education in most countries around the world. One major trend of globalization related to reforming and restructuring higher education is the intention to make the higher education systems more globally competitive. Thus, in the process of internationalization of higher education, the nature of competitiveness is being particularly highlighted. Driven by concerns of „brain gain? and „income generation?, higher education institutions (HEIs) not only in the Western developed region but also in the Asian Pacific areas are strategically committed to promoting their higher education services overseas. However, it is criticized that globalization forces many of the HEIs in Asia countries to follow global practices and ideologies without developing their own unique systems and honouring the rich traditions and cultures of their own countries. Under the impact of globalization, learning from the other systems is desirable, but the management of HEIs should consider avoiding duplicating without proper alteration and contextualization. While indulging to the game of marketing and exporting higher education to other regions, we must ask ourselves genuinely whether internationalization of higher education has really enhanced and enriched teaching and learning experiences in the campus and ensured education quality. This paper, adopting critical theory approach for analysis of the issue, would like to ask, “What should internationalization of higher education aim at?” It argues that preparing future leaders and citizens for a highly interdependent world requires a higher education system where internationalization promotes cultural diversity and fosters intercultural understanding respect, and tolerance among people and where the internationalized curriculum is committed to the pursuit of 1 the notion of global citizenship. Such internationalization of higher education contributes to building more than economically competitive and politically powerful. It represents a commitment to international solidarity, human harmony and helps to build a climate of global peace. INCREASING DEMAND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES IN ASIA With the advent of globalization, advanced information technology and increased transnational travel, higher education services have already been expanding beyond territorial boundaries either electronically or through physically-based campuses. Exporting higher education services emerged in the 1980s and 1990s and is now becoming a global, market-oriented and private industry prevailing not only among those developed countries but also in the Asia-Pacific region. For instances, Australia and Singapore have already been established their international networks by setting up international academic offices and collaborating with partner institutions to attract overseas students to study in their own countries. Australia is now the third largest provider of education to overseas students in the world coming in rank order after the United States of America and the United Kingdom (Dunn and Wallace, 2004; Marginson, 2002). In fact, policies on marketization and internationalization of higher education have been moving towards the rising Asian populated countries such as India, Mainland China, Indonesia and Malaysia. Recently, like Singapore and Australia, Hong Kong and Malaysia are of no exception in an attempt to internationalizing their higher education and have tried to develop themselves into regional thriving education hubs by exporting higher education services to mainly their neighboring countries. Asia will dominate the global demand for international higher educations for the next two decades. In forecasting global demand for international higher education, Bohm, Davis and Pearce (2002) found that the global demand for international higher education is set to grow enormously. The demand is forecasted to increase from 1.8 million international students in 2000 to 7.2 million international students in 2025. By 2025, Asia will represent some 70% of total global demand and an increase of 27% 2 from 2000. Within Asia, China and India will represent the key growth drivers, generating over half of the global demand in international higher education by 2025 due to their blooming economies. The great demand for higher education of the Asian countries can also be confirmed by the figures provided by the database of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It shows that among the 30 top sending countries, number of students from China, Korea and Japan studying in the OECD countries are in the first, second and third places respectively whereas Indian students are in the seventh, Malaysian in the ninth, Hong Kong in the twelfth and Indonesian in the fourteenth (OECD, 2007) (Table 1). It was worth at least $US30 billion in 1999 or about 3% of total trade in services in OECD countries (Carrington, Meek & Wood, 2007). Table-1 Share of tertiary foreign students in OECD countries Countries Share of tertiary students abroad within the OECD area 1. China 7% 2. Korea 5% 3. Japan 4% 4. Greece 4% 5. Germany 4% 6. France 3% 7. India 3% 8. Turkey 3% 9. Malaysia 3% 10. Italy 3% 11. Morocco 3% 12. Hong Kong China 2% 13. U.S.A 2% 14. Indonesia 2% Source: From OECD Education Data Base as at 2007 ,3343,en_2649_37455_38082166_1_1_1_37455,00.html On the other hand, transnational higher educational services have gradually aroused the attention of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS is a treaty of the World Trade Organization (WTO) that entered into force in January 1995 as a result of the Uruguay Round negotiations. The treaty was created to extend the multilateral trading system to services, in the same way the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provides such a system for merchandise trade (WTO, 2007a). Education is one of the twelve service sectors covered by GATS and is included in the 3 new services negotiations, which began in January 2000 (WTO, 2007b). It covers four modes of supply for the delivery of educational services in cross-border trade, namely Mode 1: cross-border supply, Mode 2: consumption abroad, Mode 3: commercial presence, and Mode 4: presence of natural persons (Knight, 2002). Under the framework of GATS that higher education as an industry is included, transnational education has then become a phenomenon of globalization in which HEIs in different regions of the globe have then participated in the game of exporting higher education services in the name of internationalization. The pace of internationalization of higher education, in fact, has expanded speedily in recent years as a result of the rapidly globalizing world of disintegrating country borders and supranational network of capital and knowledge (Bauman, 2002). The activities of internationalization may include international movement of students between countries; international links between nation states through open learning programmes and new technologies; bi-lateral links between governments and higher education institutions in different countries for collaboration in research, curriculum development, student and staff exchange, and other international activities; and export of education where education services are offered on a commercial basis in other countries, with students studying either in their home country or in the country of the providers (Harman, 2005) Today, universities establish linkages with each other in order to strike alliances to be able to compete for funds, students as well as faculties. The mobility of students, university faculties, knowledge and even values has been portion of higher education for many years. This depicts many new opportunities of increased access to higher education, transnational strategic alliances and the expansion of human resource and institutional capacity. CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE NATURE OF GLOBALIZATION We could conclude that internationalization is, to a certain extent, an interactive response to the impacts of globalization. To meet the global demand, many developing countries have started integrated their higher education services into the world community. However, the two concepts, 4 internationalization and globalization, are very different in their approach and carries different consequences for different nations (Yang, 2002). They have often appeared in the discourses of various levels over their meanings and rationales (Fok, 2007). For examples, Yang (2002) argues that “internationalization lies in an understanding of the universal nature of the advancement of knowledge” (p.85) that is based on the common bonds of humanity. Knight (2004) also depicts that internationalization of higher education should help enhance students competencies and create a culture or climate on campus that promotes and supports international/intercultural understanding. This conception echoes to de Wit?s (2002) refined definition of internationalization of higher education which is a process integrating an international/cultural dimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institutions. Knight?s (2006) view is of reference value in that internationalization of higher education needs to aim at preparing future leaders and citizens to address global issues and challenges like shaping sustainable development, international solidarity and global peace in a highly interdependent globalized world. The above definitions are actually based on the profound belief that cultural heritage of people is universal and humankind shares the bond of humanity in the process of advancement of knowledge. Globalization entails the formation of world-wide markets operating in real time in common financial system and cross-border mobility of production and also rests on the first world-wide systems of communications, information, knowledge and culture, tending towards a single world community Marginson and Wende (2007). However, by contrast, globalization in nature is, to a great extent, incompatible with the rationale of internationalization of higher education as it is perceived as having negative force for higher education in many aspects. Yang (2000, p.83) envisages it as a process stemmed from the rise of Western imperialism and capitalism and is concerned with single-sided economic advantages by means of “competition, combat, confrontation, exploitation, and the survival of the fittest”. Since globalization is a market-induced and driven process for expansion, it is visualized as a universalization of capitalism (MacEwan, 1994). Slaughter and Lesslie (1997) put forward a more 5 severe critique in that globalization imperatives are of the nature of power, control, economy and efficiency. Critics of globalization have further conceptualized the process as an action of neo-colonialism that implies a form of contemporary economic imperialism (Chan, 2008). It highlights that multinational business corporations have still had economic control over the decolonized regions through exploiting the resources of peoples. The common bond of humanity and culture will eventually vanish due to its economic driven motives. Thus, Yang (2003) contends that global exchange, under such a context, in economic, cultural and education domains will continues to be unequal. He adds, “Globalization, therefore, never meant global equality” (p.273) Gap between the developed and undeveloped has been widened in the process. Globalization also displays immense power over other cultures and is in general envisaged as disadvantages to cultures of developing and underdeveloped countries (Zajda, 1998). Based on the Western theory of cultural imperialism, there is a fear that globalization will cause cultural homogenization especially in the process of internationalization of higher education. Thus, globalization being fuelled by neo-liberal ideology emphasizing entrepreneurship, cost-effectiveness, and customer orientation cannot be easily fended off by national governments (Chan, 2004) and by the development of hybrid world cultures created by the mingling of global-brand culture and indigenous traditions (Scott, 1998). IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION In recent decades, the role and policy of higher education has been significantly affected by the impact of globalization. Though we have been alerted in the discourse of global competition and the outcome of inequality with regard to the aforementioned conditions of globalization, what is really prevalent today is the intensity and the extent of internationalization activities occurring in HEIs especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The economic driven imperatives in the name of globalization emphasizing the importance of productivity have creative huge pressures to the state for restructuring higher education in the process of its internationalization. 6 Managerialism and marketization The tidal force of managerialism has accelerated diversification, corporatization, marketization, devolution of responsibilities from state to local governments and HEIs, and popularity of output-driven economic rationalism that are the key aspects of current restructuring in HEIs (Chan and Mok, 2001; Mok, 2000)). Moreover, marketization and massification of universities have paved the way to serious competition for funds as well as students and faculty (Chan, 2004; Mok, 2007). As reviewed in a recent study conducted by the author and his colleague (Ng and Tang, 2008), HEIs in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and Japan have embarked on the road of internationalization along the global trend of marketization, corporatization and commercialization with the inclination of advancing their governance and management. For instances, in order to make their university systems more globally competitive, both the Singapore and Malaysia governments have introduced corporatization and incorporation strategies to reform their national universities (Mok, 2008). As the logic of economy and efficiency dictates Australian higher education policy, it then encourages competition and choice in the running of educational services. Currie and Thiele (2001) have pointed out that the motive for the Australian universities to be more export-oriented is indeed an interactive response to a decrease in government funding for higher education and the need for universities to become “entrepreneurial” in gaining income. Educators and academics in Australia feel very demoralised and substantially deprofessionalized in the era of measuring performance in terms of research output (Chan, 2008; Welch, 1996). Under the influence of global market forces, there has been a trend toward the decreasing of public funding to higher education. Public university heads now need to raise money from alumni and private business enterprises for the benefit of effective functioning in their institutions. In order to ensure that their higher education systems can compete globally and to survive and prosper in this fast changing world, HEI administrators have got hold of the belief that running a university becomes a customer-focused enterprise. Thus, university curriculum is market driven and students are customers. 7 Huge market forces have made HEIs to reengineer themselves to be more sensitive to the market demand. To ensure they can share a significant portion of the pie in the higher education market, HEIs have developed a variety of promotion and marketing strategies such as recruiting quality professors, developing twinning programs, forming international alliances, effective use of information technology and technical superiority, etc. University faculties have also needed to participate in the game of marketizing their knowledge (Mok, 2000) and have been mindful of their performance in terms of efficiency indicators such as research output, student evaluation scores and other managerial initiatives. However, while the outcomes of the above mentioned managerial and marketing strategies remain to be seen, there have already been dissensions among faculty staffs and tensions among departments within the HEIs and among universities in some developing countries (Yang, 2003). Economy, Efficiency and effectiveness as the influential “3 Es” of managerialism forming the fundamental values of consumerism in the market place have been intensified in reengineering process of the HEI. Economic utilitarianism Utilitarian and pragmatic values can be reflected in the impact of globalization in internationalization of higher education. Making every effort in competing for the ranking in the “world class” league tables has affected how universities in the Asia-Pacific countries are governed (Chan, 2008; Mok, 2007; Yang, 2003). Success in occupying a place within the top range of the ranking can help attract students of best performance to study in their universities. My interview with an administrator of the University of Malaysia in 2007 demonstrated that they have also embarked on the road towards internationalization with an aim of rising up within 200 of the world rankings so they have gradually adopted English as a teaching medium in many modules. In addition, international benchmarking in terms of Research Assessment Exercises with an emphasis on monitoring research outputs has become a powerful and pragmatic instrument to demonstrate the standards of HEIs to various stakeholders including students and parents in today?s very competitive global market (Chan, 2008; Lynch, 2006). Since utilitarianism and pragmatism are adopted as the powerful strategy in the post-modern reality of 8 the economic driven society, the curricula offered in HEIs are very much influenced by the market force. In this connection, subjects offered focus mainly on the practical and applied value of knowledge, leaving those of educational values far behind. As indicated by the figures of non-local student enrolment of both government funded and self-financed programs in Hong Kong?s HEIs as of 2007-08 (UGC, 2009), more profitable applied subjects in the arena of science, technology and business management are offered whereas those subjects of theoretical enquiry nature such as social sciences, arts and humanities are marginalized and placed at the periphery of the university enterprise nowadays. Yang (2003) criticizes that this type of tendency may cause tensions among departments and it also creates institutional winners and losers. On the other hand, in the interest of our customers – students, the university lecture will become a speech show that must carry the function of entertaining rather than analysing; such that the classroom is in danger of becoming a meaningless place nothing but “licensing and professionalism without the substantive knowledge and ethics of profession” is to be offered (Yang, 2003, p.278). In addition, the growth in the mobility of higher education programs and providers will lead to a potential increase in low quality or rascal providers, a lack of recognition of foreign qualifications by domestic employers or education institutions and an increase of selling unrecognized certificates which will at the same time create numerous tensions (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2007; Meek, 2002). Policy duplication The origin of globalization is to a great extent Western or Americanized. Reproducing or duplicating Western educational polices and institutions is part of the internationalization process. As mentioned earlier, many Asian HEIs are eager to engage in international benchmarking and competing for better ranking of the world class university league table originated from the Western paradigms. Undoubtedly, criteria for research assessment or the quest for university rankings are predominated by the Anglo-Saxon standards and ideologies (Mok, 2008). Those HEIs involved in the internationalization process need to revisit the strategies adopted as to whether they are learning from the Western traditions 9 or they are duplicating without proper adaptation and deliberate contextualization. In fact, a great number of developing countries have worked in line with the Anglo-Saxon paradigm. This would create a dependency culture in the internationalization and also help reinforce the America-dominated hegemony (Chan, 2008; Mok, 2008; Yang, 2002). While Asian countries adopt English as a medium of instruction (MOI), use curricula designed by the Australian, British and American scholars or governments and follow international benchmarks, have they gone through adequate and proper contextual analysis to see whether these types of policies are compatible with indigenous cultures and local practices? Asian scholars are engaging in the game of “paper-chase” for the Research Assessment Exercise in that research outputs should be published in English, preferably in Science and Social Science Citation Index international journals while publications in local languages and local journals is regarded as of little importance. For examples, my interview with a respondent of the Faculty of Education in Macau University demonstrates that faculty staff is forced to produce research articles more in English and more in international journals. Recently this year, the adoption of English as an MOI policy in some of the curricula by the Malaysian Government has led to riots in the street. In this connection, we surely need to revisit the fundamental issues arising from duplicating Western policies without careful consideration of the local context in terms of the values of indigenous cultures and traditions. The practices of those HEIs in many Asian countries seem to have treated internationalization as “westernization” or “Americanization” (Chan, 2008; Mok, 2008). It will further reinforce the notion of American hegemony and there emerge another fundamental discourse as to whether internationalization becomes recolonization in the post-modern era. It is thus important to realize that internationalization is perceived differently in the West and in developing societies. WHAT IS MISSING IN INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION? Here, we understand that internationalization is an interactive response to globalization, yet the nature of competitiveness and economic driven orientation is being particularly highlighted in the 10 internationalization of higher education in the Asian Pacific region. The discussions above have obviously shown that transnational education will cause the problematic issues of including the hegemony of Western knowledge and pedagogies and commodification of knowledge through which cost and effectiveness and profit are of prime focus (Brook, 2001). Critical reflection on how the higher education systems in the Asian-Pacific region have been impacted by the international criteria and practices determined by the Anglo-American paradigm can help address the following fundamental questions: , What is missing in the process of internationalization? , What should internationalization of higher education aim at? , For what purposes should the HEIs exist in the post-colonial era? It is unquestionable that the notion of international education comprises the primary goal of international exchanges that provide opportunities for countries to learn from one another or for those less developed countries to receive assistance from their counterparts (Ninnes and Hellsten, 2005) but it does not mean the less developed have to duplicate from the developed. To refrain from being recolonized, scholars especially in the Asian regions must learn from the West and guard against duplicating without proper adaptation and analysis (Mok, 2008). We should not look down on but honor our rich and splendid cultures in Asia (Mok, 2007). Restructuring HEIs by means of adopting Western standards, marketization and corporatization are then the salient features in transnational education nowadays.Impacted by the tidal wave of these market driven forces, the most prominent challenge of the higher education policy includes the gradually diminishing of culture values and civic missions that higher education used to promote. Hence, what is missing in the internationalization process is higher education that should be embedded with the vision of preparing future leaders and citizens to address global issues and challenges like shaping sustainable development, international solidarity and global peace in a highly independent globalized world, but these goals are becoming limited because HEIs would rather incline to the impetus of income generation. 11 On the other hand, the research conducted by Romm, Patterson and Hill (1991) confirmed that failure of social interaction with domestic students was a major source of course dissatisfaction for international students. Research findings inform us that a number factors affecting the study life of overseas students, such as students? aspiration, perception of their courses and institutions, impact of culture and values on learning environments, learning autonomy and styles of learning (Harman, 2005). For humane reason, therefore, internationalization should integrate an intercultural dimension into teaching, research and community service in order to enhance academic excellence and promote civic the notion of social responsibility and civic engagement in societies. We have a deep belief that internationalization of higher education will be undergoing a “humanizing process” that multicultural and intercultural characteristics of mankind in the globe are respected. Chan (2008) highlights that the creation of a fair, just, tolerant and caring society is not one which can be left to the market. After all, cross-cultural and multi-cultural understanding, tolerance and the creation of democratic communities do not appear by themselves. There is a need to create a possibility of a citizenship which transcends national boundaries: the citizens of the world. In this regard, it seems that there is need for a more moral and civic tune or to regain balance between responding to market pressures and liberal and civic values in higher education (Haigh, 2008). Nevertheless, “citizenship” and “cultural awareness” as two of the most important aims in the internationalization process is missing in higher education agenda. Knight?s (2006) survey with 526 HEIs in 95 countries on the aims and objectives of internationalization for the International Association of University (IAU), UNESCO has found that in the area of “Rationales Driving Internationalization”, HEIs around the world ranked “competitiveness”, “strategic alliances” as the two most important rationales whereas “cultural awareness” and “international cooperation” were of comparatively low priorities at both national and institutional levels respectively. On the other hand, in area of “Benefits of Internationalization”, “academic quality” and ”strengthen research” were ranked as most important benefits but “national and international citizenship” and “brain gain” were treated as least important at both national and 12 institutional levels. The survey shows that many HEIs neglect the important mission of socializing our university students to be active citizens in the civil society of the nation and the globe. CONCLUSION: HUMANE AND CIVIC MISSIONS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Mr. Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations reiterates in the World Civic Forum 2009 that institutions of higher learning have a critical role in forming our future leaders, in advocating mutual understanding, and in promoting a dialogue among stakeholders towards a global culture of peace through innovative partnerships. Against the tide of excessive market-centered values, commercialization of higher education and possibility of recolonization in terms of knowledge and technological transfer, HEIs need to strive to enhance their engagement with and contribution to the wider community through restructuring their curricula and visions in future education. We need to create positive future by defining the real aim and mission of higher education in the internationalization process. It is believed that HEIs could be motivated by both the finance-driven ethos and the communal aspirations of civic engagement through reengineering their curricula. Academic values and civic missions in HEIs are also at the heart of the aspects such as human rights, multilateralism and global citizenship (Scott, 2003). Increasingly, universities around the world are expectedly to play a key role in advancing the cause of humanity and citizenship because international education should be a trading game for students? self enrichment (Marginson, 2004). Haigh (2008) echoes by saying that internationalization of higher education should be motivated by education for global citizenship rather than dominated more by the desire for income than better education. It seems problematic to integrate concepts of citizenship, social justice, ethics and sustainable development within HEIs being oriented to goals of fund generation. In this regard, Haigh (2008) argues that the main challenge facing internationalization and effective education for global citizenship is the HEI. Internationalization of higher education should be committed to encouraging democratic inclusivity and ethical living. We need 13 to help HEIs imbedded with these missions and values that will provide the global society with a future. This will affect the way courses and programs are delivered and life in the campus is conducted. This also demands cultural change driven by educationists inside the campus and policy makers at the system level. At the system level, it relies heavily on the governments? effort to realize the aim of internationalization of higher education for humane and civic missions that include education for democratic values, global citizenship, world peace and sustainable development (Knight, 2006). At the institutional level, if learning is linked to social change, pedagogy can help reinvent the HEI as a community as relevant and positive influences in a sustainable future. Therefore, university faculties engaged in internationalisation can assist by designing courses that promote responsible global citizenship (Haigh, 2002). Education for global citizenship can be a counterweight to the market and income driven forces in times of globalization. In addition, educators at the institutional level can help promote change by delivering the message that multicultural and intercultural characteristics of mankind in the globe are respected and that will help transform HEIs into sustainable learning communities that could support the learning need of a future global citizenry. REFERENCES Bauman, Z., Society under Siege, 2002, Polity Press, Cambridge. Bohm, A., Davis, T., Meares, D. and Pearce, D. Global Student Mobility 2025: Forecasts of The Global Demand for International Higher Education, 2002, IDP Education, Australia.. Carrington, R., Meek, V. L., and Wood, F. Q., The Role of Further Government Intervention in Australian International Education, Higher Education, 53, 2007, pp. 561-577. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Cross-border Tertiary Education: A Way towards Capacity Development (Eds.), 2007, Source OECD. Chan, D., and Mok, Ka-Ho, Educational Reforms and Coping Strategies under the Tidal Wave of Marketization: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong and the Mainland, Comparative Education, 37, No 1, 2001, pp. 21-41. Chan, W. Y. (2004). International Cooperation in Higher Education: Theory and Practice, Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 2004, pp. 32-55. Curie, J. and Thiele, B., Globalization and the gendered work cultures of universities. In A. Brooks and A. Mackinnon (Eds.), Gender and the restructured university – changing management and culture in higher education, 2001, pp. 90-115, Open University Press, Buckingham:. de Wit, H. Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis, 2002, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. Dunn, L., and Wallace, M., Australian Academics Teaching in Singapore: Striving for Cultural Empathy, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, No.3, 2004, pp. 303-304. Fok, W. K. P., Internationalization of higher education in Hong Kong, International Education Journal, 8, No. 1, 2007. pp.184-193. Haigh, M. Internationalization of the Curriculum: Designing Inclusive Education for a Small World, 14 Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26, No. 1, 2002, pp. 49-66, Haigh, M., Internationalization, Planetary Citizenship and Higher Education, Inc., Compare, 38, No. 4, 2008, pp. 427-440. Harman, G.., New Directions in Internationalizing Higher Education: Australia?s Development as an Exporter of Higher Education Services, Higher Education Policy, 17. No.1, 2005, pp. 101-110. Knight, J. Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, No.1, 2004, pp. 5-31. Knight, J., IAU 2005 Internationalization Survey: Preliminary Findings Report, 2006, UNESCO, International Association of Universities, Paris. Lynch, K., Neo-Liberalism and Marketization: The Implications for Higher Education, European Educational Research Journal, 5, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1-17. Scott, P., Challenges to Academic Values and Organization of Academic Work in a Time of Globalization, Higher Education in Europe, XXVIII, No. 3, 2003, pp. 295-306. Slaughter, S and Leslie, L.L., Academic Capitalism, Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University, 1997, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltmore. Marginson, S., The Phenomenal Rise of International degrees Down Under: Lucrative Lessons of US Institutions? Change, 34. No. 3, 2002, pp. 34-44. Marginson, S., Competition and Markets in Higher Education, Policy Futures in Education, 2, No. 2, 2004, pp. 175-244. Marginson, S. and M. van der Wende, Globalisation and Higher Education, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8, 2007, OECD Publishing. MacEwan, A., Notes on US Foreign Investment in Latin America, Monthly Review, 45, No. 8, 1994, pp. 16. Mok, K. H., Impact of globalization: A Study of Quality Assurance Systems of Higher Education in Hong Kong and Singapore, Comparative Education Review, 44, No. 2, 2000, pp.148-174. Meek, C. L., International Higher Education and The Role of Government in Educational Exports, 2002, Center for Higher Education Management and Policy, University of New England, Armidale. Mok, K. H., Questing for Internationalization of Universities in Asia: Critical Reflections. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, No. 3-4, 2007, pp.433-454. Mok, K. H., Positioning as Regional Hub of Higher Education: Changing Governance and Regulatory Reforms in Singapore and Malaysia, International Journal of Educational Reform, 17, No. 3, 2008, pp. 35-55. Ng, S. W. and Tang, S. Y. F., The Challenges and Strategies of Internationalizing Hong Kong?s Higher Education in a Globalized World, International Journal of Education Reform, 17, No. 3, 2008, pp. 56-71. Ninnes, P. & Hellsten, M., Introduction: Critical Engagement with the Internationalization of Higher Education. In P. Ninnes & Hellsten, M. (Eds.), Internationalizing Higher Education: Critical Explorations of Pedagogy and Policy, 2005, pp. 1-8, Springer, Netherlands. OECD, OECD Data Base. Retrieved December 30, 2007 from: ,3343,en_2649_37455_38082166_1_1_1_37455,00.html Scott, P., The Globalization of Higher Education, 1998, Open University Press and Society for Research into Higher Education, Buckingham. Yang, R., Tension between the Global and the Local: A Comparative Illustration of the Reorganization of the China?s Higher Education in the 1950s and 1990s, Higher Education, 39, No. 3, 2000, pp. 319-337. Yang, R., University Internationalization: Its Meanings, Rationales and implications, Intercultural Education, 13, No. 1, 2002, pp. 81-95. Yang, R., Globalization and Higher Education Development: A Critical Analysis, International Review of Education, 49, No. 3-4, 2003, pp. 269-291. Chan, D. K. K., Revisiting Post-Colonial Education Development: Reflections on Some Critical Issues. Comparative Education Bulletin: Special Issue: Education and Development in Post-Colonial Societies, 11, 2008, pp. 21-36, UGC, Non-Local Student Enrolment (Headcount) of UCG-Funded Programmes, 2007/08. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from Welch, A., Australian Education: Reform or Crisis, 1996, Allen & Unwin, Sydney. Zajda, J. Globalizing Education: Designing a Renewed Agenda for Teacher Education, Education and Society, 16, No 1, 1998, pp. 87-98. 15