The purpose of this study is to explore changes in ideas for World-Class Universities (WCU) by major policy actors (government, Ministry of Education, universities, National Assembly’s Education Committee, Ministry of Finance, Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, etc.) reflected in the BK21 Project. The ultimate goal of this research is to examine their gap with the recent global trends on WCUs.
The research questions are as follows. First, it analyzed the main points of the overall project‘s programs, budget structure, and evaluation indicators by looking at the overall changes in the design of each step until the 4th stage of the BK21 project. Second, the research focused on the idea and discourse of policy actors − such as the government, the Ministry of Education, universities, the National Assembly’s Education Committee, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts − in terms of discourse institutionalism. Third, based on this, the research analyzed the relationship between ideas and power (Carstensen & Schmidt, 2016) and how each agent had made adjustments to their reflect ideas in World-Class University Building Policy.
Accordingly, this study analyzed policy discourse from the perspective of discourse institutionalism to comprehensively view the power and discourse process among policy actors at the level of ideas and discourse. Specifically, this study focused on the ‘framing’ of governments’ ideas, the ideas of the key actors appearing in the discourse process, and the discourse strategies they act to reflect their ideas in the final policy. This study used the process-tracking method to explore ideas that affected the BK21 Projects’ policy transformation. The contents of the analysis were the four periods in which the policy formation and revision was made from stage 1 to stage 4(1999~2020). Various materials related to the BK21 Project were used for analysis − press releases, research reports, public hearing materials, and minutes of the National Assembly meeting.
Prior to the analysis, theoretical exploration has shown that today's social expectations for world-class universities were beyond the realm of the state and were in the realization of the role of universities as global public goods. This explains that the policy to foster WCUs can also be interpreted in various ways depending on what the main body of globalization is and in which sphere it aims at. Based on this, the study sought to interpret the ideas and discourse of major policy actors on world-class universities. As a result, the following key issues were identified:
First, the analysis of major policy actors' ideas of WCU and the process of policy discourse showed that the government and the Ministry of Education devised policies with the idea that ‘creating a few world-class universities would improve the global reputation of higher education in Korea as a whole.’ Under these policies, weaker universities have brought about policy modifications by ‘giving shame’ to the Ministry of Education by citing cognitive justification and normative values. Specifically, despite agreeing with the government's ideas, they argued for balanced regional development, alleviating gaps between universities, and fairness. Although theoretically emphasized, the emphasis on Glocalization or regional-global connectivity did not gain much strength from the discourse of the nation's policy of fostering WCUs, which considered competition in the rankings more important.
In addition, the tug-of-war between the National Assembly's Education Committee, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the National Assembly's Budget and Accounts Committee, and the Ministry of Budget and Policy − which exercise power over the size of the budget − is centered on the idea that the policy of fostering world-class universities should be able to create top universities in the world. By citing international indicators that tells that ‘the level of higher education in our country is low’, the Ministry of Education has secured an amount of government budget for WCU policies. This, in turn, leads to the burden of the Ministry of Education to show tangible results in these international rankings in short terms. This seemed to be the reason why the project’s quantitative evaluation indices could not change easily even if all agreed to the need for a change to a qualitative performance evaluation. Also, the National R&D Evaluation has rather became representative as the basis for the performance of the overall project and seemed to have influenced the quantified quality assessment. However, the Ministry of education and the financing boards were not just in a check-up relationship. Rather, by forming a positive network with the stakeholders in finance and budgets, the Ministry of Education wanted to maintain the principle of "select and focus” to foster WCUs, so it could rule out alternative ideas from minority universities more strongly.
Second, as a result of examining the changes, the policy has undergone in accordance with the policy actor's idea of a WCU, the following are the results. The study has shown that in the early stages of the project, 'world-class universities' were used as rhetorical expressions to induce competition among domestic universities through budgeting and selective university support rather than showing excellence in the global market. In other words, the government and the Ministry of Education hid behind the scenes the purpose of reforming the university system and induced competition among universities among the nation. Thus, it ruled out alternative ideas from the university community and forced the contents of policies that were claimed to be unrelated to fostering WCUs. However, from the third stage, the Ministry of Education began to express its opinion that ‘efforts at the ‘university-wide’ level should be made to raise the ranking of world-class universities’, but its implementation was not reflected − offended against strong opposition from the Education Committee and the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts. By the fourth stage, the Ministry of Education persuaded the offenders of the need for university-level support and formed a favorable network with them, which enabled them to succeed in securing the budget for the Postgraduate Innovation Support Funds.
Third, after looking at various interpretations of WCUs, the analysis of the ideas of Korea's WCUs is as follows. First of all, Korea was very interested in securing excellent research personnel at WCUs, and it was considered that forming world-class research conditions was a way to prevent the brain drain of domestic students and secure excellent international faculties and students from abroad. In particular, all of these were considered strategies for securing global competitiveness at the national level in Korea; while as, discourse on exchanges with foreign researchers from an academic point of view and accepting multiculturalism from a socio-cultural point of view were excluded. In addition, the BK21 project did not actively discuss the financial security of universities, and it was difficult for local universities and public universities to find industries that would positively consider industry-academic cooperation in the context of Korea. In the end, based on the normative idea of 'unfairness' each university face in finding industries to fund, the conditions for securing response funds were abolished after the first and second stage. Finally, looking at the subject of autonomy and responsibilities of universities, it was understood that the responsibilities of universities benefiting from the BK21 project were generally to produce results that would represent the economic and political superiority of the country and that at the university level, it was competing with other universities in Korea to secure abundant financial resources. This is a characteristic of the university policies of countries based on Confucian culture such as Korea, and the idea of WCU was far from fulfilling the public responsibilities of the international community which is emphasized today. In particular, as long as evaluation and reputation are used as the basis for achievement, it is believed that Korea's research universities will have a number of pre-determined tasks to expand their sphere of activity to the world.
Based on the above discussion, this research produced policy suggestions such as granting responsibility to world-class universities to embrace regions-state-world, revitalizing consortiums with local leading universities, exploring strategies for academic politics, securing feasibility of qualitative assessment systems, and reaching agreements on evaluation systems with other ministries, including the Ministry of Science and Technology.