The chapters in this volume derive from a research seminar hosted by the Asia Pacific Higher Education Research Partnership (APHERP) at Lingnan University in Hong Kong in November 2017. The invited participants were asked to reflect on the emergence to that point in time of âa keen and renewed interest in the rise of nationalism (and sometimes nationalism within regionalism) within the complex patterns of what has been commonly termed âcontemporary globalization.ââ Within that frame of reference, they were asked to reflect further on the implications for such on the status of higher education (HE) within the Asia Pacific region. The participants were, for the most part, drawn from the institutions that were members of APHERP, which, in turn, was a membership organization drawn largely from associations developed by the EastâWest Center in Honolulu, HawaiÊ»i. APHERP and its predecessor organization the International Forum for Education 2020 (IFE 2020) had been sponsoring a series of research seminars since 2004 focused on the many ways HE was developing within the region as part of the growing and expanding the reality of global interdependence. The more recent rise of various forms of nationalism was clearly, in many ways, a significant departure from what has become increasingly accepted as the dominant modality of much of international HE. It also seemed to be highly dynamic in both kind and reach, despite its relatively recent emergence. This volume explores multiple aspects of this nationalist phenomenon into the early months of 2018, moving back and forth from consideration of the broader dynamics of international engagement embedded within globalization to those more recently introduced and privileged by these nationalist impulses that are resulting in a re-problematizing of âthe international.â
The Chapter 2 by John Lowe and Neubauer explores two âmodalâ responses to the recent nationalist resurgence as it impacts HE. One, both sensible and limited in its perspective and range, is the response by HE professionals about their âvery livelihoods themselves.â The future of HE as an institutional embodiment of contemporary nations has arisen over the past three or so decades within a very definite international and global context, as the annual movement of international students throughout the world approaches two million. Thus, many HE professionals are concerned about how national systems will be impacted if such elements of nationalism operate to erode this massive student flow. The other response, which the authors characterize as âthe intellectual response,â arises as scholars across many disciplines and nations seek to understand the implications the nationalist resurgence has on the extent and nature of multiple discourses. Part of their reaction is an effort to âplace these events within understandable, and optimally critical, frameworks that allow further explication, analysis and understanding to take place.â Within this framework, the authors address various efforts to redefine and explore basic concepts that have flowed through the previously widely accepted international context itself.
In the following chapter, Minho Yeom reprises the development of international HE in the South Korean context over the past several decades. In so doing, he presents four differing development theoriesâmodernization theory, subordinate theory, semi-peripheral theory, and social mobility theoryâeach of which has had some significant âpurchaseâ within a South Korean context. He then explores their differential relevance through the use of statistical data organized around four indicators of internationalism in Korean HE: the number of Korean overseas students studying over the past four years; their distribution by country of destination; the number of international students studying at domestic institutions; and the influence of the English language in lectures and research in Korean higher education institutions (HEI). Yeom seeks to locate these major characteristics of Korean HE within the four development theories he has chosen to explore.
In Chapter 4, Rui Yang details the extensive efforts being made throughout parts of Asia, and specifically in Hong Kong, to develop HEIs that have engaged contemporary globalization and internationalization by integrating European and North American cultural traditions with authentic Confucian sociocultural contexts. Over the past decade or so, he argues, East Asian countries have placed such cultural integration high on their institutional agendas and have, overall, achieved considerable progress. This policy stance has opened spaces for East Asian universities both to contest the historical dominance of Western HEIs and to offer HE experiences to students that are significantly different from those available outside the region. Within the framework of this volume, Yangâs findings underscore the degree to which some intellectual centers have sought to negotiate a path between nationalism and globalization, rather than adopting a contested engagement, by framing their own intellectual endeavors with multiple cultural and intellectual traditions.
The following chapter by Yue Kan and Bingna Xu posits yet another alternative to the dichotomy between globalization and nationalism that, in their view, resides in Chinaâs Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Their presentation elaborates on how this initiative âcould beâŠa solution to mediate the conflicts between nationalism and globalizationâ and suggests implications for HE development across a range of countries that, to some extent, have been excluded or marginalized in the overall context of the internationalization of HE. Focusing initially on the seemingly endemic inequalities of development that over three decades of globalization have produced, the authors raise two basic questions that lie at the crux of the dichotomy that has emerged: One, what is the role (and one presumes here by extensionââthe legitimate roleââof nationalism in globalization? And second: Does âstepping backâ from the world, as implicit within the notions of Brexit and âTrumpian nationalismâ really benefit countries? Their exploration of the BRI is an effort to begin a useful discussion of such issues.
In Chapter 6, Kent Chang documents the unique case of Taiwan as it has sought to develop a competitive HE system both within the shadow of its much larger and better established regional âneighborsâ and in the face of what has become a defining demographic shift within the country. Within the span of three decades, the country was faced with initial demands to radically expand its HE system to meet domestic demand and to facilitate the needs of a rapidly expanding industrial sector, followed closely by the onset of the demographic crisis of a rapidly declining birth rate. This has dovetailed into placing Taiwan in a competitive context in which it has been forced to increase both the reach and quality of its HEIs. Chang borrows two related concepts from the American education experience, the Race to the Top and Back to Basics to characterize the range of policies and programs developed by the Taiwan government to meet these urgent HE needs within an increasingly competitive international/global environment. In doing so, he highlights the tensions between what he labels as the impact factor and the social impact factor of HE reforms in Taiwan.
In the following chapter, Shangbo Li guides the reader through the extensive provision of HE policies initiated in Japan by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Techn...