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 chapter critically examines how recent government papers and policies have informed and contextualised the new Higher Education and Research Bill (HERB) passed in April 2017. In particular, it concerns itself with the issue of ‘teaching excellence’, through what has been termed the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) that has emerged as a key plank of the current government’s policy for future funding of higher education (HE). It will consider the other spurs for reform in HERB, such as the desire to create a culture in HE where teaching has equal status with research, the need to ensure that universities provide better information about their courses and the experiences that they can offer students and the predictable governmental requirement for institutions to give value for money and to be clearly held accountable for any failure to provide a quality service to students. Lastly, there is also a strong emphasis on widening student participation across the sector and ‘levelling the playing field’ so that new providers can set up with the minimum of red tape. It is interesting to note how each of these additional areas for reform is clearly linked to TEF, which, this chapter will argue, will be the key vehicle used to drive them forward.

This paper aim to argue for Cambodia to take internationalization of higher education seriously and strategically to position it for higher education development, and this starts with enhancing its buy-in among the key stakeholders, fine-tuning its conceptualization and contextualization and a government-funded comprehensive policy and investment program.

This paper explores policies and practices of internationalization in Cambodia, using Knight's (2004, 2007) conceptualization of internationalization and Wan's (2018) list of six dimensions, by which the authors track and measure internationalization.

Systematic policy implementation to position internationalization to achieve national and institutional goals is little. Given utilitarianism of internationalization, policy statement has geared more toward employing internationalization to achieve institutional building, in order of significance: mobility, research collaboration, policy formulation and quality control, and much less on networking and aligning with international instruments. Subtle differences among the four universities under investigation exist. While all focus on student and faculty mobility and exchange, some aim at research collaboration and networks; some at indigenous “international” and language programs, and some at joint degree programs. But, internationalization is not a key priority nor is it strategically positioned to achieve institutional aspirations.

Without comprehensive, strategic policy guidance and implementation from the government, internationalization has taken its own course, and such is not healthy for higher education development.

There are few studies on internationalization in Cambodia. Clayton and Yuok (1997), Clayton (2002) and Pit and Ford (2004) examine politics or its politicization and higher education development after the end of the Eastern Bloc's support (Tek and Leng, 2017). Recent studies (Leng, 2015; Leng, 2016; Yun, 2014) underline institutional case studies to illustrate status, issues and challenges in internationalization. This article attempts to provide an overarching map of internationalization to inform policies and practices toward higher education and national development.

This paper focuses on governance in higher education in China. It sees that governance as distinctive on the world scale and the potential source of distinctiveness in other domains of higher education. By taking an historical approach, reviewing relevant literature and drawing on empirical research on governance at one leading research university, the paper discusses system organisation, government–university relations and the role of the Communist Party (CCP), centralisation and devolution, institutional leadership, interior governance, academic freedom and responsibility, and the relevance of collegial norms. It concludes that the party-state and Chinese higher education will need to find a Way in governance that leads into a fuller space for plural knowledges, ideas and approaches. This would advance both indigenous and global knowledge, so helping global society to also find its Way.

Social inclusion policies in the higher education sector are implemented to ensure that all people – irrespective of socioeconomic background – have rights of access and the opportunities needed to participate and, ultimately, succeed. In Australia, and in other countries such as the UK, the USA, New Zealand and South Africa such policies are reflective of a commitment to the government's social inclusion agenda particularly aimed at improving access and participation of those from disadvantaged and low‐socioeconomic backgrounds. Such a commitment arrives at an historic moment in countries like Australia and the UK when there is a concurrent national renewal of quality assurance in higher education with a particular focus on academic standards. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion on the extent to which a national social inclusion agenda may impact academic standards and student outcomes.

The authors argue that contemporary trends such as increasing student diversity, changing pattern of student participation, differentiated levels of preparedness for tertiary education and new modes of learning, will continue to grow and will not in and of themselves affect academic standards. The authors contend that it is the responsibility of higher education institutions to respond proactively to the diverse needs of students whilst ensuring that academic standards are maintained. In this way, the fulfilment of an essentially transformative moral purpose in higher education may also be achieved.

The evidence presented in this paper from various contexts suggests that a social inclusion agenda related to increasing the equity of access and participation of disadvantaged students does not have a negative impact on academic standards and outcomes. However, such commitment to widening participation requires the active “buy in” of a number of stakeholders.

The paper shows that institutions of higher education need to plan for and actively support the development of environments in which all people can realise their potential and are provided with the knowledge and skill sets they in turn will require in order to contribute to society.

This paper aims to provide a historical case study of strategic changes in accounting at an Australian university’s business school department during 1972-1992 when it was repositioning itself in the early stages of major changes in the Australian and international tertiary accounting education environment. The study is conducted within the context of the university history within which the department operated as well as major government policy and global education shifts shaping university structures and focus.

This study offers a historical analysis of early stage changes in university focus at the business school’s accounting department, developed through departmental and university reports and oral history interviews. A narrative analytical methodology is adopted to portray a history of an academic accounting department in transition.

This case study illuminates the impacts of and responses to the beginning of marketisation and globalisation of higher education, and the commercialisation of universities and explains the strategic implementation processes in one university’s business school departmental during a period of significant formative change in the Australian accounting education landscape.

This study deepens our understanding of environmental, structural, educational and research changes at the operational departmental level of academic institutions, paying particular attention to the organisational culture and human capital dimensions.

The Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund was established by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, UK, with the declared aims of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning and raising the status of teaching among higher education institutions. This paper considers the three strands of the initiative – subject, institutional, and individual – and uses findings from a variety of evaluation studies to assess the impact of this state sponsored policy. The difficulties in creating cultural change within higher education are discussed. The paper argues, with cautious optimism, that there is evidence of increased attention being paid to teaching in higher education in England, in part, as a consequence of this funded initiative, but that the evidence for wholesale cultural change remains difficult to interpret.

This paper demonstrates the need for the higher education sector to develop and implement scaleable, quantitative measures that evaluate community and establish organisational benchmarks in order to guide the development of future practices designed to enhance the student learning experience.

Literature regarding contemporary Australian higher education policy and community development is critiqued to illustrate the need for universities to adopt scaleable quantitative measures to evaluate stated strategic imperatives and establish organisational benchmarks. The integration of organisational benchmarks guides the implementation of future practices designed to enhance the student learning experience. A current active exemplar methodology is discussed to demonstrate applicability to both higher education administrators and teaching staff across the various organisation levels.

While universities are promoting and investing in the concept of community to enhance the student learning experience there are as yet, limited scaleable evaluative measures and performance indicators to guide practitioners. This paper proposes an effective measurement tool to benchmark current pedagogical performance standards and monitor the progress and achievement of future implemented practices designed to enhance the sense of community experienced by the student cohort.

This paper identifies and addresses the current absence of effective scaleable evaluative measures to assess the achievement of stated strategic imperatives implemented as a consequence of reducing government financial support, increasing accountability, and increasing student expectations as result of educational consumerism.

Higher education in the UK has been subject to extensive changes. Government policy has stressed the need for an increase in student numbers. Discusses the changes needed in degree course management to create a system which is sufficiently flexible and efficient to cope with more students without loss of quality. Applies the theory of total quality management to higher education, indicating the need to treat degree courses as continuous production systems, rather than batch runs with standardized components and early detection of faults (unlearned work) to reduce quality costs (student failures and exam resits). Proposes that the US higher education system should be used as a model for the UK.