Search results

The main purpose of the present paper is twofold: to examine and compare the current strategies and policies that are employed by the UK, Australia and Singapore and to recommend appropriate strategies and policies to higher education institutions and the Hong Kong government and elsewhere that are interested in expanding their efforts in recruiting the growing number of students from other countries who are planning to study overseas.

The data for this project were obtained primarily from documents and in‐depth interviews. Documents include government reports, policy addresses, official statistics, etc. The in‐depth interviews were conducted in Hong Kong as well as in the four studied cities – Mumbai, New Delhi, Jakarta, and Kuala Lumpur. Interviewees included government officials, academics, higher education institutions’ representatives, consultant generals, and officials from policy bodies.

It is clear from the findings of this present study that a set of favorable policies and strategies at the national level was behind the success of these competitors. Such policies are not confined to educational policies but are extended to population and employment policies.

Though the study examined policies and strategies employed by three countries, findings from the study may generate useful information to countries that may be interested in exporting their higher education to Asian markets.

The paper suggests that if Hong Kong is to attain success in becoming an international exporter of education services, it may need to adopt favorable policies at institute and system level, and in so doing it can definitely benefit by carefully studying the strategies and policies employed by these three competitors.

Few studies have examined and compared strategies and policies employed by these three key major players of higher education services. This study provides some useful strategies and policy recommendation to education decision makers in Hong Kong and elsewhere that may be interested in entering Asian markets.

This paper aims to explore how the Australian Government represented issues of sustainability in Australian international higher education (IHE) policies and how it framed efforts to foster enhanced strategies for sustainable development of IHE. This research calls for a change from one-dimensional economic sustainability to a more multi-dimensional conception of sustainability, including emphasizing the role of the political sphere in issues of sustainability.

This paper uses discourse analysis of policy documents, specifically Bacchi’s (2009) “what is the problem represented to be” approach, to explore the problematization behind selected government policies related to IHE in Australia.

This research identified existing challenges and factors that have affected the sustainability of Australian IHE and examined how the Australian Government constructed this issue. In light of this approach, a theoretical model is proposed from internal resource analysis and external industry and foreign market structure analysis to help foster more sustainable development of IHE.

This study is based on policy document analysis. Consequently, future empirical research is needed to examine the impact of these policies and further substantiate the findings of this study.

This paper proposes a theoretical model for strategy making that helps gain and maintain sustainable competitive advantage in IHE from a more integrated perspective; such an approach enables more systemic thinking on strategy proposals and offers a reference for future practice. This research will contribute to policy design for the sustainability of the Australian IHE industry and promote change from a one-dimensional economic sustainability to a more multi-dimensional sustainability approach, thereby offering a point of reference for other countries that face similar issues.

This study points out the need to broaden the business focus, expand the value created from shareholder value to the common good and change “inside-out” economic perspectives to “outside-in” integrated perspectives for business, including the IHE industry.

The sustainability of IHE has become an important concern in Australian policies but is an area for further inquiry in academic discussion and research. By closely examining government policies, particularly from a discursive approach (after Bacchi), this paper makes a contribution to policy design for the sustainability of the Australian IHE industry, helping to promote a more multi-dimensional approach to sustainability.

This chapter uses two recent Canadian policies to frame and discuss emerging topics in Canadian comparative and international education. The first policy is the Accord on the Internationalization of Education (AIE) (ACDE, 2014) prepared by the Association of Canadian Deans of Education. The second policy is the Canadian government policy on higher education: Canada’s International Education Strategy: Harnessing our knowledge advantage to drive innovation and prosperity (CIES) (Government of Canada, 2014). Given Canada’s traditionally decentralized education system with universities working autonomously, a joint Deans’ Association policy, a federal government policy on education, and the substantially enhanced role of the corporate sector in setting education goals provide a very different and contested context for conducting comparative and international education research. This chapter provides some insight into how Canadian comparative and international education researchers are approaching this context.

Conventional wisdom has it that policymakers rationally approach an ongoing or potential problem, carefully consider the reasons for the problem, and then sensibly debate the information and research on this problem. The final stage of this ideal vision of the educational policymaking process is that the policymakers decide how to solve specific problems based on their consideration of all of the relevant data and possible options (Vickers, 1994). This is rarely, if ever, the case.

This chapter employs critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine three key policy documents related to international education in New Zealand: The International Student Wellbeing Strategy (ISW), The New Zealand’s International Education Strategy 2018–2020 (IES), and The New Zealand’s Strategic Recovery Plan (SRP) for the International Education Sector. It asks, “How are discourses of international student wellbeing deployed in New Zealand’s international education policy documents?” The findings suggest that the actual targets of wellbeing in New Zealand international education policies were less the international students than New Zealand itself. I argue that discourses of international student wellbeing are instrumentalized in policy discourses to position New Zealand as a progressive and inclusive society and feed the competitive market dynamics driving the global international education market.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the ending of fee-free higher education in Australia for overseas students in the 1980s, and the ways in which the government managed the diplomatic relationships that were affected by this policy shift. The introduction of fee-free higher education in Australia in 1974 was incredibly popular, and the end of the program in the late 1980s created difficulties for individuals, families and diplomatic relationships.

Using a mix of secondary sources and archival documents, this paper has a historiographical element, and an element of analysis.

This research finds that the ending of fee-free education created significant diplomatic issues with a number of Australia’s regional neighbours. It also created issues for individual students and families. The solution to these problems was, in large part, a scholarship scheme called the Equity and Merit Scholarship Scheme (EMSS). The EMSS was designed, in part, to address the issues created by the end of the fee-free program. However, the design of the scholarship scheme also created its own diplomatic issues with a different cohort of nation states.

There is limited scholarly research into the history of international education policy in Australia. This research draws on the work of some scholars of international scholarships, as well as historians of universities and education more broadly. This research adds to a growing body of work in the field of Australian international education history.

The key questions explored in this volume converge around issues of educational governance in the context of globalization. The individual chapters each contribute to the goals of assessing the development of the educational agenda of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and providing evidence on the trajectories through which the organization’s programs and policies have directly and indirectly influenced and affected diverse educational systems. The chapter explores these issues in more depth, drawing on the perspectives presented in the volume’s individual chapters. The first section provides a discussion of the contexts that have given rise to the OECD as a key global education policy actor. Following this brief historical overview, some of the key findings raised by the volume’s authors are examined in the context of wider literature on global education policy. Collectively, the chapters raise important questions about the role of nation-states in educational planning, the scope and spatiality of international assessments such as PISA and TALIS, and the complexity of evidence and expertise in global, national, and local educational policy-making. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of the volume’s work for the wider field of comparative and international education.

This chapter presents a comparative perspective on international education in Canada and Australia in the light of recent federal proposals for improving international education programs. The study provides an account of the multiple benefits of international education and introduces the concept of public sector entrepreneurship (PSE) as a necessity for creating and administering comprehensive programs, aimed at increasing Canada’s share of the international education market. The chapter compares Canadian and Australian international education policies with a special emphasis on the entrepreneurial approach applied in Australia. Moreover, the chapter discusses potential contributions to Canadian human capital through attractive immigration policies for international graduates. The findings reveal that Canada needs centralized management of international education programs. Following the Australian model, the establishment of a specialized agency to administer programs at federal level and to coordinate activities at provincial level is essential for success. PSE is represented by applying a market approach and revising residency and immigration strategies. Further research is required for a more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of necessary capital investments and implications of changing the policy framework governing skilled migration.

This paper aims to critically investigate the past hype of internationalization of higher education institutions (HEIs) and its complex international, national and local processes under the influence of globalization.

In particular, the authors employed the knowledge–policy–power interface framework through a scoping review in order to reexamine the political dynamics among international, national and local higher education actors in driving the internationalization of HEIs in the context of South Korea between the 1990s and the 2020s. The perspective taken by this research brings much-needed nuance to the analysis by focusing on the complex dynamics of external factors and key actors and their responses in the process of internationalization.

This research found three characteristic dynamics of internationalization of Korean HEIs: uncritical acceptance of external pressures for internationalization; unbalanced formal and informal participation at the national level and different ways HEIs absorb change. In short, this research discussed how the powerful government, which has been stirred by external forces, shaped the limited knowledge discourse on internationalization while triggering power games among various HEIs. The research highlights that the characteristics of HEIs and the voices of all stakeholders should be better accounted for so that internationalization can proceed in diverse ways from the ground up to enhance and assure educational quality.

The research limits itself by analyzing the political dynamics in driving the internationalization of HEIs in the context of South Korea only through scoping review. However, the attempt to disentangle the underlying political dynamics through its original framework is worthy unlike previous more traditional models that cast policy-making as a uniform cycle proceeding rationally through the policy process regardless of the issue.

These findings enable a better analysis of the key dynamics of how HEI internationalization policies in Korea were understood, planned and implemented. Without examining the political dynamics among various factors as well as the responses of significant actors to HEI internationalization, the current challenges and remaining tasks in translating higher education policy into practice cannot be thoroughly assessed.

Most importantly, the multilayered political dynamics that come together to shape the content and directions of policies in a certain national context should be taken into account in the process of policy-making. Such recontextualization would provide a better understanding of the underlying dynamics that lead to certain consequences of and challenges in translating higher education policy into practice, especially for those who face the challenge of balancing between state-driven policies and ever-diversifying needs and demands of HEIs.

As there is a lack of understanding of the critical context of the knowledge–policy–power interface despite the significant influence of political dynamics in the process of internationalization, this research reexamined the internationalization of HEIs in Korea by providing a better understanding of the political dynamics between knowledge and power that influence the directions and contents of policy dialogues and documents.

Teacher effectiveness and teacher quality have become the focus of intense international attention and national concern. Dozens of nations are implementing a diverse set of strategies that aim to improve the quality of education by improving the quality of teachers. These efforts have not been well coordinated, and as the authors in this volume show, core constructs of quality have not been well defined. In this introductory chapter, we discuss why teachers are now “under the microscope” of policymaker’s attention and elaborate how the chapters in this volume identify particularly fruitful avenues for further study. The assembled chapters address two complex questions: (1) what existing cross-national measures of teacher effectiveness and teacher quality are most promising and how can these be aligned to maximize their research potential? and (2) what core constructs of teacher quality or effectiveness are missing from the evidence-base, and how can cross-national comparative research help refine these? To investigate these questions, the chapters in this volume address different aspects of “quality.” While quality may be politically contested, there is a significant need to continue to articulate a truly global perspective on teacher quality. The authors look at a wide range of aspects of quality in order to advance thinking about teacher education, instructional quality and workforce or organizational conditions that affect quality; to analyze instruments, tools, or measures used to assess quality; and identify what measures need to be developed further. We also note how scholarly study of the spread of transnational teacher reforms has failed to keep pace with national policy changes regarding teacher quality, and advance a more general theory of the forces affecting national policymakers.