Search results

Despite the multitude of regional-based collaborations in higher education, regionalism theories have received relatively little attention in the literature on higher education. In view of this gap, this chapter seeks to make a case for the study of regionalism and explores how this field could enrich higher education research. This chapter discusses the context of the rise of the regional landscape vis-à-vis the acceleration of globalisation and internationalisation of higher education. It further probes into theoretical and empirical insights, elucidating in particular core regionalism concepts, theories and approaches within the more recent ‘turns’ in regionalism. Empirical cases from regions across the world are presented to help expound on the conceptual points raised.

The purpose of this paper is to examine key challenges to effective regionalism for Indonesian higher education (HE), including charting its international engagement in regional HE networks and associations, and links to China and the Islamic world.

Based on empirical and documentary analysis, the article examines key challenges to effective regionalism for Indonesian HE.

As a leading stakeholder within ASEAN, Indonesia could be expected to play a major role in such regional networks as ASEAN Universities Network (AUN) as well as APRU, SEAMEO RIHED, and the like. Yet, even relative to some of its regional neighbours, (Singapore, Malaysia, and the somewhat anomalous Australia and New Zealand), the Indonesian HE system is peripheral, with a relatively minor presence in the international knowledge system.

The world's most populous Muslim‐majority nation, and a rising regional power, including within ASEAN, nonetheless Indonesia confronts key challenges in its HE system, both national and international. The rising demand for HE cannot be filled by public sector HEIs alone, while the proliferation of private sector HEIs, some unaccredited, poses significant issues for quality control and governance. Adding to this are external challenges, including the monitoring of international programmes and partnerships. Financing of HE is a further significant constraint, while corruption is also a major influence in Indonesian society, including in HE (thus further raising the governance stakes).

The two examples cited – of Islamic higher education, and of China‐Indonesia relations – each demonstrate the extent, and the limits, of regionalism in Indonesian HE.

What is the historical, normative and institutional setting that helps leading Latin American and Eurasian countries to implement a post-hegemonic agenda and contribute to the multipolarization of global politics? Post-hegemony describes a situation in which the unipolar organization of the world political economy is challenged by a plurality of alternative projects, without however being entirely replaced by another system. Emblematic of post-hegemonic initiatives is the rise of the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa countries who have taken the lead in creating alternative institutions that constrain US global hegemony, while however failing to spearhead a coherent, uniform and confrontational opposition movement. Regarding post-hegemonic regionalism, Latin American regionalism – as represented by Bolivarian Alliance for Our America (ALBA) – is characterized by a social justice-driven agenda that refutes US neoliberal hegemony, whereas the peculiarity of Eurasian regionalism – as represented by Shanghai Cooperation Organization – lies in its security-oriented focus that confronts US interventionism and international terrorism. An underlying commonality of both Latin American and Eurasian experiences is that they constitute a multi-front struggle centered on four main areas: culture, economy, financial cooperation, and regional defense. They both hinge on a strong normative framework and firm commitment in the regionalization of an endogenous culture, educational cooperation, and defense system. They all accord primary importance to social, financial, and infrastructural development. Overall, these experiences suffer from unresolved tensions between national sovereignty and supranationalism alongside the predominance of charismatic leaders inhibiting institutionalization. The limitations and contradictions of post-hegemonic transformations also include Latin America’s inability to resolve the question of extractivism, Eurasia’s neglect of the question of democratic participation, and both regionalism’s failure to offer a coherent alternative model of economic development to US hegemonism.

This article focuses on regional-level cooperation in higher education by examining the functional, organizational and political approaches (FOPA) framework for higher education regionalization and using supra-national regional universities as established and successful examples of regional-level higher education cooperation among countries.

A conceptual framework is used to provide the structure for analyzing the key approaches to higher education regionalization, followed by an analysis of supra-national regional universities to demonstrate the application of the model.

The FOPA framework for higher education regionalization includes three approaches. The first is the functional approach, which includes both collaborative academic and research activities among higher education institutions as well strategies and policies to help align systems across a region. The second is the organizational approach, which focuses on networks, organizations, institutions and programs, which facilitate partnerships. The third is the political approach, which includes regional-level agreements, declarations and strategic plans to promote higher education collaboration. Key higher education activities for each approach are discussed in generic terms, with examples provided from major regions of the world.

The research was based on desk research only. No interviews were conducted.

A conceptual analysis and a model were provided for the concept of regionalization of higher education and for regional universities, which can help readers locate their interests and research in the regionalization of higher education. Examples of three different types of regional universities were provided to give concrete illustrations of a regional university.

One of the rationales driving regional universities is to address and increase a sense of regional identify and to meet the social, economic and educational needs of the specified region.

Regional universities, such as the University of West Indies, Arab Open University and the Pan-Africa University, are an understudied phenomenon. Using them as innovative and sustainable examples of higher education regional cooperation and the FOPA model, this study illustrates how single-campus, multiple-campus and virtual regional universities are functioning to meet the diversified needs and priorities across a region through cooperation among countries.

This chapter aims to define comparative and international higher education (CIHE), describe its orientation and application, and reflect on research trends of the past five years. Research trends were identified through the review of panel sessions of the Higher Education Special Interest Group at the Annual Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society between 2014 and 2018. These trends include a greater focus on equity, access, and affordability; competition, rankings, and status; partnerships (e.g., international and public–private); regional integration and mobility; and a continued interest in quality and accountability as well as understanding the internationalization at the institutional and system levels. This chapter suggests explanations for these trends, which relate closely to impacts of growing competition for funding in higher education and growing inequities in the world system of higher education. Lastly, it offers recommendations for how CIHE researchers can engage with practitioners to further address these inequities.

The purpose of this paper is to see if economic regionalization in Asia is a trend for the future, and if it heralds educational regionalization, thus uniting economic internationalization and education.

This has been shown to be the case in the European Union where it is still a work in progress and may well be sliding backward, and it is certainly the case in Asia where despite or perhaps because of the plethora of regional organizations (well over 100), policies and programs, to say nothing of the continuing historical tensions between nations and sub‐regions, the process of harmonization has lurched along and questions remain as to its long‐term substance.

It is suggested that the proposition of these goals is much easier than the implementation for a variety of political, economic, and cultural reasons.

In this study a conceptual framework utilizing the concepts of centripetal and centrifugal forces is introduced to facilitate a focus on the forces and factors affecting regionalization and harmonization of higher education in the Asian region.

This paper explores the issue of developing and enhancing intra-ASEAN international student mobility given the context of ASEAN integration, regionalization of ASEAN higher education and the various intra‐ASEAN student mobility schemes currently implemented.

It explores higher education policies, available higher education and international student mobility data, as well as the various intra‐ASEAN (and relevant) student mobility schemes to present the current status of intra‐ASEAN student mobility, challenges and opportunities to further enhance student mobility within the ASEAN region.

Aside from showing that intra‐ASEAN student mobility is significantly low compared to outbound student mobility from ASEAN countries, the paper also highlights the relationship between a country’s income status with choice of intra‐ASEAN or extraASEAN student mobility. Finally, it recommends developing a comprehensive intra‐ASEAN mobility scheme taking the merits of the various intra‐ASEAN mobility schemes currently implemented and guided by developments in the European ERASMUS mobility programs.

This is probably the first (in fact, it is an exploratory) paper that address the issue of intra‐ASEAN international student mobility, which aims to explore relevant issues to address the development of a comprehensive ASEAN mobility scheme.

In the last decade, the speed and intensity with which regional level connections are expanding in all areas of the world has been remarkable. Higher education in Africa is no exception. This chapter focuses on African policies and programme initiatives to further higher education regionalization. Regionalization is defined as the process of ‘building closer collaboration and alignment among higher education actors and systems in a designated area or framework, commonly called a region’. An analytical framework, consisting of functional, organizational and political approaches, is applied to the evolution of higher education regionalization at the continental level in Africa through a close examination of the progress related to the implementation of the “African Union Strategy for the Harmonization of Higher Education Programmes.” Special emphasis is given to the harmonization of degree structures and the recognition of qualifications through sub-regional qualification frameworks. Key issues and challenges such as rationales, governance, benefits and risks, unintended consequences, language, engagement for all and innovation are raised at the end of the chapter to stimulate further reflection and exploration of the complex process of higher education regionalization.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) flagship universities in moving the agenda of regional integration forward through academic/research collaboration and cooperation.

Flagship universities are leading universities in the national higher education systems of countries that make up the ASEAN. This study on the ASEAN’s flagship universities is based on a three-pronged strategy, namely, a literature review, analysis of websites contents, and citation of supporting pieces of evidence from other relevant studies to support arguments. Using the QS top universities in Asia 2016 listing, top 70 public universities in ASEAN were selected for investigation. In instances where public universities in a particular ASEAN country were not listed in the QS listing, a premier public university of that country was then selected for investigation.

There is a tendency for ASEAN’s flagship universities to look beyond ASEAN, primarily to establish vertical collaboration, which is important to their efforts in creating their image and enhancing their reputation. As a result, academic/research collaboration among flagship universities and collaboration between these universities and other universities in ASEAN is glaringly on the low side. Interestingly, to move the regional integration agenda in ASEAN, other intermediary agencies outside of ASEAN, such as in the European Union, are very active in providing a platform for both flagship and non-flagship universities to collaborate.

While regional collaboration and cooperation within ASEAN and East Asia have been discussed elsewhere, this paper has utilised and expanded Douglass’ (2016) idea of flagship universities to include regional relevance for the purpose of regional integration of ASEAN.