No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Globalisation and Differentiation in Higher Education Systems
... A theoretical exercise undertaken to explore how globalization would affect system dynamics in open systems (van Vught, van der Wende & Westerheijden, 2018) suggests that the extent to which higher education systems are open to globalization, on balance, increased diversity of those systems can be expected. Yet it will depend on the level of autonomy given to HEIs in the system whether they can react according to their own priorities and benefit from the global context. ...
... The 2019 UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education, being the first United Nations treaty on higher education with a global scope. 3. Attempts to regulate trans-border higher education services under WTO/GATS in the early 2000s under the Doha Round mostly failed (see: Vlk, van der Wende & Westerheijden, 2018). 4. ...
... Sistem pendidikan semakin terekspos pada dinamika globalisasi dan internasionalisasi, interaksi yang rumit dari proses-proses ini dan berbagai cara di mana institusi pendidikan tinggi terlibat dalam keduanya (van Vught, van der Wende, & Westerheijden, 2018). Globalisasi terutama dilihat sebagai proses peningkatan interkoneksi dan kompetisi di seluruh dunia, sementara internasionalisasi mengacu pada hubungan dan kerja sama lintas batas antar negara, atau antara satu-satunya lembaga pendidikan tinggi yang berada dalam sistem nasional yang berbeda (van Vught et al., 2018) Dengan demikian, globalisasi mungkin secara paradoks, pada saat yang sama dipandang sebagai faktor yang menyebabkan lebih banyak ketimpangan dalam pendidikan dan menekan perbedaan tingkat sistem. 'Terutama dalam konteks persaingan global, kebijakan pendidikan tinggi nasional tidak dapat menghindari mencoba mengoptimalkan pendidikan tinggi dan sistem penelitian dalam hal keunggulan dan keragaman' (van Vught et al., 2018) Identifikasi faktor-faktor yang mungkin mempengaruhi kepuasan siswa dan motivasi siswa akan memberikan informasi yang diperlukan organisasi pendidikan untuk mengembangkan dan menerapkan strategi yang bertujuan untuk mencapai keunggulan kompetitif (Takeuchi, Mulyasari, & Shaw, 2011). ...
... Globalisasi terutama dilihat sebagai proses peningkatan interkoneksi dan kompetisi di seluruh dunia, sementara internasionalisasi mengacu pada hubungan dan kerja sama lintas batas antar negara, atau antara satu-satunya lembaga pendidikan tinggi yang berada dalam sistem nasional yang berbeda (van Vught et al., 2018) Dengan demikian, globalisasi mungkin secara paradoks, pada saat yang sama dipandang sebagai faktor yang menyebabkan lebih banyak ketimpangan dalam pendidikan dan menekan perbedaan tingkat sistem. 'Terutama dalam konteks persaingan global, kebijakan pendidikan tinggi nasional tidak dapat menghindari mencoba mengoptimalkan pendidikan tinggi dan sistem penelitian dalam hal keunggulan dan keragaman' (van Vught et al., 2018) Identifikasi faktor-faktor yang mungkin mempengaruhi kepuasan siswa dan motivasi siswa akan memberikan informasi yang diperlukan organisasi pendidikan untuk mengembangkan dan menerapkan strategi yang bertujuan untuk mencapai keunggulan kompetitif (Takeuchi, Mulyasari, & Shaw, 2011). Partisipasi tidak langsung siswa dalam pengambilan keputusan dapat dianggap sebagai salah satu kegiatan jaminan kualitas yang paling penting yang terkait dengan peningkatan sekolah tinggi; itu terkait erat dengan mengukur kepuasan siswa dalam pendidikan, kepuasan siswa dan motivasi siswa menjadi hasil interaksi siswa dengan lingkungan pendidikan dalam bentuk persepsi siswa tentang layanan pendidikan (Stukalina, 2012). ...
This article presents an attempt to model the interrelationship between student motivation in an educational environment that utilizes several indicators of empirical evaluation. This study uses an empirical study research design. An in-depth study of qualitative research results is used to develop an understanding of the educational environment in relation to student motivation. Learn about the relationship between the educational environment with student motivation. The role of parents, sensitivity, communication and increased learning motivation.
... In this respect, it has been argued that HEIs, especially 'world-class universities', need to redefine their social contract in a global(ised) context, i.e. broaden their missions for internationalisation to be more inclusive, to balance their contributions to economic growth with social responsiveness (van der . And that 'world-class systems' should be able to address growing inequalities, therefore be able to combine openness for global performance and excellence, with internal diversity for national and local relevance (Van Vught et al., 2018). ...
... Besides inclusion, other critical and intersectional readings can be done from paradigms such as colonialism, humanism, modernism, conventionalism (Whitburn et al., 2017), transculturality (Thomsen et al., 2020), feminism (Djavadghazaryans, 2020;Tzavara & Wilczek, 2019), and human rights and social justice models (Khumalo, 2019). From these models, globalisation is paradoxically seen as a factor that causes more inequity in higher education (van Vught et al., 2018). In this sense, system diversity constitutes an essential condition that makes it possible for education to play its meritocratic role in society and counter the negative effects of globalisation. ...
From a critical comparative perspective (far from more naive and resolute trends) this study delves into the problematisation that comes with recognising comparative education as ‘the science of the difference’ (Nóvoa, 2018). Despite the cementation of discursive, regulatory, and normative governance, of a new higher education regime (Zapp & Ramirez, 2019) revealing the growing isomorphism in the global political and educational discourse of academics, some idiosyncratic characteristics can be detected as a result of the policy implemented in each context. The aim of this article is to compare the beliefs and attitudes of professors from seven Spanish universities regarding diversity, as well as the level of inclusion in higher education, by means of an exploratory, descriptive, and comparative survey. A total of 977 educators participated in a purposive sampling. Descriptive techniques, contrasting differences and comparing proportions allowed us to detect that, although there are no major differences between the teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, some of the minor ones are still worth highlighting. Some of these are the commitment to incorporate diversity in methodologies and teaching resources, in their attempt to meet the needs of diverse people, or the way they perceived personal or institutional commitment to diversity. In conclusion, it is necessary to take a stance on diversity and inclusion that supports the need to stop and reflect on the richness they can provide, from a comparative position and constantly distancing ourselves (Kim, 2020) from today’s university system.
... In this respect, it has been argued that HEIs, especially 'world-class universities', need to redefine their social contract in a global(ised) context, i.e. broaden their missions for internationalisation to be more inclusive, to balance their contributions to economic growth with social responsiveness (van der . And that 'world-class systems' should be able to address growing inequalities, therefore be able to combine openness for global performance and excellence, with internal diversity for national and local relevance (Van Vught et al., 2018). ...
This chapter is forthcoming in: Marginson, S. Cantwell, B. Platonova, D & Smolentseva, A (eds). Assessing the Contributions of Higher Education: Knowledge for a disordered world. Edward Elgar Publishers.
Abstract:
An important condition for HE to contribute to the global common good is that the national system allows it to do so. Open systems allow HEIs to contribute to global challenges, to enlarge their pool of potential human and financial resources, to extend learning opportunities, and spurs excellence in teaching and research. However, system openness is being challenged by weakened national steering capacity, nationalist-populist critique, and by national security concerns, with potential consequences for academic freedom. This chapter addresses the question "how open can it be?" by conceptualising open higher education systems and exploring the related opportunities, challenges, and consequences. Illustrated with examples from the EU, a strong proponent of openness, it puts system openness in perspective of a world of weakened multilateralism, where values of an open society are under pressure, and the globalisation paradigm seems to be shifting.
Key words: globalization, higher education, open systems, European Union, autonomy, academic freedom
... The national steering capacity (sovereignty) needed to balance internationalization with the costs and quality of higher education is being reduced. 39,40 This was illustrated in the previous sections with the example of EU/EEA students who wish to study in smaller states such the Netherlands and Denmark and who have the right to do so under EU regulation. Such countries are thus struggling with the complexity of combining the virtues of an open system with constrained national sovereignty in their steering capacity. ...
The European Union is likely the most far-developed cross-border public space for higher education. The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area (ERA) both span an even larger number of countries including associate and partner countries of the EU. Based on shared European values, such as academic freedom, cross-border cooperation, and mobility, these policy frameworks have been developed in Europe over the last decades and with much success. HE systems in this area are thus well-positioned to benefit from cross-border mobility and collaboration but may at the same time face a certain loss of control over HE, for instance with respect to access due to the cross-border flows of students. This seems to make them vulnerable to populist tendencies and neo-nationalist politics seeking to inhibit the free movement of students, scholars, and data. Such tendencies have never been completely absent on the “old continent” but resurged over the uneven outcomes of globalization, the effects of the global financial and consequent Euro crisis, and the refugee crisis. Meanwhile, the impact of the coronavirus crisis is still by and large unknown. Populist tendencies seem now to be turning against the EU, with its freedom of movement for persons (i.e. open borders) as one of its cornerstones and are therefore of concern for the HE sector. Countries such as the UK, Switzerland, Denmark, and the Netherlands have a different position in the European landscape but are all struggling with the complexity of combining the virtues of an open system with constrained national sovereignty. Sovereignty is required in terms of steering capacity in order to balance access, cost, and quality, i.e. the well-known “higher education trilemma.” In open systems this is challenged by the “globalization trilemma”, which states that countries cannot have national sovereignty, (hyper)globalization and democracy at the same time. How are the EU, its Member States, and the HE sector responding? Will the Union stay united (i.e. Brexit)? Are the legal competencies of the EU in HE strong enough? What about the many European university associations, leagues, and networks? And what do the millions of (former) Erasmus students have to say?
The objective of the study was to develop methodological approaches to determining the content of physical education teacher training.
Materials and methods. The study involved 62 students of the School of Physical Education, who studied according to the 2001-2005 curriculum. To solve the tasks set, the study used both philosophical and general scientific research methods, including: dialectical method (principle of historicism, principle of systematicity, principle of dialectical contradiction, principle of unity of quality and quantity, principle of dialectical negation, principle of development, principle of causality); systems approach; factor and discriminant analysis.
Results. The results of performance analysis show an average level of proficiency in learning material. By the coefficient of variation, the grades in History of Modern World, Culturology, Gymnastics, TMPE, 3rd year vary considerably (>33%). The students’ performance in Therapeutic Physical Training, Fundamentals of Ecology, Thesis has an average level of variability. By most indicators, the students are assessed as a homogeneous group. The analysis of similarities (h2) showed that the most informative indicators of the quality of students’ training are the grades in the following subjects: Teaching Practice (middle school) (0.817); Biomechanics (0.772); Qualification Examination (0.764); Teaching Practice (senior school) (0.763).
Conclusions. Factor and discriminant analysis provided objective information on the quality of physical education teacher training. The results of factor analysis do not confirm the objectivity of empirical identification of four groups of academic subjects of the curriculum.
The factor structure of the curriculum indicates the need to change the content of education, aimed at improving the training of highly qualified teachers. The training of a physical education teacher should include the following blocks of subjects: professional theoretical and practical training, natural sciences, theory and methods of physical education of schoolchildren, special training in the chosen sport. The results of discriminant analysis show that physical education teacher training is aimed at developing knowledge, abilities and skills in the sections: 1) Means and Methods of Physical Education; 2) Theory and Methods of Motor Abilities Development; 3) Theory and Methods of Teaching Motor Actions.
Türk yükseköğrenim sisteminin nicel göstergeler itibariyle temel özellikleri; eğitim program çeşidi, eğitim program sayısı ve programlar itibariyle öğrenci ve öğretim elemanı sayıları, ekonomik sektörlerin ihtiyaç duyduğu insan kaynağı bakımından hayati önemdedir. Yine, beş yıllık kalkınma planlarında ekonomik sektörler bazında nicel ve nitel insan kaynağı öngörüsü bakımından yükseköğrenim sisteminin röntgeninin çekilmesi kritik önemdedir. Bu çalışmada, uluslararası standart eğitim sınıflaması (ISCED) çerçevesinde, Türk yükseköğrenim sistemi nicel verilere dayalı olarak ele alınmaktadır. Böylece, Türk yükseköğrenim sisteminin, temel özellikleri itibariyle uluslararası karşılaştırmalara imkan vermesi sağlanacaktır. Sonuç olarak, eğitim sınıflaması (ISCED), meslek ve uğraşı sınıflaması (ISCO) ve ekonomik faaliyet sınıflaması (ISIC) arasında kurulacak bağlantılara dayalı insan kaynakları planlaması hem ulusal politikalar bakımından hem de uluslararası raporlama ve karşılaştırmalar bakımından yararlı olacaktır.
This chapter discusses the recent and unanticipated changes in the global political context in which higher education operates in the early 21st century. In this light, prior scenarios for higher education and taken-for-granted expectations and assumptions regarding the impact of globalization are reviewed. Apparent and growing imbalances and inequalities in higher education lead to a critical reflection on the global governance of higher education, which has so far failed to effectively address these. At the same time, the data provided in this chapter clearly indicate that global trends and flows in higher education and research require stronger rather than weaker approaches to global governance. Moreover, higher education’s mission in both research and teaching requires a global dimension. It cannot educate students as global citizens or contribute to solving global challenges through its research, if it is bound to operate exclusively within national higher education systems. The chapter concludes by exploring questions around possible new models and shifting political leadership roles in the future global governance of higher education.
Global higher education can be understood as a field of power configured by (1) nationally-ordered higher education systems; (2) global structures that criss-cross all national systems, for example in English language scientific research and academic publishing; and (3) growing cross-border movement and engagement between national systems. Universities in the Anglo-American countries, especially the United States, play the leading role in global higher education, dominating the lists of top research producers, attracting almost half of all cross-border students, and modelling higher education on the basis of norms installed through competitive global ranking systems, which exercise an increasing disciplinary potency in national policy and university strategy. At the same time, there are signs of a global pluralization of capacity and perhaps identity in higher education: student participation is growing rapidly in most countries with a per capita income of more than about $3000 per annum, indigenous scientific output is produced in an increasing number of countries, the leading European research universities are strengthening their relative position in global tables, and universities in East Asia (especially China), and to a lesser extent Latin America and the Middle East/North Africa, exercise an expanding role at world level. Aside from Japan the East Asian systems are exceptionally dynamic at this time.
The search continues for a Chinese research university model that can balance quality and quantity in research and teaching. This paper argues that finding one depends upon deepening internationalization, defining educational sovereignty, and expanding university autonomy. The paper does this by examining selected aspects in the development of the research university systems of the Chinese mainland and China’s Hong Kong, particularly with respect to the governance of research and teaching.
In today’s world, it has become all too familiar for policymakers and higher education leaders to identify and define their ambitions and strategies in terms of a favourable global ranking for their universities/university. But, is it always a good thing for a university to rise up the rankings and break into the top 100? How much do we really know and understand about rankings and what they measure? Do rankings raise standards by encouraging competition or do they undermine the broader mission of universities to provide education? Can rankings measure the quality of education? Should students use rankings to help them choose where to study? Should rankings be used to help decide education policies and the allocation of scarce resources? Are rankings an appropriate guide for employers to use when recruiting new employees? Should higher education policies aim to develop world-class universities or to make the system world-class?
This chapter discusses the rising attention accorded to global rankings and their implications for higher education. It is divided into five parts. Part one explores the growing importance accorded to rankings; part two discusses what rankings measure; part three asks whether rankings measure what counts; and part four reflects on how the use and abuse of rankings are influencing policy choices. Finally, part five addresses a key policy question: should governments focus on building the capacity of a few world-class universities or on the capacity of the higher education system-as-whole, in other words, building a world-class higher education system?
Because "world class" universities are now believed to be a primary contributor to comparative economic advantage among the advanced nations, policymakers are pursuing substantial reforms in the governance and management of the university sector. Reflecting the "new institutional economics" these reforms frequently seek to make assumptions about the nature and distribution of information on higher education much more explicit. But there are serious concerns that these new economically-inspired national policies are undermining the traditional contributions that universities have made to the "public good." Based upon two recent comparative studies of the influence of national policies on higher education, this paper explores what we are learning about the role of information in the design of effective higher education policy. Of particular note is the role of information in: student choice of university, the assurance of academic quality, the assessment of academic research, and the contribution of university public service to economic development.
Cet article evoque le passage d'un scepticisme generalise a l'acceptation des processus de reforme dans le domaine de l'enseignement superieur et souligne les avancees de cette harmonisation en passe d'etre reussie...
We analyze credence goods markets in the case of two firms. Consumers know that the quality of the good varies but do not
know which firm is of high quality. First, we show that the high quality producer may be unable to monopolize the market,
or even to survive in some cases, in situations where it is efficient and trusted by all consumers. Second, although a label
restoring full information improves welfare, it may also reduce both firms’ profits by intensifying competition. Since even
the high quality producer may not wish to label its product, in such cases the label must be mandatory. Third, an imperfect
label which moves everybody’s beliefs closer to the truth without restoring full information may produce adverse results on
market structure and welfare, either by increasing or by reducing the variance of beliefs.
This paper offers an overarching analyticalheuristic that takes us beyond currentresearch, anchored in conceptions of nationalstates, markets, and systems of highereducation institutions. We seek to shapecomparative higher education research withregard to globalization in much the same waythat Clark's (1983) ``triangle'' heuristic hasframed comparative higher education research inthe study of national policies and highereducation systems. Our ``glonacal agencyheuristic'' points to three intersecting planesof existence, emphasizing the simultaneoussignificance of global, national, and localdimensions and forces. It combines the meaningof ``agency'' as an established organization withits meaning as individual or collective action. Our paper critiques the prevailing framework incross-national higher education research,addressing the liberal theory that underpinsthis framework, the ways scholars address therise of neo-liberal policies internationally,conceptual shortcomings of this work, andemergent discourse about ``academic capitalism''. We then discuss globalization and ourheuristic. Finally, we provide examples of howstates, markets, and institutions can bereconceptualized in terms of global, national,regional, and local agencies and agency.
During the last few years, the EU and the OECD have become increasingly involved in the field of education policy. Both international
organisations have been approached by national governments in this issue area and have triggered and shaped domestic debates
about the reform of national education systems. In this contribution, we look at the two most prominent among these initiatives:
the ‘Bologna process’, which is by now commonly associated with the EU and involves the standardisation of degree structures
in higher education with the goal of creating a single European Higher Education Area (EHEA), and the OECD’s ‘Program for
International Student Assessment’ (PISA), which regularly evaluates the performance of school students in different national
education systems. Both processes stimulated extensive public debates and compelled policy makers to restructure their national
education systems.
This study investigates if transnational communication in the context of the Bologna Process (BP) has led to the convergence
of higher education (HE) policies. The country sample includes both Bologna participants and non-participants, for which systematic
knowledge about the implications of the BP is absent so far. We investigate study structures and quality assurance measures,
which differ in their suitability for transnational benchmarking activities and are explicitly addressed by the BP. Our results
show that convergent effects differ across policy dimensions and according to the subsamples. We generally find that convergence
is greater for the participant countries than for the control group. However, convergence towards the HE policies of Bologna
participants is detectable in the control group, albeit to a lesser degree. Thus, some HE policies have diffused beyond the
members of the BP. This lends evidence that transnational communication can induce policy change even for countries not participating
in the respective harmonization process.
Incl. bibl., abstract In this contribution both the literature and the present-day policies regarding diversity in higher education systems will be discussed. The first part presents an overview of the theoretical and empirical studies on differentiation and diversity. Based on this, a conceptual framework is presented, which intends to explain the processes of differentiation and dedifferentiation in higher education systems. Two crucial variables are identified, and both have a crucial impact on the behaviour of higher education institutions: the level of uniformity in the environment of higher education institutions and the level of influence of academic norms and values in these institutions. The second part of this contribution focuses on current higher education policies. Hoping to create better and stronger contributions by higher education institutions to the 'knowledge society', many governments nowadays develop policies of less state control and more autonomy. It will be argued that these policies do not automatically lead to more diversity in higher education systems. The reason for this is simply that markets work imperfectly in higher education systems and that the behaviour of higher education institutions is triggered by competition for reputation, a process producing several unintended consequences. In this latter context the recent rankings and typologies in higher education are also discussed.
Most of us need the services of an expert when our apartment's heating or our washing machine breaks down, or when our car starts to make strange noises. And for most of us, commissioning an expert to solve the problem causes concern. This concern does not disappear even after repair and payment of the bill. On the contrary, one worries about paying for a service that was not provided or receiving some unnecessary treatment. This article studies the economics underlying these worries. Under which conditions do experts have an incentive to exploit the informational problems associated with markets for diagnosis and treatment? What types of fraud exist? What are the methods and institutions for dealing with these informational problems? Under which conditions does the market provide incentives to deter fraudulent behavior? And what happens if all or some of those conditions are violated?
World-Class Universities (WCUs) are nationally embedded comprehensive higher education institutions (HEIs) that are closely engaged in the global knowledge system. The article reviews the conditions of possibility and evolution of WCUs. Three interpretations are used to explain worldwide higher education: neoliberal theory, institutional theory, and critical political economy, which give greater recognition than the other theories to the role of the state and variations between states. World higher education is evolving under conditions of globalization, organizational modernization (the New Public Management), and in some countries, marketization. These larger conditions have become manifest in higher education in three widespread tendencies: massification, the WCU movement, and organizational expansion. The last includes the strengthening of the role of the large multi-disciplinary multi-purpose HEIs (“multiversities”), in the form of both research-intensive WCUs with significant global presence, and other HEIs. The role of binary sector and specialist HEIs has declined. Elite WCUs gain status and strategic advantage in both quantity and quality: through growth and the expansion of scope, and through selectivity and research concentration. The balance between quantity and quality is now resolved at larger average size and broader scope than before. The final section of the article reviews WCUs in China and considers whether they might constitute a distinctive university model.
An important contribution to the international discussion on higher education globalization and worldwide rankings of higher education institutions, this volume criticizes the existing one-dimensional and aggregated international ranking models and suggests an interesting and exciting new approach of multi-dimensional mapping of higher education institutions.
The text gives readers a window on the unique process of developing a new approach to creating effective transparency in the diversity of higher education systems. It describes the conceptual, practical and methodological frameworks relevant to this new approach, whose development was based on theoretical and empirical literature on diversity in higher education. The authors report on the design methodology and research that were applied to develop the new instrument and also place it in the context of current supranational and national higher education policies.
The new system emerged from a top-level EU project to design the first European classification of higher education institutions as a tool for mapping the diversity of the higher education landscape. The editor and chapter authors are all international leaders in the field who took part in the multi-year project. They also explore the potential application of the classification in the contexts of the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education and Research Areas (EHEA and ERA). The book analyzes, too, how the system can be used at the level of individual higher education institutions, where the classification is shown to be a useful instrument for strategic institutional profiling.
This volume will be of interest to politicians and policy-makers in higher education at the supranational, national and sub-national levels, and to leaders and managers of higher education institutions and associations. It is also highly relevant to staff members and advisors at different policy levels, to higher education researchers and students, and to all who are interested in the further development of higher education systems and institutions.
Global massification of postsecondary education, with more than 200 million students studying at an untold number of institutions focusing on every specialization possible, necessitates a differentiated system of postsecondary education in every country. This book provides the first comparative study of how postsecondary education has evolved in 13 countries. The study offers an analysis of current global realities and how different nations have constructed their response. Our research shows that few countries have developed rational and differentiated academic systems to meet new realities. The book provides insights regarding useful approaches for the development of academic systems. The book reveals similarities and differences in the 13 case studies as different governments have expanded postsecondary education to respond to the massification of enrollment. Postsecondary education has become diversified, but for the most part not adequately differentiated in most countries. Several of the case studies underscore the challenge of sustaining differentiation within the system if credentials from non-university, postsecondary institutions are considered of lesser social status. Too often institutions that successfully address the practical needs of national economies are ultimately merged into the university system. There is an urgent need for the planning and structuring of coherent systems of postsecondary education to serve the increasingly diverse clientele in need of the skills required by the knowledge economy. This study is the first global analysis aimed at understanding how post-secondary education can be organized to meet society’s requirements and points to the need for designing coherent academic systems.
p>In reaction to the focus of international university rankings on a tiny cluster of “world class universities”, attempts are being made to rank national higher education systems. This paper compares the results of the U21 system ranking with those of major university rankings, reviews the reasons for their similarities. It argues that system rankings are critical and suggests how to enhance their usefulness</p
As a response to processes of globalisation and regional integration, internationalisation activities in universities have changed. Flows have become more massive, the range of activities has broadened, and internationalisation has shifted from a marginal activity to a central institutional issue with strategic importance. These shifts can also be observed in international cooperation among universities. One of the manifestations of this shift is the increase and change of inter-organisational arrangements in higher education. One type of such arrangements - higher education consortia - are analysed in detail in the study. This analysis takes inter-organisational diversity as a starting point. The basic thesis is that partners need to be similar, yet different, or in other words, there needs to be sufficient complementarity as well as sufficient compatibility among the participating universities. The article also explores the ways in which the management of consortia can improve the levels of complementarity and compatibility and thus the success of such consortia.
'Governing Universities Globally provides a comprehensive account of higher education in the world today and successfully demonstrates how the study of universities now needs to acknowledge to the global environment.' - Andrew Steven Gunn, Political Studies.
One can find in any airport kiosk books that proclaim ours to be "the Chinese century". We have titles such as "The Dragon Awakes", "China's Rise", "The Rise of China", and "China's Ascent", to name but a few. But to rise is not necessarily to lead. What constitutes leadership? In higher education, China is building the fastest growing system-in quality as well as in quantity-in the world. The foremost global powers of the past four centuries all offered models in the realms of culture, ideas, and education. This may be said of seventeenth-century France under Louis XIV; of the Qing during the Qianlong reign of the eighteenth century; of Britain and Germany in the nineteenth century; and of the United States in the twentieth. China now aspires to educate global elites. For the twenty-first century, then, are Chinese universities poised for global leadership?.
On the basis of an analysis of the literature, social practice, and the results of a concrete sociological survey, the article examines the main problems of education in Russia today, the ways they are conditioned by corruption, and possible solutions.
During the last decades ranking has become one of the most controversial issues in higher education and research. It is widely recognized now that, although some of the current rankings can be severely criticized, they seem to be here to stay. In addition, rankings appear to have a great impact on decision-makers at all levels of higher education and research systems worldwide, including in universities. Rankings reflect a growing international competition among universities for talent and resources; at the same time they reinforce competition by their very results. Yet major concerns remain as to the rankings' methodological underpinnings and to their various impacts.
This new book presents a comprehensive overview of the current ‘state of the art’ of ranking in higher education and research, and introduces a completely new approach called ‘multidimensional ranking’. In part 1 rankings are discussed in the broader context of quality assurance and transparency in higher education and research. In addition the many current ranking methodologies are analyzed and criticized, and their impacts are explored. In part 2 a new approach to ranking is introduced, based on the basic idea that higher education and research institutions have different profiles and missions and that the performances of these institutions should reflect these differences. This multidimensional approach is operationalized in a new multidimensional and user-driven ranking tool, called U-Multirank. U-Multirank is the outcome of a pilot project, sponsored by the European Commission, in which the new ranking instrument was designed and tested at a global scale.
In recent decades, the international dimension has gained importance in higher education policy. First of all, higher education trends have been increasingly analysed at the international level, with an important role played by international and intergovernmental organisations such as the OECD and UNESCO. On the academic side, these analyses have been supported by international comparative higher education research, carried out by research centres such as the Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) in the Netherlands. Second, it has been acknowledged that government policies need to address the internationalisation of higher education directly, and should aim to move beyond existing schemes for academic mobility towards policies which encourage higher education institutions to internationalise their core functions. And third, the awareness has grown that policy initiatives are also needed at an international level.
Long a fruitful area of scrutiny for students of organizations, the study of institutions is undergoing a renaissance in contemporary social science. This volume offers, for the first time, both often-cited foundation works and the latest writings of scholars associated with the "institutional" approach to organization analysis. In their introduction, the editors discuss points of convergence and disagreement with institutionally oriented research in economics and political science, and locate the "institutional" approach in relation to major developments in contemporary sociological theory. Several chapters consolidate the theoretical advances of the past decade, identify and clarify the paradigm's key ambiguities, and push the theoretical agenda in novel ways by developing sophisticated arguments about the linkage between institutional patterns and forms of social structure. The empirical studies that followinvolving such diverse topics as mental health clinics, art museums, large corporations, civil-service systems, and national politiesillustrate the explanatory power of institutional theory in the analysis of organizational change. Required reading for anyone interested in the sociology of organizations, the volume should appeal to scholars concerned with culture, political institutions, and social change.
Much modern social theory depicts society as made up of autonomous and purposive individual and organized actors. In reaction, the new institutional theories build arguments about the wider social conditions supporting stable systems of such agentic actors. Phenomenological versions, which are especially relevant to analyses of modern integrating but stateless world society, treat actor identities as themselves constructed in the wider and now global cultural context. These ideas call attention to the modern collective construction of expansive models of actors, the rapid diffusion and adoption of elaborated models of actor agency and rights, the consequently decoupled character of actor identities and activities in the modern system, and the extraordinary mobilizing potential built into the elaborated models of individual and organizational actors in world society and into the inconsistencies between these models and activity.
This chapter will review the dilemmas, promises and impact of university rankings and their relation to systems for the classification
of different types of higher education institutions. It will be argued that rankings only make sense within defined groups
of comparable institutions, in other words that classification is a prerequisite for sensible rankings. And that both rankings
and classifications should be multidimensional in order to adequately reflect and sustain the diversity within higher education
systems and institutions, while making this transparent at the same time. This will be discussed with a special focus on the
European context, where the Bologna Process combines trends of convergence and diversity leading to the need for more transparency
(see Chapter 3). A particular approach to ranking, developed by CHE,1 will be presented as a best-practice alternative to many of the shortcomings of conventional rankings. On the basis of cross-border
pilot studies its potential for developing into a wider European system will be explored.
Europe and its universities have a strong and long-standing relationship. Over the centuries European universities have contributed significantly to the social, economic and cultural development of Europe. The very existence of the European universities reflects one of the most central dimensions of the “idea of Europe”. Particularly from the age of the Enlightenment on, European universities became the institutional home of modernity and rationality. When, as Kant said, Europe broke out of its “self-imposed tutelage” during the Enlightenment, modernity became a fundamental European invention and modern science lay at the heart of that modernisation process. Rationality and the corresponding attitude to science and technology became essential and decisive elements of European identity. “Since Europe became Europe in its own eyes, science has been held up as its image and it emblem” (Daston 2005, p. 30).
Over time, European universities have changed considerably. Yet they also remained the central European institutions of reason, knowledge, criticism and learning. Plato′s Academy was a centre of dialogue and critical enquiry. The medieval universities were open, self-governing communities of scholars. The “liberal university” of Cardinal John Newman was an institution for independent intellectual self-empowerment. And Wilhelm von Humboldt′s proposals for the establishment of the University of Berlin were first of all aimed at preventing the search for knowledge being corrupted by social forces (Barnett 1990; De Ridder-Symoens 1992, 1996; Nybom 2003).
The authors analyze the nation-state as a worldwide institution constructed by worldwide cultural and associational processes, developing four main topics: (1) properties of nation-states that result from their exogenously driven construction, including isomorphism, decoupling, and expansive structuration; (2) processes by which rationalistic world culture affects national states; (3) characteristics of world society that enhance the impact of world culture on national states and societies, including conditions favoring the diffusion of world models, expansion of world-level associations, and rationalized scientific and professional authority; (4) dynamic features of world culture and society that generate expansion, conflict, and change, especially the statelessness of world society, legitimation of multiple levels of rationalized actors, and internal inconsistencies and contradictions.
A model of vertical product differentiation is used to analyze the labeling of credence goods, focusing on the manner by which quality is communicated. The results indicate that firms prefer private labeling options. In addition, firms may hire private certifiers as well as paying for mandated government labels when the government's quality benchmark substantially deviates from firms' private quality choices. The average consumer prefers a mandatory, discrete label with a high-quality standard while poor consumers prefer a mandatory, discrete label with a low standard. Copyright 2007 American Agricultural Economics Association.
How global competition is changing universities: Three theoretical perspectives. Research & occasional paper series: CSHE.5.16
- I Chirikov
Chirikov, I. (2016). How global competition is changing universities: Three theoretical perspectives.
Research & occasional paper series: CSHE.5.16. Berkeley: CSHE, University of California
Berkeley.
Trumpism and universities À Advantage China?
- G Postiglione
Postiglione, G. (2017). Trumpism and universities À Advantage China? In University World News,
Issue No: 445. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story¼20170
130231734559
Vertical differentiation and credence goods: Harmonized labeling and gains from international integration
- I Sheldon
- B Roe
Sheldon, I., & Roe, B. (2008). 'Vertical differentiation and credence goods: Harmonized labeling and
gains from international integration', American Agricultural Economics Association Annual
Meeting. Orlando, Florida.
Isomorphism in higher education? Towards a theory of differentiation and diversity in higher education systems
- F A Vught
Vught, F. A. (1996). Isomorphism in higher education? Towards a theory of differentiation and
diversity in higher education systems. In V. L. Meek, L. C. J. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, &
The mockers and mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education (pp. 42À58)
R. Rinne (Eds.), The mockers and mocked: Comparative perspectives on differentiation, convergence and diversity in higher education (pp. 42À58). Oxford: Pergamon.
van Vught, F. A. (2008). Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education
Policy, 21(2), 151À174.