Search results

The creation of a Unified National System of Higher Education in Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_Revolution) in the late 1980s resulted in many new universities and significantly increased research funding for the sector. The result was the emergence of the modern Research Management Office (RMO) and eventually the establishment of the Australian Research Management Society (ARMS) to support the development of research management professionals in the region; including Singapore, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, and Papua New Guinea. In 2013, ARMS launched an accreditation program to recognise and develop careers in research management. There are now more than 3,500 ARMS members with nearly 30% only having been in the profession for less than 5 years. The role of ARMS in helping Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) redefine their roles and upskill is ever important in growing the profession and its leaders.

The internationalisation of industries has spilled over to academia, whereby institutions of higher learning (IHL) increasingly compete in the graduate quality and applied graduate knowledge capabilities that they can offer. With increasing global competition for students, combined with the evolving need for lifelong learning in dynamic industries impacted by digital knowledge management, there is an opportunity for IHLs to be able to evolve to ensure their business models enable services and service delivery to cater to and help shape industry demands. This chapter will look at micro-credentialing (MC) and how the provision of MCs has changed along with the evolving IHL education environment. The demands of students, employers and ecosystem considerations will be addressed through a review of the current landscape, pathways to MC and how MC may be operationalised. The Bersteinian approach to pedagogic classification, which identifies the framework of knowledge as being communicable via three axes of singularism, regionalism and a wider generalist approach is referenced as a framework. The resultant recommendations that draw upon these foundations will conclude the chapter.

This chapter adds to the volume by providing a first-hand account, discussion, and reflection on our experience of coming in as outside “experts” from Australia to develop courses for universities in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This chapter provides a comparative analysis of two cases illustrating and discussing cross-cultural collaborations for curriculum development for an Industrial Design (ID) program and an interdisciplinary design program in the Middle East, namely the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This chapter aims to provide a better understanding of Quality Assurance (QA) processes and the purpose of curriculum development for employability and entrepreneurship in the MENA region. To meet this aim, we describe the planning processes for the development of the new curricula and the evolution of the programs. We reflect on the differences and similarities of QA frameworks, and their interpretation and use by the universities in the KSA, the UAE, and Australia. We compare the processes and outcomes around specialization versus inter- and transdisciplinarity, as well as around employability in traditional industry versus education for entrepreneurship and future jobs. We observed significant differences between the two recipient MENA countries, and between them and Australia. These related to the understanding and foci of the graduate attributes; the understanding and implementation of course development processes; and the responsibility of provision and oversight of QA oversight in each country. In closing the chapter, we share important learnings through our reflections.