INTERNATIONALISATION
OF HIGHER EDUCATION
IN THE
ASIA-PACIFIC
OUTCOMES REPORT
12–13 June 2014
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
SYMPOSIUM PLANNING COMMITTEE
■■ Gordon Cheung
■■ Helen Cook
■■ Susan Elliott
■■ Phil Honeywood
■■ Renee Kim
■■ Betty Leask
■■ Surakit Nathisuwan
■■ Emily O’Callaghan
■■ Chris Ziguras
■■ Helen Zimmerman
SPECIAL THANKS
The Planning Committee would like
to give special thanks to key funding
partner Austrade, under the Asian
Business Engagement Plan, and the
sponsors i-graduate, ETS TOEFL, The
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Griffith
University and the University of Melbourne
whose support is greatly valued.
Special thanks also to Emily
O’Callaghan (IEAA), Peter Muntz
(IEAA) and Audrey Chung (CUHK) for
managing and coordinating all aspects
of the delivery of this conference.
This report provides an indication of the
views of the participating individuals.
They do not necessarily represent the
views of the funding partner, sponsors
or organisers.
SPONSORS
Gold sponsor
Platinum sponsor
Silver sponsors
FOREWORD
Australia has long recognised the merit of genuine global engagement in the education
sector. This was epitomised in its post-World War II Colombo Plan scholarship initiative which
provided meaningful study opportunities to thousands of higher education students from
across the Asian region.
Over the years, significant people-to-people and institution-to-institution relationships have
been further developed within the Asia Pacific education community. Such relationships
have become much more multi-faceted than the original scholarship or paid tuition fee study
abroad models envisaged. Internationalisation of higher education now embraces research
collaboration, transnational education delivery, internationalisation of the curriculum and
large scale student and academic mobility programs. Just as the education linkages have
become more complex, so too have the professional development needs of academics and
education professionals working in the international education sector.
This was the context within which the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA)
and the Asia-Pacific Association for International Education (APAIE) decided to extend their
collaboration with a two-day ‘Internationalisation of Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific’
symposium at the Chinese University of Hong Kong from 12–13 June 2014.
The two important themes of student mobility and research collaboration resonated with 100
delegates from 14 countries in attendance. Joint papers on the key themes were delivered
by globally recognised academic leaders in their fields. Workshops, open dialogue and
networking opportunities were also key features of the event.
On behalf of the organising committee and all those who were in attendance at the
inaugural ‘Internationalisation of Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific’ symposium, I extend our
appreciation to Austrade for its significant support under its Asia Business Engagement Plan.
This symposium ensured that the international education sector’s collaborative potential
within the Asia-Pacific region can be further enhanced to meet our mutual objectives.
HON. PHIL HONEYWOOD
National Executive Director
International Education Association of Australia (IEAA);
Member of the Symposium Planning Committee
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
INTRODUCTION 8
DAY 1: STUDENT MOBILITY10
Key issues identified
Feedback from breakout groups
Questions for further exploration and recommendations
DAY 2: RESEARCH COLLABORATION15
Key issues identified
Feedback from breakout groups
Questions for further exploration and recommendations
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS19
APPENDICES22
APPENDIX 1 – RESEARCH PAPER 124
‘Open access student mobility and integrated interactive short-term
student mobility as responses to deeper internationalisation in higher education’
Kent Anderson and Takamichi Tam Mito
APPENDIX 2 – RESEARCH PAPER 232
‘Promoting international research collaboration: Partnering Australia and China’
Jessica Gallagher, John Pickering, Matt Sanders and Geoff Wang
APPENDIX 3 – DELEGATE LIST
APPENDIX 4 – SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM45
40
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 21st century is the Asian century.
As the world gallops towards a virtually
borderless state – fuelled by rapid
and transformational technological
developments, with previously
unimaginable open pathways to
communication, worldliness and
commercial advantage – nowhere is the
pace of development greater than in Asia.
With its population strength and entrepreneurial
disposition, Asia is emerging as the dynamic centre
of the globe in the 21st century. In this period of rapid
transformational development in the Pacific – where
relationships will be key to mutual growth, prosperity
and security – it is timely to consider internationalisation
strategies in the form of student mobility and research
collaboration across the region.
This two-day symposium to address ‘Internationalisation of
Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific’ was jointly organised
by the International Education Association of Australia
(IEAA) and the Asia-Pacific Association for International
Education (APAIE) and hosted by the Chinese University
of Hong Kong. The symposium’s twin focus was student
mobility and research collaboration.
Research collaboration across the region was seen to
be highly important in building regional capacity and
capability to tackle health, environmental, scientific,
intellectual and commercial challenges through
sharing resources and expertise.
Barriers were identified in terms of individual cultural
characteristics, institutional characteristics and
government and community characteristics.
Institutions shared examples of innovative practices
to counter many of these barriers. Such practices
included short-term programs, relationship building
activities, creativity in sourcing funding from business,
philanthropy, various government departments, alumni,
institutional partners, gathering a body of research data
to influence parents, community and government and
exploring the opportunities offered by technology.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION
Student mobility
■■ How do we define success or effectiveness of
international student mobility? How do we measure it?
■■ How do we define the quality of an international
student mobility experience? How do we measure it?
The goals of the symposium were to:
■■ What impact do efforts to broaden access, through
scale for example, have on effectiveness?
■■ begin an ongoing dialogue,
■■ How do we ensure future equity of opportunity?
■■ establish networks and partnerships, and
■■ develop innovative recommendations for joint
approaches to the internationalisation of education
in the region.
The 100 delegates from 65 institutions in the region
who participated in the symposium strongly confirmed
the value of student mobility as transformational
for students in terms of personal development,
employability and academic development.
6
■■ As destinations become more diverse, and
students more adventuresome, how do we ensure
appropriate duty of care procedures and manage
risks to the personal safety of students?
Research collaboration
■■ How do we identify appropriate opportunities in the
region?
■■ How do we identify appropriate partners in the region?
Develop a combined approach, as an Asia-Pacific
education community, to:
■■ advocate for governments to develop a whole of
government approach to international student and
researcher mobility.
■■ advocate for the establishment of an APEC Student/
Researcher Visitor Card to facilitate ease of student/
researcher mobility within the region.
■■ advocate for the establishment or expansion of
Government scholarships to support student and
researcher mobility within the region.
■■ collaborate to establish an Asia–Pacific quality
assurance framework that will support mutual
recognition and credit portability for students across
institutions in the region.
■■ collaborate to establish an Asia-Pacific
internationalisation framework to facilitate the
development of regional partnerships and facilitate
mobility.
■■ collaboratively explore the establishment of a
virtual Asia-Pacific campus accessing courses from
universities across the region and offering mobility
options across the partner institutions.
■■ establish an Asia-Pacific Centre for Doctoral Training
that could engage industry partners and build
collaborative institutional relationships through
the use of regional expertise in the training and
supervision of candidates.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
■■ explore the possibilities for the establishment of a
research network that provides:
■■ an active repository of researcher activity,
■■ a notice board where opportunities being
offered in the region by a range of funding
partners can be posted, and
■■ a who’s who of researchers across the region
who are open to partnering opportunities.
NEXT STEPS
■■ gather reflections from symposium participants
in 2–3 months time to measure impact of the
symposium and guide future discussions;
■■ to explore the opportunity to continue the
dialogue commenced here at a follow up
symposium in 2016;
■■ provide a commissioning opportunity for
researchers in the region to write a short digest of
recent research in an area of specific interest to
the international education community;
■■ to expand publication of quarterly Research Digests
to share current research information across the
Asia-Pacific region;
■■ to put the recommendations of this symposium
before the IEAA and APAIE boards.
100 delegates from
65 institutions across
the Asia-Pacific
attended the
symposium aimed
at enhancing cross
border collaboration
in student mobility
and research.
7
INTRODUCTION
In literature, and increasingly in the
common vernacular, the 21st century is
becoming known as the Asian Century.
The Asian Century, positions its member
countries, including Australia, in an
exciting, rapidly developing territory;
a territory full of promise, but also with
challenges.
Deeply embedded in Asia geographically, and
increasingly financially and socioculturally as both
trade and migration grows at pace, Australia and
Asia’s security and prosperity are wedded. Growth and
prosperity of member nations offer opportunities for all.
Similarly, crises of health, finance, trade or of a sociopolitical nature, that are felt in member nations have the
potential to reverberate across all neighbour nations.
The importance of the relationship is recognised in the
recent ‘Australia in the Asian Century’ white paper
released by the Australian government in 2012. This white
paper offers recommendations to support Australia
to strengthen its position in Asia and to be a sharing
partner in both the opportunities and the responsibilities
that are attendant in this Asian Century as the AsiaPacific becomes the new centre of global strength in
population, economy, production and consumption.
The paper highlights the strength of people-to-people
links. The relationships between people will, as ever, be
critical in building the strength of the neighbourhood.
People-to-people links will serve to advance our
language capabilities and cross cultural understandings
which are essential if we are to successfully build a
region where neighbours are concerned for one
another’s security, prosperity and well being.
Since the 1950s Australia has had a growing
appreciation of its position in Asia. As neighbour
nations we have long since begun exploring and
8
expanding this neighbourly relationship through
education. With the post–World War II introduction of
the Colombo Plan, Australia began forging links with
people in Asia through education.
Many of these early recipients of the Colombo Plan
scholarships now hold leadership positions in business,
academia, medicine and politics and retain an
understanding and an affinity for Australia.
In this period of rapid transformational development in
the Asia-Pacific – where relationships will be key to mutual
growth, prosperity and security – it is timely to consider
internationalisation strategies in the form of student
mobility and research collaboration across the region.
Student mobility in the region presented as the initial
strategy in terms of internationalisation of higher
education through the development of people-topeople links and shared learning and perspectives.
It remains, arguably, the most successful of strategies. Of
the 526,000 international students studying in Australia in
2013, across all education sectors, more than 60 per cent
were from Asia.
The strongest sending country is China with
approximately 150,000 students and a further 175,000
students coming from other countries within Asia.
Asia represents 8 of the top 10 nationalities studying in
Australia. These students continue to act as ambassadors
for their home country when in Australia and for Australia
when they return home, thus building both language and
cross cultural literacy in both countries.
While in the past the student mobility flow has been
predominately from Asia to Australia, we are now
beginning to see a growing rate of outward student
mobility to Asia with approximately one third of
Australia’s outwardly mobile students choosing Asia
as a destination. This is a trend that both Australian
universities and the Australian government are
encouraging and supporting through a range of
strategies including the New Colombo Plan.
Research collaboration in the region is an important
and growing internationalisation strategy in higher
education. It is fed by two key factors:
1. Increased capacity and capability in the region.
There has been rapid growth in both the number
and the strength of universities in Asia which, in the
annual Times Higher Education World University
Rankings 2013, now has 10 universities in the top 100
compared to Australia’s 5 – with many of them out
ranking Australian universities. The region’s growth
and China’s commitment to direct almost 2 per
cent of GDP to research annually is also a significant
enabler of research collaborations.
“In this period of rapid
transformational development in
the Pacific – where relationships
will be key to mutual growth,
prosperity and security – it is timely
to consider internationalisation
strategies in the form of
student mobility and research
collaboration across the region.”
2. Regional challenges. Asia is a diverse region where
growth and development are disparate and there
is an abundance of health, education, social and
environmental challenges, that the region now
has the appetite and resources to tackle. They
also offer a rich pool of able academic partners
for wide reaching outbound research projects.
Asian universities will both be seeking partners and
offering partners to address local, regional and
global challenges.
It is in this regional environment of rapid growth and
development, increased educational capability
and capacity, increased outward focus and the
recognised importance of people-to-people links that
this symposium was developed.
This two-day symposium was jointly organised by the
International Education Association of Australia (IEAA)
and the Asia-Pacific Association for International
Education (APAIE) and hosted by the Chinese
University of Hong Kong.
The goals of the symposium were to:
■■ begin an ongoing dialogue,
■■ establish networks and partnerships, and
■■ develop innovative recommendations for joint
approaches to the internationalisation of education
in the region.
With the support of Austrade, two leading research
papers were commissioned addressing the barriers
and the opportunities for student mobility and research
collaboration in the region. Papers were disseminated
to all participants prior to the symposium. These papers
are published with this report (see Appendices 1–2.
p.24, p.32).
Invitations were issued to higher education institutions
and authorities across the region with 100 delegates
from 65 institutions attending. There was a very even
level of representation from Australian and Asian
organisations (see Appendix 3, p.40).
This report gathers the comments, concerns,
questions for further exploration and recommendations
from the participating delegates.
9
DAY 1 STUDENT MOBILITY
KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
Discussion on the first day of strategic dialogue focused on the value,
the barriers and the opportunities of Asia-Pacific student mobility.
VALUE
BARRIERS
The discussions on the value, or outcomes, of student
mobility combined the research presented by
i-graduate and the practical and reflective experience
of institutions across the region.
The symposium identified barriers to international
student mobility in three domains:
The preliminary findings of the i-graduate ‘Impact of
student exchange’ research indicated that the 1,700
students surveyed from across seven leading institutions
in the Asia-Pacific region reported positive outcomes
from student exchange with 90 per cent rating it as a
positive learning experience (the highest rating). The
students rated all elements of the experience very
highly with the lowest rating (58 per cent) being given
to the overall support from their home university.
The findings presented indicated that students found
the experience beneficial in terms of both academic
and non-academic outcomes, including career
opportunities and developing a global perspective.
Duration and destination impacted on the perceived
value of the experience with periods of 7–9 months or
longer being seen as most beneficial.
These findings were reinforced by symposium
participants’ personal experience, noting students’
increased employability, improved retention rates,
improved academic grades and global perspective.
There was strong agreement that international
student mobility was the single most impactful and
transformative experience that most students have
during their higher education studies.
10
1. Individual
Language competence,
funding and parental consent
2. Institutional
Differing curriculum structure and expectations,
differing teaching and assessment standards, credit
transfer issues, difficulty with mutual recognition
and recognition of prior learning across institutions,
synchronisation of scheduling of classes and
semesters that differ greatly, and potentially
obstructive institutional policies and practices (e.g.
fees, academic progression, timetabling, student
and staff attitudes).
3. Governmental/Community
Immigration issues, government-imposed costs
and community attitudes.
The symposium felt that these barriers to access
to international student mobility opportunities also
impacted on equity and authenticity. Equity was
considered to be compromised due to cost, potentially
restricting access to a privileged few.
Efforts to broaden access through either scaling up
and offering international study opportunities to larger
group sizes or, alternatively, shortening the duration
of a program (in order to offer more cycles of the
program) were both considered as a viable option
provided considerations of authenticity were kept at
the forefront of thinking.
DAY 1 STUDENT MOBILITY
“We are pretty much
just at the beginning.
The interest in student
mobility worldwide is just
phenomenal and it will
spread like wildfire.”
Associate Professor
Surakit Nathisuwan –
Mahidol University, Thailand
OPPORTUNITIES
Opportunities for student mobility continue to grow in an
environment where governments are consistent in their
encouragement of inward and outward student mobility
as a key strategy in internationalising their country for
the well recognised trade and security benefits that
accompany global citizenship. The symposium shared
examples of innovative institutional practice to enhance
access to international student mobility.
Existing practices and suggested practices to increase
opportunities for student mobility included:
Institutional practices
■■ All international programs to be credit bearing,
■■ Summer/Spring/Winter semester break Programs,
■■ Short-term intercultural seminars (two weeks
approximately),
■■ Short-term credit bearing programs including
language immersion programs and comparative
culture courses,
■■ Mixed study groups across universities consisting
of online and joint sessions with students living and
studying together at home and abroad,
■■ Mixed housing and interactive programs for
domestic and international students,
Partnering, advocacy and fund sourcing practices
■■ Global internships with NGOs,
business or international organisations
■■ Work with government funded globalisation
programs such as Go Global Japan Project for
Active World Citizens,
■■ Medium-term volunteer programs (five months
duration) that are credit bearing and supported by
government foreign affairs or foreign aid agencies,
■■ International programs negotiated between
universities and non-academic institutions (e.g. UN
Youth Volunteers - credit bearing),
■■ Attract funding partners such as government,
business, partner universities, development/aid
organisations,
There was general agreement at the symposium that
short-term programs address cost and time concerns,
create less disruption to the course structure but are
potentially less impactful.
Keywords to guide opportunities were agreed to
be: authentic, integrated, interactive and intense.
Keywords to guide assessing the effectiveness of
programs were suggested to be: critical and reflective.
■■ International students billeted at domestic students
homes,
■■ Virtual seminar series,
■■ Faculty-led programs.
11
DAY 1 STUDENT MOBILITY
FEEDBACK FROM BREAKOUT GROUPS
Opportunities for interactive discussion of the key issues were provided through five
breakout groups. Each group addressed the same four questions:
1. How is student mobility integrated with your
institution’s broader internationalisation strategy?
■■ All institutions have targets for inward mobility
and many now also for outward mobility. These
targets increase while funding decreases,
creating an imperative to be creative and to
explore partnerships, alternate sources of funding,
technology assisted experiences and collaborative
cost sharing agreements with other institutions. Do
more with less.
■■ The international strategy is often not well
communicated within the university and does not
filter down to operational level.
■■ A challenge for the integration of mobility in
an international strategy can be the lack of
international experience of faculty staff and the lack
of champions for mobility programs.
■■ International rankings can provide institutional
motivation for student mobility.
■■ For successful integration “make it compulsory”.
■■ Ensure credit portability.
■■ Explore different funding partners – industry, philanthropy,
alumni, government initiatives, government to
government, institution-to-institution funding.
■■ Explore different models to provide flexibility
such as dual or double degrees.
■■ Marketing – good news stories – social media to
spread the word.
■■ Ensure effective pre-departure briefings and post
program debrief and incorporation of new learning
in the curriculum of the returning student’s institution.
■■ Be creative in the design and implementation
of programs – consider tripartite and multipartite
relationships and different models to suit student need.
■■ A recommendation was made to explore the
establishment of a virtual Asia-Pacific campus
connecting the physical institutional campuses and
offering mutual recognition, credit portability and ease
of student mobility between the physical campuses.
3. Do we need to ensure that short-term student
mobility experiences are ‘intense and authentic’?
■■ Strategies may be organic, accidental or intended.
■■ Critical to authenticity that there are opportunities
for integration with local students.
2. What forms and strategies are effective in
expanding student mobility in the Asia Pacific both
physical and virtual?
■■ Authentic and intense programs require academic
rigour and clearly defined goals with attendant
assessment strategies.
■■ Funding is critical and securing targeted funding
from institutions is very valuable. Institutions seeking
and providing scholarships not only expands
opportunity but also addresses equity concerns.
■■ Is there a duration that is ideal for authenticity and
intensity? Are short-term programs less authentic?
12
■■ To deliver authentic and intense programs student
motivation and student choice are critical factors
for consideration.
■■ Offering larger group experiences and more but
shorter-term programs. However, simply offering
more programs may have a negative impact on
authenticity.
■■ Need to achieve a balance between access,
equity and quality of program. There is no magic
formula, but all must be considered.
■■ Funding is crucial, as are efforts at creativity and cost
sharing between institutions, waiving fees in reciprocal
arrangements, seeking additional funding partners.
Exploring inter-governmental partnerships for funding.
■■ Reduce some of the institutional barriers related
to credit recognition and providing credit bearing
courses. Consider aligning Asia-Pacific scheduling
of academic year. A recommendation was made
to establish an Asia-Pacific quality assurance
framework that will support mutual recognition and
credit portability across institutions in the region.
■■ Balance widening of access with awareness of
duty of care requirements if sending students into
countries where there are socio-political risks,
particularly if they do not speak the language.
■■ Technology assisted international experiences can
broaden opportunities. Virtual classrooms, MOOCs,
blended learning opportunities with international
institutions.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
FROM BREAKOUT GROUPS
Key issues threaded through all discussions on
student mobility were centered around access,
quality and success.
Access
Access was seen to be affected by institutional
commitment to student mobility, the effectiveness
of the relationship-building of the international
office, the flexibility and creativity in the design and
implementation of the program and the partnerships,
as well as affordability for the students and their
language competence. Challenges remain in
balancing the number and type of programs offered
with equitable access for all. A number of questions
remain to be explored to develop a comprehensive
understanding of the most effective program structure,
duration and conditions that will support equity of
access to high quality, effective programs.
A recommendation was made to establish an AsiaPacific internationalisation framework to facilitate the
development of regional partnerships and facilitate
student mobility. A further recommendation was made
for the establishment of an Asia-Pacific campus to
support ease of access to student mobility.
Quality
Quality was seen to be affected by academic rigour,
duration of program, authenticity of program and
effective assessment and integration of learning on
completion. Challenges remain in balancing these
key elements of quality as well as developing an
evidence-based understanding of quality criteria. A
recommendation was made for the establishment of
an Asia Pacific quality assurance framework to clarify
quality and support mutual recognition across the
institutions of the region.
Success
Success was seen to be affected by program
alignment with student motivation, attitudes, clarity
of expectations, pre-departure preparation, host and
home university support, and post program integration
of learning. Again each of these elements provides
challenges for institutions with the pressure of targets,
crowded curriculum and short academic cycles.
There were also challenges associated with identifying
and measuring success and whether we are evaluating
current programs in terms of intensity, authenticity or
outcome characteristics based on student evaluation
and critical or reflective measures. Alternatively,
success may be measured by the impact on the
institution’s teaching and learning, or a combination of
all. A number of questions relating to the definition and
evaluation of success remain to be answered. Funding
was a consistent challenge for all, as was restrictive
immigration regulations.
Funding
Funding is crucial at all points. It enables institutions
to create high quality opportunities and to widen
access while addressing equity concerns. It supports
students who are faced not only with the costs of travel,
study, accommodation and living but also incur an
opportunity cost by being unable to access the home
advantage of living at home and having a part time job
locally. The recommendation was made to support
the establishment or expansion of Government
scholarships, such as New Colombo Plan, to support
student mobility within the region.
Immigration issues
Immigration issues are a concern for all as governments,
largely, open their arms to international students and
recognise the financial and socio-cultural benefits they
bring. However, they often find themselves at odds with
their own border protection policies.
There was a recommendation made that we
advocate and influence governments to develop
a whole of government approach to international
student mobility. A further recommendation was made
for the establishment of an APEC Student Visitor Card
to facilitate ease of student mobility within the region.
13
DAY 1 STUDENT MOBILITY
4. What strategies are effective in broadening access
to student mobility so that it is not restricted only to
those of significant financial means?
DAY 1 STUDENT MOBILITY
QUESTIONS FOR
FURTHER EXPLORATION
■■ What impact do efforts to broaden access,
through scale for example, have on effectiveness?
■■ How do we ensure future equity of opportunity?
■■ How do we define the quality of an international
student mobility experience? How do we measure
it?
■■ How do we define success or effectiveness of
international student mobility? How do we measure
it?
■■ As destinations become more diverse, and
students more adventuresome, how do we ensure
appropriate duty of care procedures and manage
risks to the personal safety of students?
RECOMMENDATIONS
■■ Develop a combined approach, as an Asia-Pacific
education community, to:
■■ advocate for governments to develop a whole
of government approach to international
student mobility.
■■ advocate for the establishment of an APEC
Student Visitor Card to facilitate ease of student
mobility within the region.
■■ advocate for the establishment or expansion of
Government scholarships, such as New Colombo
Plan, to support student mobility within the
region.
■■ collaborate to establish an Asia-Pacific quality
assurance framework that will support mutual
recognition and credit portability across
institutions in the region.
■■ collaborate to establish an Asia-Pacific
internationalisation framework to facilitate the
development of regional partnerships and
facilitate student mobility.
■■ collaboratively explore the establishment of a
virtual Asia-Pacific campus accessing courses
from universities across the region and offering
mobility options across the partner institutions.
14
Discussion on the second day of strategic dialogue focused on research
collaboration through the lens of value, barriers and opportunities.
VALUE
OPPORTUNITIES
Key values of regional research collaboration
included the opportunity to solve shared challenges,
combine expertise, share costs, amplify impact, build
capability in both institutions and, in some cases,
reap income from commercialisation opportunities.
A significant value to universities was also identified
as reputational benefits through citations and
ranking recognition.
Opportunities for research collaborations in the region
were seen by the symposium to rely on:
A recommendation was made for the establishment
of an Asia-Pacific Centre for Doctoral Training
that could engage industry partners and build
collaborative institutional relationships through
the use of regional expertise in the training and
supervision of candidates. Such a Centre, where
emerging researchers work with the best in the
region, could also provide opportunities for quick
response time research demands.
BARRIERS
Barriers to institutional research collaborations were
identified by Professor Fazal Rizvi as:
■■ Differences in cultural and academic traditions,
■■ Asymmetries of contribution,
■■ Issues of finance and funding,
■■ Management of copyright and intellectual property,
■■ Lack of support from national policies,
■■ Bureaucratic hurdles (e.g. Visa regimes),
■■ Differing ethics and compliance issues,
■■ Problems of sustainability of research projects due
to retention of staff and funding over long periods
required of some projects.
■■ Identifying appropriate projects,
■■ Identifying appropriate partners, and
■■ Securing funding.
Opportunities for beneficial collaboration were
demonstrated by Professor Monique Skidmore’s
case study of two research collaborations between
University of Queensland and partners in China.
Characteristics of these collaborations, such as the
building of trust and friendship, clearly understood
and described goals, processes and procedures
including allocation of intellectual property and
commercialisation rights, as well as open and
effective communication closely aligned with Prof
Rizvi’s description of conditions of success.
At King Mongkut’s University of Technology
Thonburi Thailand, where there is a strong focus on
research collaboration and active links with 160
universities across 47 countries, they demonstrate a
comprehensive approach to encouraging research
collaboration through opportunities such as:
■■ Actively encouraging faculty members
to engage in international research collaboration,
■■ Hosting of international conferences/
symposia/workshops
■■ Develop and participate in research internships
■■ Funding for visiting professors
and post-doctoral fellowships.
Further barriers identified by the symposium included:
■■ Timing challenges. These ranged from protracted
timelines – where the timeline between expression
of interest and delivery of funds could run up to five
years effectively compromising the project through
the inability of the institution to commit to staffing
and resources – to unmanageably short response or
delivery timelines.
15
DAY 2 RESEARCH COLLABORATION
KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
DAY 2 RESEARCH COLLABORATION
FEEDBACK FROM BREAKOUT GROUPS
Opportunities for interactive discussion of the key issues were provided through five
breakout groups. Each group addressed the same four questions.
1. To what extent and how is the experience of the
University of Queensland generalisable to other
higher education institutions, particularly in terms of
the significance of international research rankings in
selecting partners?
3. What challenges do higher education institutions
face in establishing sustainable and mutually beneficial
research collaboration within the Asia-Pacific? What
strategies might they use to address these challenges?
■■ Not particularly, as research rankings differ between
disciplines and institutions and may not match with the
research project an institution is seeking partners for
■■ Difference in research ethics and academic freedom
■■ Partnerships are determined by many factors
including personal relationships, trust and friendship,
vision and values, geography, alignment of
academic interest and expertise
■■ Generalisable in terms of the desire to build
capacity and capability.
2. What role should governments play in supporting
research collaboration?
■■ This varies according to country. Governments can
enable research through funding but can also use
funding to influence topics, direction of research
and occasionally may also seek to influence findings
■■ Cross cultural issues and language issues
■■ Political sensitivity
■■ Expectations regarding publications, intellectual
property and commercialisation benefits
■■ Perspectives on and repercussions of “failure”
■■ No clear common research priorities across countries
■■ Ranking discrepancies and reluctance from some
institutions to collaborate with lower ranked universities
■■ Challenges to mobility of researchers due to
immigration policies and costs
■■ Long term sustainability
■■ Solutions offered include:
■■ Spending time to develop organisational trust,
clear agreements and measures of success
■■ Providing funding support, tax benefits
and doctoral scholarships
■■ Establishing clear institutional engagement
strategies and clear agreements with partners
■■ Understanding government funding priorities can
help institutions to select projects with a higher
likelihood of attracting funding
■■ Becoming alert, flexible and nimble to take
advantage of opportunities
■■ Link ‘mobility’ goals with research training
■■ Facilitate mobility of researchers in the region
■■ Start small and scale up
■■ Build government to government relationships
to facilitate partnerships and joint funding
■■ Select partners within the region where mobility is
easier
■■ Raising profile of national capability – high level PR
■■ Education conferences should include a session
for immigration officers.
16
■■ Establish research networks and approach industry
■■ Clarify intellectual property and risk management
approach
■■ Align closely with the commercial arms of universities
■■ It can be organic, accidental or intentional
■■ Market your institutions, profile your expertise to
corporates
■■ Use internships to build relationships.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
FROM BREAKOUT GROUPS
Key issues that threaded through discussions in the
breakout groups centered on the three challenges of:
■■ cultural and institutional differences,
■■ finding partners, projects and funding and
■■ funding and immigration policies.
The symposium felt that the cultural and institutional
differences need to be acknowledged and the
critical strategies of building trust and friendship be
supported by clearly documented understandings
and expectations of roles and responsibilities, process
and procedures, input responsibilities, outcomes,
accountabilities and commercial prospects.
speedy results can run counter to the pace required
by researchers where thorough investigation can take
time. This tension between speed and effectiveness is
felt at many stages in the process from initial responseto-request times, set up of teams and procedures
times, delivery times and outcomes generation. In
many cases the potential for commercialisation
benefit introduced another layer of complexity and
opportunity for conflict without very clear contractual
agreements from the outset.
Immigration issues for researchers presents as a greater
challenge to many than student mobility. Due to
short response times of many research opportunities
universities have to be flexible and nimble to access
these opportunities. The ‘fleet-of-foot’ responses often
required can often flounder in the face of immigration
policies. The recommendation was made for an APEC
Researcher Visitor Card to facilitate ‘fleet-of-foot’
responses and effectiveness of researcher mobility in
the region.
Technology was seen as a part-solution to immigration
challenges. It was seen as important that there was
the opportunity for initial face to face meetings
and the establishment of the trust and friendship
relationships required for successful projects which
may then be supported by technologically enhanced
communication. The use of technology to access and
mine big data was also seen as a significant enhancer
of collaborative research projects.
In finding partners, projects and funding the strategies
currently employed were either accidental strategies
such as word of mouth, organic strategies such as
existing friendships between researchers or institutions,
or intentional strategies where time and money are
invested in seeking opportunities and partnerships. Of
these three strategies it was felt that the accidental
approach was the least strategic but by far the most
commonly employed. There was a desire expressed
for a more strategic and intentional approach and a
recommendation that as an education community
it would be useful to explore the possibility of a
central repository of research being conducted in the
region, researchers who are active and interested in
partnerships and a range of opportunities in the region.
Funding was seen as a key motivation for research
collaborations where costs could be shared across
institutions, especially in disciplines such as medicine,
science, engineering and information technology,
where expensive equipment is required. Funding
was also seen as a key inhibitor as institutions struggle
to find funding partners for research projects, or
are required to adapt research processes to fit the
demands of particular funding providers. Challenges
were experienced with some funding partners,
particularly in industry, where the desires by partners for
17
DAY 2 RESEARCH COLLABORATION
4. How might higher education institutions work
together to seek the support of the corporate sector in
commercialising their research?
DAY 2 RESEARCH COLLABORATION
QUESTIONS FOR
FURTHER EXPLORATION
How do we identify appropriate
opportunities, and how do we identify
appropriate partners in the region?
RECOMMENDATIONS
■■ Develop a combined approach,
as an Asia-Pacific education community, to:
■■ advocate for governments to develop a whole of
government approach to international researcher
mobility.
■■ advocate for the establishment of an APEC
Researcher Visitor Card to facilitate ease of
researcher mobility within the region.
■■ establish an Asia-Pacific Centre for Doctoral
Training that could engage industry partners
and build collaborative institutional relationships
through the use of regional expertise in the
training and supervision of candidates.
■■ explore the possibilities for the establishment of a
research network that provides:
■■ an active repository of researcher activity in
the region,
■■ a notice board where opportunities being
offered in the region by a range of funding
partners can be posted, and
■■ a who’s who of researchers across the region
who are open to partnering opportunities.
18
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
Presentations and discussions with the 65 institutions participating in this symposium
revealed a strong similarity in approaches to internationalisation.
There is clear evidence of ideas, people and funds
moving around the region at an institutional level.
This fluidity supports the sharing of best practice and
the opportunities to work with and among the best in
the world.
It was also recognised that the student in the AsiaPacific region today has already experienced both
physical and technological internationalisation as
people move in increasing numbers around the
region and technology allows the student to move
freely in and out of cultures. The view was expressed
that, in this interactional transnational space where
culture is dynamic, cultural barriers are collapsible.
The symposium expressed the view that student
mobility was not necessarily a goal in itself, but
rather part of a comprehensive education strategy
to effectively prepare young people for a world
where a day-to-day requirement will be to work and
communicate across cultural and language borders,
and where the future, spurred by technology, has
more potential for radical disruption and is more
startlingly unknown than ever before.
With a recent world history of sudden and surprising
technological and economic disruptions to the
way we think, work, trade and communicate, the
goal of education is to equip young people with
the skills, dispositions and attitudes to be globally
aware, culturally literate, infinitely adaptable,
flexible and creative. International student mobility
was recognised by the symposium as a good
servant to this goal.
The key to successful student mobility and
research collaboration was found to be strikingly
similar. Success in both rely on understanding
the motivations and capabilities of the student/
researcher/academic, being very clear about
the goals of the program or project and building
effective relationships in the transnational,
transcultural space we share.
This symposium has posed questions and made
recommendations to enrich collaboration across
the region and to act as a regional education
community to further expand and enrich the
opportunities for student mobility and researcher
collaborations across the region.
NEXT STEPS
■■ gather reflections from symposium participants
in 2–3 months time to measure the impact of the
symposium and guide future discussions;
■■ to explore the opportunity to continue the
dialogue commenced here at a follow up
symposium in 2016;
■■ provide a commissioning opportunity for
researchers in the region to write a short digest of
recent research in an area of specific interest to
the international education community;
■■ publish quarterly Research Digests across the
region to share current research information;
■■ to put the recommendations of this symposium
before the IEAA and APAIE boards.
19
PLATINUM SPONSOR
Working as one to understand the
entire student journey...
Tribal is a global provider of
software products and services to
the international education, training
and learning markets. We are the
UK’s market leading MIS provider,
with a growing global presence. Our
portfolio of products and services
includes:
SITS:Vision
One of the world’s
leading student and
course-management
solutions for higher
education. Our clients
include UBC, University
of Sydney and
University of Oxford.
Financial Benchmarking
A leading provider of
financial benchmarking
services to higher education
in the UK, New Zealand and
North America.
Ideate™
Streamline and enhance
a university’s research
support.
he.sales@tribalgroup.com
Tribal igrad Ad.indd 1
20
Our partners i-graduate provide
the global benchmark for
the student experience.
Comparative insight for the
education sector worldwide.
Helping institutions deliver a
world class student experience
and enhance competitive
advantage.
Enterprise Service Desk
Helpdesk software
solution improve
customer service and
student welfare.
Facilities and Asset
Management
Our K2 solution is an
intelligent, interactive
and integrated way to
manage your
facilities and assets.
Gradintel
Employability solution
that effectively matches
students with employer
vacancies.
www.tribalgroup.com
6/27/2014 11:07:03 AM
GOLD SPONSOR
The TOEFL® Family
of Assessments
Trusted information to help you make more confident decisions based on
students’ English proficiency.
We know the effort you put in to prepare your students for the future and we’re here to support
you as you help your students realize their full potential.
When you use the TOEFL® tests, you get the accurate and comprehensive information you need to
help you confidently guide students to the next step of their English language learning journey.
TOEFL iBT® • TOEFL® ITP • TOEFL Junior® • TOEFL® Primary™ Tests
Learn more about the TOEFL Family of Assessments
at www.ets.org/toefl/institutions
Copyright © 2014 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo, TOEFL, TOEFL IBT and TOEFL JUNIOR are registered
trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS) in the United States and other countries. TOEFL PRIMARY is a trademark of ETS. 25006
21
INTERNATIONALISATION
OF HIGHER EDUCATION
IN THE
ASIA-PACIFIC
APPENDICES
22
CONTENTS
APPENDIX 1 – RESEARCH PAPER 124
‘Open access student mobility and integrated interactive short-term
student mobility as responses to deeper internationalisation in higher education’
Kent Anderson and Takamichi Tam Mito
APPENDIX 2 – RESEARCH PAPER 232
‘Promoting international research collaboration: Partnering Australia and China’
Jessica Gallagher, John Pickering, Matt Sanders and Geoff Wang
APPENDIX 3 – DELEGATE LIST
40
APPENDIX 4 – SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM45
INTERNATIONALISATION
OF HIGHER EDUCATION
IN THE
ASIA-PACIFIC
12-13 June 2014
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Research Paper 1
‘Open Access Student Mobility’ and
‘Integrated Interactive Short-Term
Student Mobility’ as Responses to
Deeper Internationalisation in Higher
Education
Professor Kent Anderson
The University of Adelaide, Australia
Professor Takamichi Tam Mito
Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
Overview
International student mobility changes lives. It is the
single most transformative educational experience
governments and institutions can deliver. Research
also shows international student mobility can lead
to greater international outlook and intercultural
understanding, improved academic performance
and increased employability. Beyond the individual
students, institutions themselves are internationalised
through the demands of educating a diverse
student cohort coming with a variety of contextual
knowledge. Experience further shows that the
internationalisation benefits extend to our broader
communities and bring economic benefits and social
vibrancy to our local areas.
The largest, most developed and economically most
significant aspect of international student mobility
involves students seeking full degrees in foreign
countries. The social, cultural and economic benefits,
as well as global trends, have been well documented
internationally, in Asia and indeed in Australia. They
have also been extensively considered from a policy
perspective by the 2012 Chaney Review and the 2011
Knight Review. Australia has long been a beneficiary
of such student mobility, with international education
now Australia’s third largest export.
Intra-degree student mobility – that is, students
having an international dimension to their otherwise
domestically delivered degree – has been less
covered in the academic literature and policy. That
is not to say this area is new or unconsidered – from
the ‘Grand Tour’ of 19th Century English society, to
the French year abroad of mid 20th Century America,
to the OE (‘Overseas Experience’) more recently
in New Zealand. Moreover, governments are now
interested in this area from a policy perspective with
programs such as Australia’s New Colombo Plan
and AsiaBound, the US’s 100,000 Strong Initiative,
Southeast Asia’s ‘ASEAN International Mobility
Scheme (AIMS)’, Japan’s Tobitate (‘Take Off’)
program, and China’s China Scholarship Council
(CSC). At a regional level Europe has succeeded in a
very ambitious harmonisation process culminating in
the Erasumus Mundus mobility scheme.
24
24 | VISTA
APPENDIX 1
In the Asia-Pacific, the two decade old University Mobility
in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) took a “clearinghouse
to exchange” approach and, most recently, under the
2012 APEC Vladivostok Leaders’ Declaration, Annex D
there has been commitment to returning to international
education mobility in the region.
From a data and quantitative research aspect, a
global perspective is less clear. Within Australia, the
Australian University International Director’s Forum
(AUIDF) commissions research to establish how many
Australian students spend part of their degree abroad.
These figures show that the rate of Australian students
studying abroad has increased steadily. Statistics from
the United States’ Institute of International Education
(IIE) ‘Open Doors’ report also indicate a similar
increase. More broadly within Asia, however, there is no
systematically collected data-set available for intradegree international student mobility.
Three models for
intra-degree student mobility
While we do not have a definitive picture, we do
have a relatively clear shape of three models for
intra-degree student mobility.
First, the classic approach developed in the US
and the one supported by UMAP is an ‘Exchange
Model’ whereby two universities bilaterally agree to
exchange students without a fee transfer. Typically
these agreements are limited to two students per
year and most modern universities have collected a
complex web of such relationships often numbering
over 100. While providing diversity of destination, the
exchange model is intensive in administration for
relatively small student numbers.
The second model is the ‘Credit Transfer Model’,
particularly as developed in Europe. In many
ways this is the ideal system of complete student
movement and recognition of credit across borders.
The chief challenge of this model is the 15 years it
took these comparatively similar systems to achieve
harmonisation of terms and structures culminating in
2010 in the European Higher Education Area.
The third model is for short-term mobility, which is
usually understood to include faculty-led study
tours, intensive summer and winter programs run
by partner universities, international internships,
and medical placements, among others. This is an
area for great growth across the globe, but the
challenge is ensuring the transformational benefits
of an international experience on a significantly
shorter period.
Documented barriers to greater intra-degree
student mobility in the region may be roughly
categorised into four challenges:
■■ The cost of international travel and other living
and study expenses often mean that only
the relatively well-off can afford to participate.
Moreover, the opportunity cost of longer programs
that require a student to forego domestic
employment and incur overseas living expenses
without domestic savings (e.g. when a student
normally resides in the family home) mean unseen
costs can be restrictive as well.
■■ The linguistic diversity of the region and in many
cases the lack of undergraduate programs offered
in non-local languages mean that in many cases
only students who have learnt the language of
instruction are in a position to study in the country
in question. A number of other ‘home’ factors also
deter participation. These include pressures (and
projected fear) from family and friends, domestic
internships and graduate employment cycles.
■■ University programs have often been designed
with limited flexibility preventing students from
taking up overseas opportunities. Restrictions
include hesitancy to recognise foreign courses
and overly restrictive requirements on compulsory
courses delivered at home.
■■ Finally, for many students the case has failed to be
made as to what direct benefits may be gained
by seeking and taking overseas studies.
25
APPENDIX 1
Short-term mobility
The role of academics in student mobility
Short-term student mobility has been identified
by many as a means of increasing participation
in international education by students for whom
barriers such as those above prevent participation
in longer-term study abroad. Also, due to the
high level of commitment required for semester
or longer exchange studies, and the difficulty of
managing an ever larger number of exchange
partners, expanding the range of short-term study
abroad options is a means of involving a much
higher proportion of students in overseas study than
feasible under exchange alone.
The role of academics in short-term and long-term
student mobility is quite different. While for semester
and year-long exchange the role is often confined
to approving students’ course of study to be taken
in the host institution, for short-term programs it can
be much more involved. A faculty-led study tour, for
example, may involve an academic working with
partner institutions to develop a tailored itinerary,
planning course content and possible co-teaching
arrangements, organising travel, accommodation,
visas and other details. Institutions and faculties
provide varying levels of assistance to academics in
such situations and there are an increasing number
of commercial third­-party providers, along with
corporate arms of both home and host institutions,
who can facilitate programs.
In 2012, for the first time, the AUIDF’s Outgoing
International Mobility of Australian University
Students report indicated that numbers of students
participating in short-term study abroad surpassed
those in exchange programs (8,570 short-term
versus 7,813 exchange). Moreover, the report
shows that short-term is dominated by experiences
in Asia within the APEC economies, whereas year
exchanges are much more heavily weighted by
Europe and non-Pacific North America.
Short-term programs usually take place during
‘non-teaching’ weeks at the home university. For
Australian universities this means they are usually run
during December–February or in July, while for many
northern hemisphere countries this means programs
in May to August. The programs can also be
scheduled during mid-semester non-teaching weeks
as well. Although this can work well with faculty-led
study tours, misalignment of academic calendars
makes participation in other universities’ intensive
summer or winter schools problematic – particularly
between institutions whose academic calendars
have no overlap of non-teaching weeks.
Academic literature on student mobility indicates that
there are positive outcomes for short-term international
student mobility. Students who get a taste of studying
overseas on a short-term program also are more likely
to participate in longer term study abroad such as
an exchange later in their university career. As may
be expected, language mastery is aided by longer
stays in-country, but repeated short stays can have
sustained language acquisition benefits as well.
26
Nonetheless, as study-tours and some other shortterm international experiences are often provided
to students as discrete courses, they are required
to be integrated into ‘normal’ university systems,
including those concerning student administration
and academic workload. Determining how an
academic’s work developing and leading a
short-term study tour over the end-of-year break is
calculated in their, and their department’s, workload
model, for example, can be complicated.
For academics, however, leading a group of students
to a partner institution, particularly one with which they
have active collaborations, can be an opportunity to
both deepen and broaden their research relationships.
Importantly, as an academic’s travel would usually
be funded out of a study tour budget, any incidental
research outcomes are an added bonus.
The challenge of ‘for credit’
work placements
Finally, the most difficult kind of short-term study
abroad is also the most in demand: international
work placements for credit. In Australia, this is the
focus of the new Commonwealth Government’s
New Colombo Plan. The difficulty for institutions here
lies in the general lack of established relationships
with companies and organisations which can host
student interns, as well as the limited, but developing,
infrastructure around the student administration of
such programs.
Returning to the basics, we know international
mobility changes lives. But, it is presently not
available to the overwhelming majority of students.
For full degree mobility, presently 4.3 million students
are participating. A rate that has seen significant
year-on-year growth for the last two decades and
is predicted to surpass 8 million by 2025. However,
this growth has occurred at the same time as the
massification of higher education participation,
particularly in large population emerging
economies such as China, India and Indonesia.
As a result the percentage of those mobilised to
seek degree overseas remains at a mere 0.5% of all
students; in other words, 99.5% of university students
are not beneficiaries. Intra-degree mobility – or
credit mobility – is a partial solution to spreading
the benefits to more students. The data in this area
does not exist for the largest population systems,
but in three of the most developed – US, Australia
and EU – fewer than 15% of students are having an
international experience.
The case for ‘Open Access Student Mobility’
Not only are relatively few students being given
the opportunity, because of the cost and limited
awareness overwhelmingly those who do take the
opportunity disproportionately come from the highest
social economic class. Thus, international education is
reinforcing, rather than liberating, the historical divide
between those who are socially mobile and those who
are bound by experience to the local. Put more directly,
while international education is sold as part of training
a new global citizen in practice it is merely polishing the
already global sect.
Within the landscape painted in the Overview, a
number of trends and challenges to international
student mobility are emerging. Two of these are the
concerns around providing equitable access to
international mobility and the desire to ensure an
intense and authentic experience. Both of these trends
manifest as international education moves to a new
stage of comprehensive internationalisation. Traditional
internationalisation focused on students moving to
study for a degree or year abroad type exchange, that
is, the movement of a comparatively small number
of students from one jurisdiction to another for an
extended period. While in this mode the students were
directly impacted, institutions only internationalised
indirectly by the influence that accommodating these
students brought. Moreover, while students in this model
are the direct beneficiaries they also are usually the
chief financiers of it, making it accessible to a relatively
elite few. The traditional mode remains important and
dominant, but a much more integrated and equitable
internationalisation is emerging in many institutions. In
the new model, institutions are working with partners
across borders to deliver a more integrated experience
whereby the institution is directly internationalised
and the costs are shared across institutions and with
students. Degree articulations such as 2+2 models are
the first wave, but truly cooperative programs with
cross-border cohorts such as the Campus Asia model
in China, Korea and Japan, and the Yale-NUS College
experiment take the experience to a different level.
With these concerns in mind, intra degree mobility
(i.e. credit mobility) and integrated programs provide
a less expensive and more accessible mode of
international education. The traditional semester or
year exchange and 2+2 articulations have been the
dominate models for decades. They have the benefit
of being intense, authentic and common through the
well-developed network of exchange and articulation
agreements such as those promoted by UMAP
throughout the last 20 years.
Our recent experience, however, is suggesting that
we can do more than the traditional exchange and
articulations. Particularly, exchange programs have
limited appeal due to restrictive eligibility, inflexibility
of programs, and opportunity costs. In response, we
are advocating an “Open Access Student Mobility”
approach to the traditional exchange model.
27
APPENDIX 1
In summary, international student mobility can be the
most powerful educative tool available. Much of this
area is developed around the recruitment of students
to undertake full degree studies overseas. However,
countries are keen to extend these benefits to those
students who cannot avail themselves of a full program
overseas. Intra-degree student mobility is the means
to achieve this whether it be student exchange, credit
transfer or short-term mobility. A number of obstacles
must be overcome to achieve the desired scale
even within intra-degree mobility including financial,
language and home context, flexibility of degrees, and
appeal of opportunity. Short-term mobility is the most
persuasive response to these obstacles, which raises a
series of operational questions around how to deliver
such programs. Focusing on these micro operational
issues will deliver whatever one is seeking: broadening
international education opportunities to the greatest
number of students possible around the world.
APPENDIX 1
Open Access Student Mobility firstly removes
historical limits to eligibility. Presently many
exchange programs have restrictions of high grade
requirements, small windows when the opportunity
may be taken, and ambiguous ‘ambassadorial
demeanour’ filtering. These eligibility restrictions
made sense when exchange opportunities were
rare and the restricted supply had to be rationed. In
modern times, however, the exchange networks are
robust enough to provide many more opportunities
than in the past. Indeed while these opportunities
are not yet universal through initiatives such as
UMAP there are now many more ‘unused exchange
places’ at universities across the globe than
commonly thought or readily acknowledged. Thus, it
is time to change the eligibility standard from limiting
it to only a few to making the opportunity open to all.
Removing the exclusive grade requirements is a
first step. Beyond simply denying students who we
otherwise think are capable at home, the grade
requirement is illogical because grade point
averages differ radically by system and institution.
Thus, Australia’s common limit of a 65 average would
be near failing in the US and significantly higher than its
Australian counterpart in the UK, not to mention a bare
credit in some Australian universities and a solid credit in
others. Beyond these intra-Commonwealth differences,
it is even harder to convert a normal Japanese
or
into something comparable across jurisdictions.
The second restriction to go is the limited window
for eligibility within a degree. The Australian
government has reinforced this illogical constriction
through eligibility in funding programs such as OSHELP. Presently, first year and final year students are
restricted in many places, leaving a practical window
of a semester in second year. Many students with
diverse degree combinations cannot squeeze into
this window. Thus, we unnecessarily deny them the
opportunity. Moreover, we know that the strongest
indicator of taking up an international opportunity is
prior experience. Therefore, when we block the first
year student from all international experiences we
unintentionally limit the number who will take deeper
more intense experiences later in their degrees.
The third restriction is the insistence by many programs
of undertaking the labour intensive exercise of
interviewing all students to ensure they will be ‘good
ambassadors’. This is not feasible or efficient if we are
to offer international experiences to more than the
small elite cadre we do now. Moreover, experience
of the Rhodes Scholarship where Bill Clinton did not
28
inhale and Bob Hawke wisely used his time to set a
world record for sculling beer suggests that being able
to game good ole’ boy interviews does not necessarily
correlate with good behaviour. It is also insulting to the
host institutions that we do not trust their systems to
deal with all students just as ours do, including those
students who need extra support and guidance. Our
chief problem with the practice is we think it reinforces
stereotypes of elites and thereby takes us further from
our stated goals of creating more global citizens.
Even if we fully implement the Open Access Student
Mobility there is more that we can do to increase
the number of students equitably taking advantage
of international education. More integrated short,
intensive programs are one obvious extension. Going
back to the figures, 99.5% of students do not pursue
a full degree overseas (which includes articulation
students) and far fewer than 15% can take a
semester or year exchange. Thus, short term overseas
experience is a practical response to the policy
imperative to increase the number of global citizens
with international experience.
The chief benefit of short term experiences is that they
respond to the real financial and opportunity costs that
the majority of students face. Most students worldwide
are able to cross-subsidise their higher education by
simple things such as living at home or close to home,
working a part-time job or studying part-time, accessing
government subsidised domestic tuition, and relying
on the social networks and safety nets easily accessed
from within a system that is native to the student.
Degree mobility or exchange’s chief cost is that it
removes students from this subsidised environment and
does not allow them to replace like for like (eg, saving
on housing in the home country when one lives with her
parents will not directly cover rent for personal housing
in the host country). Put differently, while the benefits
are great, the opportunity costs (as well as direct
financial costs) of international education are also high
– too high for many students.
Short term mobility – that is international study
experiences of less than a semester – is one response
to this situation. A student taking a short-term
experience does incur a cost but she does not have
to permanently forgo job income, subsidised tuition,
or social safety nets. The chief limitation on short term
mobility, however, is that its brevity compromises the
authenticity and intensity of a longer in-country experience.
Time in country is a proxy for authenticity of the
international learning experience – that is, the longer
one is in a country the more likely they will not be
chaperoned at every stage and have to authentically
integrate with local students and engage with
the local environment. Of course, any visit to a
backpackers’ ghetto on the Southeast Asia gap year
route can also dispel that correlation. Conversely,
short experiences can be intense, authentic and
integrated resulting in the transformational experience
that is sought. The key then is to design short programs
that are more equitably accessible but also ensure
they preserve intensity, authenticity and integration.
Integrated interactive short-term
student mobility: a case study
The best practice in international education is doing
exactly this; it is creating ‘Integrated Interactive
Short-Term Student Mobility’. The following is a brief
case study of best practice in realising Integrated
Interactive Short-Term Student Mobility based on
Kwansei Gakuin University’s Cross Cultural College
(CCC) project with the Canadian partners – Mt
Alison, Queens and Toronto universities. This program,
in particular, tries to address the barriers of length
of study, language and cost, which have led many
institutions to offer straightforward faculty-led study
tours or intensive summer or winter programs that are
wholly out-sourced to partner institutions overseas.
In these cases, it is true that students are physically
experiencing a different culture, but the programs
often lack integration and interactions with the local
students and community. In programming, they
are often grouped together with their own country
nationals separate from the hosting society and
make the visit merely as tourists. As a way to solve
the three weaknesses of conventional short term
study abroad – namely, the lack of time, language
ability and finances – the CCC model is a realistic
achievable response within an Integrated
Interactive Short-Term Student Mobility framework.
APPENDIX 1
All agree that much of what is transformative
about international mobility does not happen in
the classroom but in the general exposure to and
necessity of navigating a new culture. The short
term student has less opportunity for this, and the
more we try to make the experience ‘accessible’ for
unprepared students, the more we lessen the learning
opportunity. For example, a sponsored study tour
where housing, transport, visas, and even ‘free time’
is arranged and controlled will placate parental and
parochial fears, but it denies the authenticity and
intensity of a less structured international experience.
Moreover, because these short term experiences
are tailored to the sending country, not the receiving
country, one of the chief aims of integration with local
students is not possible due to differing academic
calendar and narrow learning objectives.
The CCC project’s main objective is to educate not
just global citizens, but more ambitiously an elite
cadre of truly global leaders of the future. These
are leaders who possess a basic global knowledge
and multicultural awareness that enables them
to contribute to the sustainable development
of society and to solve society’s problems with
the ability to communicate effectively in a multicultural context. We also seek to train leaders who
have a curiosity about other cultures and are able
to work effectively in collaboration with people
with different backgrounds.
The CCC project has attempted to realise this major
objective by creating an intense and authentic
experience through a program that integrates the
Japanese and Canadian experiences. The program
design looks as follows.
First, students for the program are drawn from
both university systems. All CCC students are then
required to take one of three sets of practicallyoriented core courses that have been collaboratively
developed. These include a basic joint seminar
in both Japan and Canada. In this course an
equal number of students are selected by the
Japanese and Canadian partner universities and
spend two weeks in each country living together
and doing collaborative research on multicultural
and intercultural topics. A second course – Global
Internship in Japan and Canada – pairs 20 sets
of students composed of both Japanese and
Canadian students to work together to gain practical
experience in business and other organisations in
the two countries. A third course on Global Career
Seminar matches an equal number of Japanese and
Canadian students to work together to analyse and
solve real problems posed by senior executives from
industry and government.
29
APPENDIX 1
We have found the key to the successful realisation
of the major objective of the CCC program is
to ensure students share physical living space
and to conduct group research. To achieve the
intensity and authenticity within the short practical
time frame, it is important for the curriculum to
be collaboratively designed and collaboratively
delivered, but it is more critical for the students to live
and study together. These sentiments are captured
in the Japanese sayings of, ‘onaji meshi no kama
wo kuu’ and ‘hadaka tsukiai.’ The former means
to share rice cooked in the same saucepan. The
latter can be understood as close interpersonal
relationship without any cosmetic measures, but
literally it translates as ‘a nude friendship.’
Students in the CCC program quickly learn the
simple truth that human beings are the same
despite differences in nationality, colour, religion,
gender, etc. by studying and living together. In
classrooms or in their residence, whenever the
students are awake they are put into inter-cultural
interactions and thereby develop cross-cultural
communication and management skills. Indeed,
despite the program which might be as short as five
days, we strongly believe the intensity of the relations
is only achieved by the ritual of sharing a naked bath
every night while in Japan.
Because of our belief in the authenticity and intensity
of the learning from cohabitation drawn from this
experience, we strongly advocate more thought and
effort go into facilitating such residential options. For
example, in Australia where there are a large number
of Chinese students a China-Australia House might be
sponsored where Chinese students studying in English
and Australian students learning Chinese might house
together. Mt Alison University in Canada facilitates this
by placing its Japanese ESL students into standard
university housing. This in turn has resulted in Japanese
becoming the most popular language offered by
the university. The mutual benefits of tackling the
joint housing challenge are massive in delivering an
authentic and intense learning experience.
A second element of the CCC program in addition
to the core courses is that students have to take
a set of courses offered by the four universities
on multiculturalism, international relations, and
cross-cultural skills and knowledge. While largely
taught independently by each university these
courses are reviewed and approved by a Joint
Academic Committee. The requirements to receive
the program’s certificate may be met with one
30
semester of study but experience to date suggests
many students are applying the full program
requirements towards their degrees. The program
also has integrated recognition with Certificates
of Completion being issued and signed by jointly
appointed Rector of CCC and also by Presidents/
Vice Presidents of the four participating universities.
The success of CCC as Integrated Interactive
Short-Term Student Mobility has led Kwansei
Gakuin University to expand the approach to other
programs. For example, the Japanese-Indonesian
Exchange and Japanese-Turkish Exchange Programs
have been created in cooperation with partners in
these countries. Resembling the core course model
of the CCC, these programs are roughly 10 days
jointly delivered with the students visiting the partner
in one year and hosting the partner students in the
following year. Similar programs have been delivered
in India, Thailand, Hong Kong and China. To provide
but one example in the case of India, the partner
is Nehru University where the students stay in the
university guesthouse and join graduate classes in
both English and Japanese. Additionally, the students
collectively participate in festivals, visit orphanages
and volunteer at boarding schools for the blind. Thus,
beyond the material delivered in the classroom the
students are able to experientially learn about human
security in India. We find that upon return to their
home country the experience leads many students
to take their studies further by pursuing research and
graduate work on the partner country.
Returning to the challenges of creating a new
international model that is short, authentic and integrated
within a different language environment, the Integrated
Interactive Short-Term Student Mobility model provides
a number of lessons. First, the CCC program suggests
that language does not have to be a barrier when all
aspects of the program are conducted in English. The
co-residential aspects of the program are critical to
achieving this. Regarding authenticity, again the mutual
living and cooperative projects among students is critical
to create an intensive interaction and cement solidarity
among the students. This intensity is reinforced by having
interactive online sessions and residential sessions in the
core courses. Timing of interactive sessions can be a
challenge in the East-West cooperation as it means the
programs usually run from 9am on a Saturday in Japan
and 7pm on a Friday in Canada. The benefit of this time
slot is that it does not clash with the students’ other courses
or commitments.
With these two elements even linguistic differences
can be overcome to produce global leaders for
tomorrow. The final challenge will be to continue
to push all of these multiple modes of international
mobility simultaneously while developing new
modes to ensure that all students are provided the
opportunity to participate.
Integrated Interactive Short-Term Student Mobility
has provided a solution to those who cannot afford
too much time or financial resources – and might
be challenged by the linguistic requirements – of a
traditional degree mobility or full semester exchange
program. However, we have not yet found a way
to mass scale the experience so it remains limited to
a relatively small cohort from among the enormous
number of students who are not presently able to
access the standard experience. An important
element of achieving scale while retaining equitable
access in the future will be the expansion of a
diversity of international mobility models including
more like CCC. Asia is leading the way in many of
these including programs that are able to keep the
cost to reasonable amounts to allow for middle class
local students to participate.
This research paper has been prepared for the
IEAA–APAIE symposium on ‘Internationalisation of
Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific’, Thursday 12–
Friday 13 June 2014 in Hong Kong.
APPENDIX 1
A critical element to the success is that the students
recognise the unique features and strengths of the
program which translates into their commitment to
the intensity and authenticity. This is clearly shown by
the student evaluations conducted both before and
after the course and reaffirmed by the Japanese and
Canadian universities’ commitment to support the
programs beyond the original 2016 completion date.
This symposium has received funding from Austrade as
part of the Asian Business Engagement Plan.
ieaa.org.au/asiasymposium
In conclusion, as international education moves
beyond simple degree mobility and exchange to
deeper internationalisation, two trends are taking
hold to respond to the challenges of wider equitable
access and ensuring authenticity in the face of
brevity of experience. Open Access Student Mobility
seeks to adjust the historical constraints of intradegree mobility by removing restrictions originally
intended to allocate a scare resource, namely
exchange places. With many more opportunities
now available than ever before, the key today is
to remove restrictions on eligibility, length and time
of an overseas experience within a degree, and
paternalistic filters. In doing so, there will be a natural
move towards providing more short term programs
for those unable to access the semester or longer
programs due to the opportunity cost of being
away. Accommodating the shorter courses gives
rise to a need to ensure intensity and authenticity
of the experience to capture the full benefits of
internationalisation. Integrated Interactive Short-Term
Student Mobility is one tested approach to solving this
seemingly unresolvable conundrum. The Japanese
and Canadian experience suggests ‘you can have
your cake and eat it too’ where the program and
content is cooperatively designed and, critically, the
students are collectively housed.
31
INTERNATIONALISATION
OF HIGHER EDUCATION
IN THE
ASIA-PACIFIC
12-13 June 2014
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Research Paper 2
Promoting International Research
Collaboration: Partnering Australia and
China
Dr Jessica Gallagher
Deputy Director, Global Engagement
The University of Queensland
Mr John Pickering
Executive Officer,
Advancement & Policy
(Triple P-Positive Parenting Program)
The University of Queensland
Professor Matt Sanders
Director, Parenting &
Family Support Centre
The University of Queensland
Associate Professor Geoff Wang
Deputy Director, Baosteel-Australia
Joint Research & Development Center,
School of Chemical Engineering
The University of Queensland
32
32 | VISTA
In an increasingly globalised world, universities and
research communities will continue to derive significant
advantage by seeking to improve connections and
by forging partnerships that will extend and enhance
research and innovation. With the global population
expected to grow from 7 to 9 billion over the next
40 years, the major challenges facing the globe –
such as climate change, energy, safe water supply,
food security, poverty and health care – will require
interdisciplinary and transnational solutions. At the
same time, the globalised economy is seeing new
technologies enter the marketplace and jobs moving
across national boundaries at an increasingly rapid
rate. These global challenges and changes must
be reflected in today’s education and research at
national and international levels. Universities have
played and will continue to play a pivotal role, not
only in identifying solutions to current issues, but
also in developing the next generation of research
leaders. These leaders will have to be equipped with
broader global competencies and embedded in an
international network of collaborators to effectively
address the challenges of the future. The University of
Queensland (UQ) has long been an active participant
in this arena with an extensive network of partnerships
around the world and almost 12,000 students from
over 140 different countries. This paper will use UQ, as a
case study, to demonstrate the wide ranging benefits
of international research collaboration as an enabler
of innovation and a key mechanism for establishing
highly productive people-to-people links. With specific
focus on engagement between Australia and China,
the paper will outline how the university embraced
the concept of a global networked university to drive
research success across a range of discipline areas
and advance its global footprint and reputation.
International collaboration holds wide-ranging
incentives and rewards for researchers, institutions,
governments and the broader society. Government
and institutional funding sources are finite and high
quality research infrastructure and state-of-theart equipment is costly; so it is not only logical, but
imperative, that leading research universities work
together to maximise resources. Identifying partners
with shared research interests and complementarity,
in terms of agenda, discipline strengths and motivation,
reduces needless replication of effort and enriches
research training opportunities and skills development.
By sheer virtue of a research project being international,
APPENDIX 2
it immediately increases the potential for wider
ranging influence and impact. Academics and
researchers are all too aware of the relationship
between international co-publication and citation
impact. According to a 2011 report from the Royal
Society “for each international author, there is a
corresponding increase in the impact of that paper,
up to a tipping point of around 10 authors, after
which the relative impact of extra country authors is
less clear.”1 For industry partners, in geographically
isolated countries like Australia, investing in research
and development that is globally collaborative
offers the benefit of access to an international
network of knowledge and solutions. Furthermore,
from a broader social perspective, human and
learning mobility is considered to contribute to
greater understanding, awareness and cross-cultural
affinity which may, in turn, impact on national and
international prosperity and security.
Australia and China
A recent paper in Nature highlighted that “the future
of science will be influenced by the interconnectivity
of governments, research and educational
institutions, and individual citizens around the globe.
Integrating different perspectives will alter, energize
and enrich science.” The author continues by
outlining how collaboration can have wide ranging
implications beyond the scientific process, “how the
science and technology community organizes itself
for the global era may determine how effectively
humanity can tackle major societal challenges. The
increasing integration of social, behavioural and
economic sciences with the natural sciences and
engineering will be essential in this regard” (Suresh,
2012). The UQ Confucius Institute represents an
excellent example of a university partnership which
encourages and supports endeavours across a
range of disciplines. The Institute, through an alliance
between UQ and Tianjin University, not only promotes
Chinese language and cultural studies, but is the first
in Australia with a focus on building collaborative
relationships with China in the fields of science,
engineering and technology.
China’s rapid economic growth has been
accompanied by a range of challenges with
which Australian universities may be able to assist.
Equally, Chinese universities and other research
institutes have significant capacities and alternative
experiences that may advantage Australian
researchers. Australian universities are well placed to
support China’s rapid and impactful engagement
with some of the most difficult and complex societal
and technological challenges. China’s commitment
to R&D investments and its interest in strategic
partnership presents an opportunity for cost
sharing and research funding support for Australian
universities with shared interests. China is currently
the second highest R&D-spending country in the
world and has fixed a macroeconomic goal of
spending 2.2% of GDP on research by 2015, toward
its goal of becoming an innovation-based economy
by 2020.4 Key to achieving strong and sustainable
partnerships between the two nations will be the
requirement to continue to build trust and increase
people-to-people links.
1 https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/
publications/2011/4294976134.pdf [Accessed 30 May 2014]
University links between China and Australia
have grown considerably over the past decade.
Australia has benefited greatly from its reputation
as an English speaking, high-quality higher
education destination. China is Australia’s largest
source of international student enrolments. In 2013,
29% of all international students studying in Australia
on a student visa were from China. The majority
of these enrolments were in higher education
(61.5%), with enrolments of Chinese students in
Australia universities rising from 58,193 in 2007 to
92,248 in 2013.2 China is Australia’s third most
frequent partner for collaboration in joint scientific
publications with the number of papers involving
Chinese and Australian authors published annually
more than doubling from 2118 in 2009 to 4,603 in
2013.3
2 https://aei.gov.au/research/pages/aei-data-and-research.aspx
[Accessed 31 May 2014]
3 InCitesTM, Thomson Reuters, 2014 [Accessed 1 June 2014]
4 http://www.battelle.org/docs/tpp/2014_global_rd_funding_
forecast.pdf?sfvrsn=4 [Accessed 31 May 2014]
33
APPENDIX 2
The Australian federal government made a clear
statement about the need, and value of, investing in
programs that build connectivity between Australia
and Asia when it launched the $100 million dollar
New Colombo Plan (NCP) program in late 2013. The
NCP aims at achieving a better balance, in terms
of the flow of students between Australia and Asia,
by increasing opportunities for Australian students
to gain study and work experiences in Asia and
“is intended to be transformational, deepening
relationships with the region, both at the individual
level and through expanding university, business and
other stakeholder links.”5
A global university
The University of Queensland is recognised as
one of Australia’s leading research-intensive
universities and has a global reputation for
significant innovation. Central to UQ’s strategy as
a global university is its international connections
and partnerships with much of the research
conducted at the university involving international
collaborations. UQ has research and academic
agreements with over 400 institutional partners in 50
countries.
The university’s commitment to innovation in
collaborative global higher education has led to its
recent membership in edX, a prestigious consortium
of universities founded by Harvard and MIT that is
promulgating the highly topical higher education
phenomenon, known as MOOCs (Massive Open
Online Courses). Much of the current commentary on
MOOCs has focused on the broad based, or massive,
provision of education access. However, consortia
like edX also present a platform and opportunity to
collaborate, problem-solve and address research
challenges on a scale that would previously have
been inconceivable. The edX consortium includes
four Chinese universities – Peking, Tsinghua, University
of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong University of Science
and Technology.
The University of Queensland has a strong history
of collaboration with China though a wide range
of mutually-beneficial academic and research
linkages, corporate partnerships, and a UQ staff
and student community with strong connections
to China. Currently UQ has over 100 formal
research and academic agreements with more
than 50 official partners in China.
5 http://www.dfat.gov.au/new-colombo-plan/about.html
[Accessed 31 May 2014]
34
Between 2010 and 2013, UQ received $1.2 million in
grant funding from Chinese institutions and corporate
partners and has collaborated with 32 Chinese
institutions on research projects, including six research
projects with the Chinese Academy of Sciences
and three with Tsinghua University. UQ has four joint
research laboratories in China, partnering with the
Chinese Academy of Science, Renmin University and
the Second Military Medical University, to conduct
collaborative research in the areas of neurogenetics
and data and software engineering. China is ranked
third in the countries to co-publish with UQ, behind
only the United States and the United Kingdom. The
richness of the relationship is further highlighted by
the fact that four UQ scientists have been appointed
under the highly prestigious China ‘1000 Talent’ Plan,
an initiative by the Central Coordination Committee
of the Chinese Community Party focussing on the
recruitment of leading foreign scientific experts. UQ’s
people-to-people links with China are extensive and
include a network of approximately 3,079 alumni
currently residing in China and almost 3000 Chinese
students enrolled at UQ in 2014.
UQ is committed to deepening engagement with key
Chinese universities and corporate partners to sustain
high quality research endeavours, to provide leadership
in collaboration with partners in a number of areas
of research, and contribute to achieving effective
solutions to contemporary issues and challenges. In
this context, it is instructive to review two case studies,
one relating to a major joint research centre already in
existence that showcases the benefits of collaboration
with an industry partner, and another aimed at
launching a UQ success into partnership with China.
Case Study 1: Baosteel
The Baosteel-Australia Joint Research and
Development Centre (BAJC) is a joint partnership
between Baoshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (Baosteel)
– one of the most globally competitive steel companies
in China and four Australian universities – the
University of Queensland, the University of New
South Wales, Monash University and the University
of Wollongong. The Centre was established in April
2011 and is Baosteel’s first research and development
centre located outside China.
The mission of the Centre is, through an enduring
partnership, to engage in exploring and developing
new knowledge and technologies within selected
areas of particular significance for Baosteel’s longer
term, strategic development and business activities.
■■ Conducting strategic research supporting
Baosteel’s business interests, in approved priority
themes including innovative materials, new
metallurgical processes, resource utilisation and
advanced environmental technologies.
■■ Providing strategic consultancies and technical
advice for Baosteel’s long-term and sustainable
development.
■■ Promoting application of innovative technologies
and development of new, high value and low
carbon products in Baosteel.
■■ Providing a platform for Baosteel to access the
international technical and personnel recruitment
marketplace.
■■ Strengthening the academic/technical exchange
between Baosteel and Australian universities and
providing access to other innovations within these
universities which may be of interest to Baosteel.
BAJC brings in the creative talents from universities
to set up research projects of interest to Baosteel in
line with universities’ research capacity and strategy,
using Baosteel funding. Proceeds from intellectual
properties developed through innovative research
are shared between Baosteel and participant
universities based on cash and in-kind contributions.
The Centre operates under the guidance of a Board
comprising a Board Chair appointed by Baosteel,
a Board Co-chair appointed by the University of
Queensland, 4 members from Baosteel including
the Board Chair, 2 from UQ including the Co-Chair
and the Centre Director, and 1 each from other
Participating Institutions. The Board is assisted by a
technical advisory committee consisting of 4 senior
research scientists from Baosteel and 5 academic
professionals from participant universities.
Activities and outcomes
Since the Centre was launched, BAJC has
established a variety of successful research
collaborations between research engineers and
scientists at the partner institutions. Twenty six
research projects are currently managed by BAJC, of
which about one third are further engaged and have
leveraged additional funding through ARC-LP, CRC
and other Australian government funding schemes.
The Centre organises an annual symposium to
provide a platform for the program participants
to present and discuss their research activities
and outcomes. The inaugural two-day BAJC
Symposium, held in Brisbane in December 2012,
attracted over 70 participants who delivered
presentations on the progress and outcomes
of various projects. The second Symposium was
held in January 2014 in Melbourne with more
than 80 attendees. BAJC Symposium provides an
important opportunity for professional learning,
networking, gathering and sharing knowledge, as
well as initiating or strengthening the professional
relationships that sustain the effectiveness of the
collaboration. BAJC has developed a number
of policies and procedures that facilitate
productive and mutually beneficial R&D activities.
For example, BAJC implements a Technology
Readiness Level (TRL) assessment, ranging from
Level 1 (fundamental research) through Level
5 (technologically proven) and Level 9 (ready
for commercialisation), as an evaluation tool to
measure the research outcomes. TRL not only
clarifies the different roles of researchers and
industrial development engineers, but also guides
the researchers by providing clearer targets for the
R&D activities. BAJC aims to develop commercial
technologies for Baosteel through the avenue of
fundamental research. So far 50% of 1st Round BAJC
projects (by 2nd year) and 10% of 2nd Round BAJC
projects (in 1st year) have been assessed as TRL 4.
BAJC also facilitated a fruitful collaboration
between Baosteel and UniQuest through the
formation of a new UniQuest fee-for-services
engagement with Baosteel Metal (a subsidiary of
Baosteel Corporation). This has resulted in Baosteel
appointing UniQuest as IP services provider
for BAJC generated project IPs management
from 2014. UniQuest has already completed
a provisional patent application for one BAJC
project, and 2 patent applications produced by
other two BAJC projects have been submitted
to UniQuest for processing. This significantly
promotes the IP protection and technology
take-up from BAJC’s research projects, and also
deepens the partner institutions’, and in particular
UQ’s, link with Baosteel through UniQuest’s
commercialisation services.
35
APPENDIX 2
The purpose of the Centre is to create an
internationally recognised Centre of excellence in
R&D by harnessing and developing existing and
emerging talent within the participant institutes to
fulfill the mission of the Centre. The specific aims of
the Centre incorporate:
APPENDIX 2
Challenges
Year 2014 is BAJC’s 3rd year of operations. BAJC
now needs to develop mechanisms for the
Centre’s sustainable continuation, through value
creation for its stakeholders, intellectual property
development and funding arrangements.
Like other companies in the world, Baosteel
faces financial pressures from global economic
trends. BAJC seeks an enduring presence rather
than a specific target for number of research
projects or a particular scale of funding. It seeks
to optimise an R&D strategy to capture research
projects that address Baosteel’s most urgent and
strategic needs, and adjust resource requirements
appropriately.
BAJC aims to increase deliverables from research
projects that can be articulated and recognised as
convincing added value for Baosteel.
Future steps include further development for
revenue sharing from commercialised IP based
on the principles laid out in the BAJC agreement.
Also, the development of mechanisms for including
a broader range of research through a wider net of
3rd party commercial and research collaborations
with entities not currently participating in the BAJC
agreement.
Case Study 2:
Triple P-Positive Parenting Program
There is overwhelming evidence linking early
parenting practices to virtually every aspect of child
development (Sanders, 2012). The extent to which
children grow up to be healthy, well-adjusted and
contribute positively to their communities throughout
life depends largely upon the way in which they
are raised (Sanders, 2012). The significance and
importance of parenting applies across diverse
countries and cultures, including Chinese parents
(Au et al., 2014; Sanders et al., 2014).
Evidence-based parenting programs which seek
to instil a warm, responsive, consistent parenting
environment that provides boundaries and
contingent limits for children in a low conflict family
environment affords children many essential life skills
which significantly shape their lifelong interactions
with the community. Whether through accelerated
language development, greater readiness for
school, higher academic achievement, reduced
risk of antisocial behaviour, lack of substance abuse
problems or mental health issues, an increased
likelihood of involvement in higher education,
improved physical health, improved workplace
performance, or greater capacity for later intimate
36
relationships, positive parenting interventions target
multiple factors which lay the foundation for lifelong
prosperity for both the individual and broader
community (Sanders et al. 2014 ). The University
of Queensland’s (UQ) Triple P-Positive Parenting
Program (Triple P) is among the world’s leading
parenting programs and researchers from UQ are
seeking foundation partners in China interested in
exploring Triple P in a Chinese context.
Brief history of Triple P
and its global impact
Triple P is a system of interventions developed by
Professor Matt Sanders and colleagues at UQ. The
aim of Triple P is to prevent severe behavioural,
emotional, and developmental problems in children
and adolescents by enhancing the knowledge,
skills and confidence of parents. To achieve this
goal, Triple P incorporates five levels of intervention
on a tiered continuum of increasing strength for
parents of children from birth to age 16. Triple
P is best thought of as a blended, multi-level
intervention comprising both universal and targeted
interventions. Over 35 years of research has shown
the system to be effective and it is estimated
to have reached over 7 million families from 25
countries (Sanders et al., 2014). The evidence
base for Triple P is overwhelming and the system of
interventions which comprise Triple P represent the
most rigorously evaluated parenting program in the
world (Sanders et al., 2014; UNODC, 2009; WHO,
2009). The Parenting and Family Support Centre
at UQ remains the research hub of Triple P and is
considered a world-leader in research in this area.
Triple P is supported by over 400 published
papers, including 159 evaluation papers, 236
non-evaluation papers, with over 450 contributory
authors from 121 institutions across 13 countries
contributing to the research base. Although Triple
P has been successfully trialled with Chinese
parents in three separate trials (Sanders et
al., 2014), there remains many important and
unanswered questions about parenting in China
which need to be addressed.
Triple P has a significant ongoing research and
development agenda in Asia. Research trials and
studies (including randomised clinical trials, case
studies, and policy papers) have been produced
in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia,
Malaysia and The Philippines. There have been
numerous academic publications emerging from
Asia (e.g., Leung et al. 2013; Matsumoto et al., 2010)
demonstrating significant effects of Triple P across
a range of child and parent outcome measures.
Triple P International has a dedicated regional
dissemination office in Tokyo and ongoing discussions
are underway with various government agencies
relating to the broader rollout of Triple P in the
region, including the Ministry of Social and Family
Development in Singapore.
Plans and opportunities in China
Research and evaluation of parenting support in
China has the potential to make a significant impact
in the community. Our preliminary discussions and
research indicate that China does not currently have
a well formulated population approach to parenting
support and hence there is a great opportunity
for research, evaluation and implementation of
evidence-based parenting support. The University
of Queensland is looking to build meaningful,
productive and outcome-focused partnerships with
leading Chinese academics and institutions. The
focus of collaborations will fundamentally be on
addressing why a population approach to parenting
support in China is important, what adaptations are
required to make it work, what benefits it may have,
and the mechanisms of how to implement it.
It is envisioned that all collaborations will provide
a capacity building framework for each institution
across a broad range of traditional and nontraditional research domains including:
APPENDIX 2
Triple P in Asia
■■ Joint publishing and grant writing
■■ Advancement – fundraising
■■ Student mobility and exchange
(incl. international student enrolments)
■■ Commercial partnership building
■■ Science communication
■■ Commercialisation.
Challenges and opportunities
in extending the reach of Triple P
There are a number of challenges and opportunities
which must be addressed in order to ensure
successful development and dissemination of Triple
P in new territories and regions. Three prominent
examples of such challenges are described below.
Build a Local Evidence-Base
Every country should aim to develop its own local
evidence that the program works. Not only is
sustainability more likely with local evidence of
impact, strategic alliances can be built to increase
the total pool of researchers across countries
contributing to the cumulative international
evidence-base on parenting programs.
Figure 1. The proposed benefits of undertaking a systematic program of research and evaluation of Triple P in China.
37
APPENDIX 2
Triple P often begins in a new country with a
small scale demonstration project to establish the
feasibility and clinical utility of the intervention
before it is implemented more widely (e.g.,
Leung et al. 2013). Such an approach ensures
the program is meeting local needs and fosters
a spirit of openness, critical evaluation and builds
local partnerships that are needed to sustain an
intervention.
Connect International Researchers
Triple P has benefited greatly from several important
collaborations that have fostered international
projects and promoted knowledge exchange
regarding delivery of public health interventions
around parenting. A coordinated international
research network for interested scientists has
been established through an International Triple P
Research Network (ITPRN). This network facilitates
communication about research activity around the
world involving the Triple P system. The network has
created a data repository for outcome studies.
Tune in to local Issues
Each country has its own unique policies, regulations,
practices, and opportunities that influence service
priorities. These differences need to be acknowledged
and understood. Usually this means listening carefully
to how the issues of concern are framed and
accessing relevant policy documents that provide
insight into local issues. Identifying local opinion
leaders is also critical as they can become either
advocates or critics depending on how they are
engaged with the program.
Conclusion
The challenges and promises of globalisation are
seeing universities reposition themselves to compete
and thrive on a rapidly evolving playing field. Many
Chinese institutions already have strong global
networks and are now selectively looking for highly
ranked new partners in China’s priority areas of
economic emergence. Australian universities have
many long standing relationships that can form the
basis of a strategically resourced and developed
partnership of mutual benefit. Key to the success of all
international research collaborations will be continued
access to government and industry support and the
development of mechanisms to ensure sustainability
and lasting value for stakeholders.
For global partnerships to truly work, partners
need to clearly define the outcomes that are
desired. Choosing high quality partners that are
outcome-driven is essential for successful long term
relationships. Research partnerships should be based
38
upon a well-defined framework of performance
outputs and expectations, including but not limited
to, joint publishing and grant targets; student
mobility and exchange targets; citations in major
editorial and media in both countries; philanthropic
fundraising targets; and the number of users in the
community interacting with the particular innovation/
technology being developed. Relationships must
always be conceptualised with mutually beneficial
outcomes and be focussed on clearly defined goals
that are operationalised at the level of individual
researchers and their immediate teams, rather
than over-emphasising the institution-to-institution
alliances which are limited in their application and
translational of outcomes.
This research paper has been prepared for the IEAA–
APAIE symposium on ‘Internationalisation of Higher
Education in the Asia-Pacific’, Thursday 12–Friday 13
June 2014 in Hong Kong.
This symposium has received funding from Austrade as
part of the Asian Business Engagement Plan.
ieaa.org.au/asiasymposium
APPENDIX 2
References
Au, A., Lau, K-M., Wong, A., Lam, C., Leung, C., Lau, J., & Lee, Y. (2014). The efficacy of a Group Triple P (Positive Parenting Program) for Chinese parents with a child diagnosed with ADHD in Hong Kong: A pilot randomised controlled study. Australian Psychologist, 49, 151-162.
Leung, C., Fan, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). The effectiveness of a Group Triple P with Chinese parents who have a child with developmental disabilities: A randomized controlled trial.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 976-984.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.11.023
Matsumoto, Y., Sofronoff, K. & Sanders, M. R. (2010). Investigation of the effectiveness and social validity of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in Japanese society. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(1), 87-91. doi:10.1037/a0018181
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioural disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth, and Young
Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions. M. E. O’Connell, T. Boat, and K. E.
Warner (Eds.), Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioural and Social
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Sanders, M. R. (2012). Development, evaluation, and multinational dissemination of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 345–379.
doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143104
Sanders, M. R., Kirby, J. N., Tellegen, C. L., & Day, J. J. (2014). Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Triple P System. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(4), 337-357.
Sumargi, A., Sofronoff, K., & Morawska, A. (2014). Evaluation of a brief format of the triple p-positive parenting program: a pilot study with Indonesian parents residing in Australia. In Press: Behaviour Change (Accepted 18/3/14).
Suresh, S. (2012). Research funding: Global challenges need global solutions. Nature, 490, 337–338.
United Nations Office Drugs & Crime (UNODC). (2009). Guide to Implementing Family Skills Training Programmes for Drug Abuse Prevention. New York: United Nations.
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2009). Preventing violence through the development of safe, stable and nurturing relationships between children and their parents and caregivers. Series of briefings on violence prevention: the evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
39
APPENDIX 3
DELEGATE LIST
40
TITLE
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
POSITION TITLE
COMPANY NAME
COUNTRY
Prof.
Mohd Hamdi
Abd Shukor
DVC (Academic & International)
University of Malaya
Malaysia
Prof.
Kent
Anderson
Pro Vice-Chancellor - International
The University of Adelaide
Australia
Mr
Will
Archer
CEO
i-graduate
UK
Mr
Greg
Aronson
Lecturer
Victoria University
Australia
Prof.
Helen Patricia
Bartlett
President
Monash University Malaysia
Malaysia
Mr
Brett
Blacker
Director, International Office
University of Newcastle
Australia
Ms
Nicole
Brigg
Director, International
Macquarie University
Australia
Mr
Andrew
Brown
Executive Manager,
International Scholarships and Development
Austraining International
Australia
Ms.
Elizabeth
Chan
Senior Relationship Manager, Education
CPA Australia Ltd.
Hong Kong
A/
Prof.
Jonathan H.
Chan
Associate Dean for International Relations / Chair
of BSc Computer Science Program - CS@SIT
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi
(KMUTT)
Thailand
Dr
Timothy
Chan
Academic Director
SIM Global Education
Singapore
Ms
Valerie
Chan
Education Manager
Australian Trade Commission
Hong Kong
Prof.
Luisa Shu-Ying
Chang
Dean, Office of International Affairs
National Taiwan University
Taiwan
A/
Prof.
Nipon
Charoenkitkarn
Dean, School of Information Technology
King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi
(KMUTT)
Thailand
Dr
David
Cheng
Associate Vice-President (MEA)
City University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Prof.
Fanny M.
Cheung
Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-President (Research)
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Prof.
Gordon
Cheung
Associate Vice-President
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Ms
Eve
Ching
Education Manager
Australian Trade Commission
Hong Kong
Ms
Euphemia
Chow
Head, Global Student Programs Office
The Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology
Hong Kong
Ms
Pearl
Chua
Senior Relationship Manager (International)
Murdoch University
Australia
Ms
Megan
Chudleigh
lecturer
Victoria University
Australia
Ms
Audrey
Chung
Programme Officer, Office of Academic Links
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Ms
Eva
Chye
Principal Adviser, International Relations
University of Western Australia
Australia
DELEGATE LIST
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
POSITION TITLE
COMPANY NAME
COUNTRY
Ms
Helen
Cook
Associate Director, Client Relations
ETS TOEFL
Australia
Mr
Alastair
Dawson
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(International and Services)
CQUniversity
Australia
Prof.
Jenny
Dixon
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Strategic Engagement)
University of Auckland
New Zealand
Ms
Kate
Duff
Assistant Secretary,
New Colombo Plan Secretariat
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
Australia
Prof.
Susan
Elliott
Deputy Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor
International
University of Melbourne
Australia
Ms
Shally
Fan
Director of Academic Links
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Ms
Kate
Fitzgerald
Executive Officer, New Colombo Plan Secretariat
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
Australia
Prof.
Tai Fai
Fok
Pro-Vice-Chancellor
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Prof.
Paul
Forster
Program Director of Global Learning, Global
Students Office
The Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology
Hong Kong
Bennett
Fu
Associate Dean, Office of International Affairs
National Taiwan University
Taiwan
Gloria
Ge
Director of Griffith BBus (HK)
Griffith University
China
Karuna Kar
Ghimire
Chairman& Managing Director
Robertstate consultancy Pvt.ltd
Nepal
Mr
Gavin
Gomez
Director, External Relations, Development and
Alumni
Monash University Malaysia
Malaysia
Ms
Saskia
Hansen
Director International Relations
RMIT University
Australia
Prof.
Kit-Tai
Hau
Vice-President
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Ms
Mary Lou
Hayman
Manager, Academic Relations and Public Affairs
High Commission of Canada
Australia
Dr
Christopher
Hill
Director, Research Training & Academic Dev.
University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
Malaysia
Ms
Cathryn
Hlavka
Minister Counsellor (Education and Research)
Australian Embassy
China
Prof.
Simon S. M.
Ho
President
Hang Seng Management College
Hong Kong
Ms
Kerry-Anne
Hoad
Research Director
International Education Association of Australia
Australia
Prof.
Perry
Hobson
Pro Vice-Chancellor – Global Engagement
Taylor's University
Malaysia
Hon
Phil
Honeywood
Executive Director
International Education Association of Australia
Australia
Dr
APPENDIX 3
TITLE
41
APPENDIX 3
DELEGATE LIST
42
TITLE
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
POSITION TITLE
COMPANY NAME
COUNTRY
Dr
Judy
Hudson
Snr Project Officer
(International & External Engagement)
University of Technology Sydney (UTS)
Australia
Ms
Kirrilee
Hughes
Deputy Director - Indonesian Affairs
The University of New South Wales
Australia
Prof.
Etsuko
Katsu
Vice President
Meiji University
Japan
Ms
Li Shu
Kho
Senior Manager, Office of Global Learning
Singapore Management University
Singapore
Dr
Renee
Kim
Associate Vice President for International Affairs
Hanyang University
Korea
Mr
Branson
Kwok
Director, International Development
Singapore Institute of Management
Singapore
Ms
Joanne
Lai
Head, Office of Mainland and International
Programmes
Hong Kong Lingnan University
Hong Kong
Ms
Helen
Lam
Manager (International & Non-local Students)
City University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Prof.
Bokyoung
Lee
Director of Division of International Education
Yonsei University
Korea
Prof.
Jim
Lee
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, International
Macquarie University
Australia
Ms
Chloe
Lei
Administrative Assistant, Global Affairs Office
University of Macau
Macau
Ms
Kiran
Lei
Senior Administrative Assistant, Global Affairs
University of Macau
Macau
Mr
Peter
Li
Director, International Office
Hong Kong Baptist University
Hong Kong
Prof.
David
Lim
President
Technological and Higher Education Institute of
Hong Kong(THEi, Vocational Training Council)
Hong Kong
Dr
Erik
Lithander
Pro Vice-Chancellor - International and Outreach
Australian National University
Australia
Mr
Eric
Lo
Senior Manager, International Affairs Office
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Hong Kong
Mr
Kenny
Lowe
Student Exchange Co-ordinator
The University of Sydney
Australia
Prof.
Andrew
MacIntyre
Deputy Vice Chancellor (International)
RMIT University
Australia
Ms
Shelly
Maller
Manager, Griffith Global Mobility
Griffith University
Australia
Dr
Sean
Matthews
Head of School of Modern Languages and
Cultures
University of Nottingham
Malaysia
Prof.
Takamichi Tam
Mito
Associate Dean Center for International
Education and Cooperation
Kwansei Gakuin University
Japan
Prof.
Joshua
Mok
Associate Vice President
(Research and International Exchange)
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
Hong Kong
DELEGATE LIST
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
POSITION TITLE
COMPANY NAME
COUNTRY
Mr
Peter
Muntz
Communication & Client Services Coordinator
International Education Association of Australia
Australia
Prof.
Surakit
Nathisuwan
Vice President for International Relations
Mahidol University
Thailand
Liselle
Nelmes
Senior Case Manager
Austraining International
Australia
Vanaja
Nethi
-
Nova Southeastern University
United States
of America
Angela
Ng
Programmes Manager,
Office of Mainland and International Programmes
Lingnan University
Hong Kong
Prof.
Graham
Nicholson
Associate Dean
(International & External Engagement)
University of Technology Sydney
Australia
Ms
Khanittha
Nimon
International Relations Officer
Mahidol University
Thailand
Ms
Emily
O'Callaghan
Operations Manager
International Education Association of Australia
Australia
Mr
Kazutaka
Otake
Director, Japan
C.I.E.E.
Japan
A/
Prof.
Anne
Pakir
Director, International Relations
National University of Singapore (NUS)
Singapore
Prof.
Stephen
Parker
VIce-Chancellor & President
University of Canberra
Australia
A/
Prof.
Anna
Parkin
Dean International
Curtin University
Australia
Mr
Guy
Perring
Regional Director, SE Asia
International Graduate Insight Group Ltd.
(i-graduate)
United
Kingdom
Ms
Angela
Pok
Vice President Student Experience
Taylor's University
Malaysia
Prof.
Simon
Ridings
Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor - International
Curtin University
Australia
Prof.
Fazal
Rizvi
Associate Dean, Global Engagement,
Melb Grad. Sch.
University of Melbourne
Australia
Ms
Kate
Roth
Associate Director, International
(Academic Programs)
Macquarie University
Australia
Prof.
Monique
Skidmore
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International)
University of Queensland
Australia
Prof.
John
Spinks
Senior Advisor to the Vice-Chancellor
The University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Dr
Gabriele
Suder
Director, International Relations
University of Melbourne
Australia
Dr
APPENDIX 3
TITLE
43
DELEGATE LIST
FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
POSITION TITLE
COMPANY NAME
COUNTRY
Dr
Wen
Sun
Deputy Director of Office of International
Cooperation and Exchanges
Nanjing University
China
Mrs
Riyuki
Takemura
Senior Coordinator
Hokkaido University
Japan
Dr
Abby
Tan
Director, International and Public Relations Office
Universiti Brunei Darussalam
Brunei
Darussalam
Ms
Alison
Taylor
Associate Director, Business Strategy and Services
TAFE NSW - Sydney Institute
Australia
Dan
Tebbutt
Deputy Consul-General (Commercial)
& Senior Trade Commissioner
Australian Trade Commission (Austrade)
Hong Kong
Ms
Bridget
Tee
Associate Director, Office of Global Learning
Singapore Management University
Singapore
Prof.
Sarah
Todd
Pro Vice Chancellor (International)
Griffith University
Australia
A/
Prof.
Qingnian
Wang
Director International Office
South China University of Technology
China
Ms
Elena
Williams
Resident Director
ACICIS Study Indonesia
Australia
Mr
Guangzhi
Xia
Associate Dean, External & Public Relations and
Information Services
Tsinghua University Graduate School
China
Karmen
Yeung
Partner, China Tax
KPMG
Hong Kong
Dr
Katharina
Yu
Director of International Development Office
Bejing Normail University HK Baptist University
United International Collge
China
A/
Prof.
Christopher
Ziguras
Associate Professor of International Studies
RMIT University
Australia
APPENDIX 3
TITLE
44
INTERNATIONALISATION
OF HIGHER EDUCATION
IN THE
ASIA-PACIFIC
PROGRAM
12–13 June 2014
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
SUMMER 2013 | 45
Gold sponsor
Platinum sponsor
Silver sponsors
This program was correct at the time of printing (Wednesday 28 May 2014) and is subject to change without notice.
This symposium has received funding from Austrade as part of the Asian Business Engagement Plan.
46
INTERNATIONALISATION
OF HIGHER EDUCATION
IN THE
ASIA-PACIFIC
12–13 June 2014
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
This symposium is a uniquely collaborative
forum aimed at developing mutual, longterm engagement between institutions in
Australia and the Asia-Pacific.
Speakers include
It is jointly organised by the International
Education Association of Australia (IEAA)
and the Asia-Pacific Association for
International Education (APAIE) and hosted
by the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
■■ Will Archer, i-graduate
The symposium brings together university
academics and professional staff,
government representatives and business
leaders for an open discussion on the two
key themes of enhancing student mobility
and fostering research collaboration.
■■ Professor Kent Anderson
The University of Adelaide, Australia
■■ Professor Gordon Cheung
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
■■ Professor Takamichi Tam Mito
Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
■■ Professor Joshua Mok,
The Hong Kong Institute of Education,
Hong Kong
■■ Professor Monique Skidmore
The University of Queensland, Australia
ieaa.org.au/ieaa-apaie-symposium
47
ABOUT IEAA & APAIE
The International Education Association of Australia
(IEAA) is an association of international education
professionals. It was established in 2004 to serve
the needs and interests of the large number of
individuals working in Australian international
education, to encourage informed and ethical
professional practice among members, and to
promote international education to governments,
education organisations and within the community.
IEAA aims to work in close collaboration with
educational institutions, Australian governments and
their instrumentalities, industry peak bodies, and
business groups.
We are not-for-profit, representing members from all
education sectors (public and private) – university,
vocational education, schools, pathways and English
language – as well as from governments, business and
support service organisations.
Currently IEAA has 2,000 individual members who
work in teaching, research, management, marketing,
admissions, student support services, study abroad,
student exchange, administration, policy and the media.
IEAA aims to:
■■ Serve and support the professional needs and
interests of individuals working in international
education,
■■ Encourage informed and ethical professional
practice among members and institutions,
■■ Promote international education and its benefits
with governments, educational institutions, business,
and within the community,
■■ Promote Australian education overseas, through
and in the interest of members, and
■■ Advance Australia’s global reputation and standing
as a provider of high quality education services.
www.ieaa.org.au
The Asia-Pacific Association for International Education
(APAIE) is a constituent-led organisation made up of
individual members. It has a steadfast membership of
more than 1,000 international education professionals
– from professors to rectors to international exchange
coordinators. APAIE is dedicated to serving and
representing this membership.
APAIE is for senior administrators whose goals and
aspirations seed academic excellence in the AsiaPacific region and believe these goals and aspirations
can and should be shared internationally. APAIE is for
personnel in academic institutions whose responsibilities
are dedicated to international exchange and
education. APAIE is for international relations officers
concerned with enlightening the education enterprise.
APAIE is for higher education funding council
members who aspire to implement creative funding
internationally. APAIE is for education consultants with a
passion for the Asia-Pacific region and internationalism.
APAIE is scholarly, judicious, and mercurial and offers
opportunity. The mission of APAIE is to achieve greater
cooperation among those responsible for international
education and internationalisation in Asia-Pacific
institutions and to promote the quality of international
programs, activities, and exchanges for the harmony
and the advancement of the Asia-Pacific region.
The Association promotes dialog and cooperation
between institutions in the Asia-Pacific region and
those outside the region. Towards this aim the
Association devotes itself to the principles of mutual
respect, diverse and representative membership, and
collective progress.
APAIE seeks to bring together international educators
active in Asia-Pacific higher education and other
relevant organisation to promote communication,
networking, and professional development. The
Association would like to facilitate the exchange
and mobility of students, staff and scholars, and the
advancement of academic collaboration interregionally. APAIE strives to provide a channel for
benchmarking for the advancement of members
and their institutions, to recommend good practices
and policy in cooperation with various institutions and
agencies, and to effectively represent the views of its
membership with regard to international education.
www.apaie.org
48
Gold sponsor
Tribal is a global provider of products and services
to the international education, training and learning
markets. Our extensive expertise and collaborative
style have made us a trusted partner to our customers.
Our higher education solutions have been designed
to improve the quality and effectiveness of higher
education institutions and remain competitive in a
global education market.
At ETS, we advance quality and equity in education
for people worldwide by creating assessments
based on rigorous research. ETS serves individuals,
educational institutions and government agencies
by providing customised solutions for teacher
certification, English language learning, and
elementary, secondary and post-secondary
education, as well as conducting education
research, analysis and policy studies.
Our student management systems are a scalable
solution used across institutions ranging from 1,000 to
over 50,000 students. These support the entire student
lifecycle from enquiries, applications, enrolment,
progression, grades, graduation and alumni.
Tribal’s financial benchmarking solution provides
an assessment of an institution’s current financial
performance along with modeling of future financial
plans and forecasts. This enables an institution to know
exactly how much resource each activity or service
is consuming, and highlights areas for investment
alongside possible efficiency savings.
i-graduate is part of the Tribal Group. i-graduate is
a world leader in customer insight for the education
sector, tracking and benchmarking student and
stakeholder opinion across the globe. Our customers
and partners include over 1,400 of the world’s leading
universities, colleges and schools, plus governments
and government agencies across 28 countries.
As well as our flagship products such as the worldrespected International Student Barometer™, our latest
initiative, iMPACT, is a new comparative instrument for
measuring the effect a short-term student exchange
or study abroad programme has on your students and
alumni, who have studied abroad as part of a degreelevel course.
SPONSOR PROFILES
Platinum sponsor
Founded as a non-profit in 1947, ETS develops,
administers and scores more than 50 million tests
annually in more than 180 countries, at over 9,000
locations worldwide.
The internet-based TOEFL® test (TOEFL iBT) measures
a test taker’s ability to use and understand English.
It evaluates how well the test taker combines their
listening, reading, speaking and writing skills to perform
communication tasks. More than 27 million people
from all over the world have taken the TOEFL test to
demonstrate their English-language proficiency.
The TOEFL iBT has now been accepted as an Englishlanguage test for use with Australia’s skilled migration
visas. This means that people across the globe
can now use their TOEFL scores for student, poststudy, skilled migration and business visas, as well as
academic admissions purposes.
www.ets.org/toefl
www.tribalgroup.com
www.i-graduate.org
49
THURSDAY 12 JUNE
TIME
SESSION
9.00am
REGISTRATION
9.30am
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
SPEAKERS
PROFESSOR SUSAN ELLIOTT
Vice-President APAIE and
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Engagement),
The University of Melbourne, Australia
BRETT BLACKER
Vice-President IEAA and
Director International,
The University of Newcastle, Australia
PROFESSOR GORDON CHEUNG
Associate Vice-President,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
9.45am
10.20am
SETTING THE SCENE:
DEVELOPING A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
PROFESSOR JOSHUA MOK
MEASURING MOBILITY OUTCOMES
WILL ARCHER
Will Archer will unpack the results of a pilot study involving
seven leading institutions from the Asia-Pacific that
measured the impact of exchange programs on skills
development, career outcomes, global citizenship and
personal development.
Chief Executive Officer, i-graduate
11.00am
MORNING TEA
11.20am
RESEARCH PAPER 1:
STUDENT MOBILITY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Student mobility is the single most transformative educational
experience governments and institutions can deliver.
Research shows that it leads to greater international outlook
and intercultural understanding, improved academic
performance and increased employability. In this keynote
session, Professor Anderson and Professor Mito will explore the
changing role of student mobility for the 21st century.
11.45am
PANEL DISCUSSION:
STUDENT MOBILITY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
This panel discussion will bring together different
perspectives on student mobility with representatives from
the corporate world, the university sector and government.
Associate Vice-President
(Research and International
Exchange); Dean of Faculty of
Liberal Arts and Social Sciences,
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
PROFESSOR KENT ANDERSON
Pro Vice-Chancellor (International),
The University of Adelaide, Australia
PROFESSOR TAKAMICHI TAM MITO
Associate Dean, Centre for
International Education and
Cooperation,
Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
KATE DUFF
Assistant Secretary, Department
of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT),
Australia
HON. PHIL HONEYWOOD
National Executive Director,
International Education
Association of Australia (IEAA)
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
SURAKIT NATHISUWAN
Vice President for International
Relations, Mahidol University, Thailand
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ANNE PAKIR
Director International Relations,
National University of Singapore
50
SESSION
SPEAKERS
12.20pm
QUESTION & ANSWER (Q&A) DISCUSSION:
STUDENT MOBILITY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
CHRIS ZIGURAS (CHAIR)
Participants will be invited to share their perspectives on the
challenges and opportunities emerging from the research
paper discussions.
Deputy Dean,
Learning & Teaching (International),
RMIT University, Australia
1.00pm
LUNCH
1.50pm
BREAK-OUT GROUP DISCUSSION:
SETTING THE PRIORITIES FOR STUDENT MOBILITY
THURSDAY 12 JUNE
TIME
VARIOUS GROUP LEADERS
Participants will break-out into small groups
to discuss the four questions raised in the research paper.
3.15pm
AFTERNOON TEA
3.30pm
BREAK-OUT GROUPS REPORT BACK
PROFESSOR FAZAL RIZVI (CHAIR)
Graduate School of Education,
The University of Melbourne, Australia
4.15pm
PANEL DISCUSSION:
DEVELOPING MOBILITY PARTNERSHIPS
VARIOUS REPRESENTATIVES
This session will highlight best practice in developing
double degree and short-term mobility programs.
PROFESSOR GORDON
CHEUNG (CHAIR)
What are the challenges institutions are facing when
trying to send students from Australia to Asia? What
strategies are Asian institutions using to make their
programs more accessible? And how can a younger
institution entering the mobility space develop linkages?
5.00pm
WRAP-UP DAY 1
5.15pm
CONCLUSION OF DAY 1
7.00pm–
10.00pm
SYMPOSIUM DINNER
HYATT REGENCY HONG KONG
Regency Ballroom 1
18 Chak Cheung Street
Sha Tin, Hong Kong
PROFESSOR JOSHUA MOK
MICHELLE LI (KEYNOTE SPEAKER)
Deputy Secretary for Education,
Education Bureau, HKSAR Government
Proudly sponsored by Tribal Group and i-graduate.
51
FRIDAY 13 JUNE
TIME
SESSION
SPEAKERS
9.30am
WELCOME AND SCENE SETTING
PROFESSOR FAZAL RIZVI
Graduate School of Education,
The University of Melbourne, Australia
10.00am
RESEARCH PAPER 2: CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES FOR
RESEARCH COLLABORATION IN THE ASIAN CENTURY
PROFESSOR MONIQUE SKIDMORE
This keynote presentation focuses on the current state
of play in research collaboration between Australia and
major Asian countries such as China, India, Singapore and
Japan. It examines the future challenges and opportunities,
and envisions a future of strategic partnership in science
and innovation for the benefit of societies in the region.
10.30am
RESEARCH PAPER 2: PANEL DISCUSSION
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (International),
The University of Queensland,
Australia
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
JONATHAN CHAN
Associate Dean for International
Relations, King Mongkut’s University
of Technology Thonburi, Thailand
PROFESSOR JENNY DIXON
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Strategic Engagement),
University of Auckland, New Zealand
PROFESSOR SUSAN ELLIOTT
Vice-President APAIE and Deputy
Vice-Chancellor (Engagement),
The University of Melbourne, Australia
DR CHRISTOPHER HILL
Director, Research Training and
Academic Development, University
of Nottingham, Malaysia campus
PROFESSOR FAZAL RIZVI (CHAIR)
11.00am
MORNING TEA
11.20am
BREAK-OUT GROUP DISCUSSION
VARIOUS GROUP LEADERS
12.30pm
GROUPS REPORT BACK
PROFESSOR FAZAL RIZVI (CHAIR)
1.00pm
LUNCH
1.30pm
PANEL DISCUSSION:
KEY THEMES AND RECOMMENDED OUTCOMES
Panellists will discuss a range of topics including:
■■ Barriers to academic mobility and the
impact of immigration policy on researchers
■■ Reaching for the top 100:
government policy vs practical outcomes
■■ Developing research strengths
and attracting international partners
KERRY-ANNE HOAD
Director of Research,
International Education
Association of Australia (IEAA)
ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TBC
PROFESSOR GORDON
CHEUNG (CHAIR)
Associate Vice-President,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
■■ Government role vis-à-vis institutional role.
52
2.00pm
QUESTION & ANSWER (Q&A) DISCUSSION
2.30pm
WRAP-UP DAY 2
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR CHRIS ZIGURAS
Deputy Dean, Learning & Teaching
(International), RMIT University, Australia
3.00pm
CONCLUSION & NEXT DIRECTIONS
PROFESSOR FAZAL RIZVI
3.30pm
SYMPOSIUM CLOSE
A traditional Chinese
junkboat sailing in
Victoria Harbour,
Hong Kong.
(Laoshi, iStock)
SUMMER 2013 | 53
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES
Professor Kent Anderson
The University of Adelaide, Australia
Professor Kent Anderson
is a comparative lawyer
specialising in Asia. He
joined the University
of Adelaide in 2012 as
Pro Vice-Chancellor
(International) and
Professor of Law in the
Adelaide Law School.
For the decade before joining the University of
Adelaide, Kent was a joint appointment at the
Australian National University College of Law and
Faculty of Asian Studies, where he was Director
from 2007–2011. He was the Foundation Director of
the School of Culture, History and Language in the
ANU’s College of Asia and the Pacific.
His research and teaching are focused on
insolvency, private international law and, recently,
the introduction of Japan’s new quasi-jury system
(saiban-in seido).
He is editor of Journal of Japanese Law; on the
editorial boards of Asian Law Journal, New Voices:
Journal of Emerging Scholars of Japanese Studies, and
Journal of Asian Politics and History.
Kent has been a visiting professor at Waseda, Nagoya,
Kyushu, Doshisha, Ritsumeikan and Chuo Universities
in Japan. He taught at University of Hawaii and
guest lectured across Asia and North America. He is
a regular media commentator on Australian-Asian
relations, Japanese law, language education, and
internationalisation of higher education.
Kent is a Board Member of the Asia Education
Foundation and Vice-President of the Asian Studies
Association of Australia. He was President of the
Japanese Studies Association of Australia in 2007–2009.
William Archer
i-graduate
i-graduate founder Will
Archer directs the world’s
largest study of student
opinion. Reporting in
confidence to universities
across the globe, his team
benchmarks student and
stakeholder perceptions
using proprietary survey
instruments adopted by
governments and 800 universities across 5 continents
Will worked previously for 15 years as an adviser to
multinational corporations on international recruitment,
researching and recruiting talent across Asia, Africa,
North America and Europe. In 2005 he founded
i-graduate, with the goal of improving the education
experience for students and educators worldwide. An
alumnus of London Business School and a member
of the University of Oxford, Will is a trustee and board
member of HECSU, a council member of the Council
for Industry and Higher Education, a member of the
American International Recruitment Council and a
fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
Brett Blacker
The University of Newcastle, Australia
Brett Blacker is Director,
International at the
University of Newcastle,
supporting the university’s
internationalisation agenda
and international student
experience. Brett is a longstanding Board Member,
current Vice President and
incoming President of IEAA.
He completed a Bachelor in Management and
Marketing as well as a Masters in Leadership and
Management in Education at the University of
Newcastle before commencing a marketing role with
Newcastle’s International Development Office.
He was appointed the Director of Murdoch
International, Murdoch University in 2004 and was
responsible for overseeing international marketing
and recruitment, admissions, and student support for
the university. Over the proceeding years his portfolio
expanded to include Director of Residential Services as
well as the Alumni, Careers and Employment Office.
Brett gained experience in the commercial sector
initially as National Business Development Manager and
subsequently General Manager: Health, OSHC Worldcare,
Mondial Assistance (Allianz Insurance) from 2008–2011.
54
Jonathan Chan is the
Associate Dean for
International Relations and
Chairperson of the BSc
Computer Science program
at the School of Information
Technology, King Mongkut’s
University of Technology
Thonburi (KMUTT), Thailand.
Jonathan holds a B.A.Sc.,
M.A.Sc., and Ph.D. from the University of Toronto and
was a visiting professor there in 2007 and 2009; he
was also a visiting scientist at The Centre for Applied
Genomics at Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto in 2012.
He is a member of the editorial board of Neural
Networks (Elsevier) and a reviewer for a number of
refereed international journals including Information
Science, Neural Computation & Applications, BMC
Bioinformatics, and Memetic Computing. He has
also served on the program, technical and advisory
committees for numerous major international
conferences.
Professor Gordon Cheung
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Professor Gordon Cheung
is currently Professor
at the Department
of Management and
Associate Vice-President
(Academic Links) at The
Chinese University of Hong
Kong (CUHK). He plays a
leadership role in fostering
internationalisation
at CUHK. His major responsibilities include
developing strategic and implementation plans
for internationalisation of CUHK, monitoring student
exchange and study abroad programs and further
expanding the university’s collaboration in research
and developing more joint teaching programs with
institutions from all over the world.
In 2005 he founded the GLOBE program, a pioneering
undergraduate business program that provides students
with tri-continental learning experiences. The program
was awarded from IIE the Honorable Mention in the
International Partnership Category in the 2011 Andrew
Heiskell Awards for Innovation in International Education.
He has given presentations on international higher
education, in particular from the Asian perspective, in
many international conferences, such as AIEA, NAFSA,
EAIE, APAIE annual conferences, as well as AIEC.
Professor Jenny Dixon
The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Biography unavailable at time of printing.
Kate Duff
Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade,
Australia
Kate Duff is the Assistant
Secretary of the New
Colombo Plan Secretariat
in Australia’s Department
of Foreign Affairs and
Trade (DFAT), a role
that commenced in
September 2013.
Prior to that she served
as Assistant Secretary of the South East Asia Bilateral
Branch in DFAT, covering political and economic
interests with nine South East Asian countries. Other
recent roles include head of the United States Branch
and of the Indonesia and Regional Issues Branch.
Ms Duff has previously served as the departmental
speechwriter and was posted to Indonesia from
1998 to 2001. She joined DFAT in 1995 as a graduate
recruit. She has Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of
Letters degrees from the University of Melbourne and a
Masters from Monash University. She lives in Canberra
with her husband and son.
Professor Susan Elliott
The University of Melbourne, Australia
Professor Susan Elliott is
the Deputy Provost and
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
International at the
University of Melbourne.
She is responsible for the
strategic leadership of the
university’s international
engagement, partnerships
and programs; national
and international student recruitment strategy;
student global mobility; and the student experience.
Formerly, Professor Elliott was the Pro Vice-Chancellor
(Teaching, Learning and Equity) and Deputy ViceChancellor (Engagement). She is a Fellow of the Royal
Australasian College of Physicians.
Professor Elliott is Vice President of APAIE. She was
formerly Chair of the Senior Staff Steering Committee of
the Asia Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) and is currently
a member of the APRU International Policy Advisory
Committee. She also serves as a Board member for
the Australia India Institute and on the Council of
International House, Melbourne.
55
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES
Jonathan Chan
King Mongkut’s University
of Technology Thonburi, Thailand
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES
Dr Christopher Hill
University of Nottingham, Malaysia
Dr Hill received his PhD
in Political Science
from the University of
Nottingham UK and has
worked at the University
of Nottingham Malaysia
Campus since 2008.
Dr Hill is a convenor
for the Knowledge
Without Borders Network, based at the University of
Nottingham Malaysia Campus, and has international
experience working in higher education in Australia,
China, Germany, Ghana, Iraq, Malaysia, Spain,
Tanzania, Thailand, UK, USA and Vietnam.
Dr Hill’s research interests include transnational
education and its impact in SE Asia, the
development of international education and the
student experience in the global arena. Dr Hill is
a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, has
published and presented in the field of international
education; organised and delivered conferences,
workshops, training and lectures around the world
and has led on funded projects to develop research
capacity and internationalise HE systems in Iraq
and Thailand. In 2012, Dr Hill was awarded a U21
Teaching and Learning Network Fellowship to research
internationalisation and global citizenry.
Kerry-Anne Hoad
International Education
Association of Australia (IEAA)
Ms Kerry-Anne Hoad is
Director of Research at
IEAA. Prior to this role
Kerry-Anne was Head of
Education Innovation at
the British Council based in
London. In this role KerryAnne provided leadership in
global strategic innovation
across all education sectors
of Skills, Higher Education, School Education, Science
and Research as well as providing strategic leadership
to the British Council Services for International Education
Marketing and the Education UK website.
Prior to her role at the British Council, Kerry-Anne was
national Director of the ACER Institute and the ACER
International Institute at the Australian Council for
Educational Research. Kerry-Anne has more than
25 years experience in Australian and international
education encompassing early childhood, disability,
school, vocational and higher education.
56
Phil Honeywood
International Education
Association of Australia (IEAA)
Phil became National
Executive Director of the
International Education
Association of Australia
(IEAA) in November 2011.
He was a Member of the
Victorian State Parliament,
Australia, for 18 years
(1988–2006). During this
period Phil served as the
Victorian Minister for Tertiary Education, Training and
Multicultural Affairs. He was also Deputy Leader of the
Opposition from 2002–2006.
Since retiring from full-time politics in 2006, Phil was
Marketing Director and CEO at Stott’s Business College
and Cambridge International College in Melbourne. With
experience in senior management positions, in both the
Australian public and private sectors, Phil brings a unique
background and perspective to international education.
Michelle Li
HKSAR Government, Hong Kong
Michelle Li is the Deputy
Secretary for Education,
Education Bureau, HKSAR
Government, responsible for
policies on higher and further
education. Ms Li joined the
Hong Kong Civil Service
in 1988. She has served in
various government bureaux
and departments. From
1996 to 2001, Ms Li was the Principal Assistant Secretary
for Education and Manpower, responsible for policies on
higher education. She rejoined the Education Bureau in
2009 as Deputy Secretary.
As the Deputy Secretary for Education, Ms Li oversees
the policies on higher and further education, covering
the publicly-funded and self-financing post-secondary
education sectors, the vocational education sector,
adult education, the Hong Kong Qualifications
Framework and external relations. She represents the
Secretary for Education on the governing councils
of three statutory bodies: the Hong Kong Council
for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational
Education, the Open University of Hong Kong and the
Vocational Training Council. She also works closely with
the University Grants Committee and Committee on
Self-financing Post-secondary Education.
Tam Mito, a specialist
in global studies and
international education,
is a Professor of the
Graduate School of Law
and Politics and Associate
Dean at the Center for
International Education
and Cooperation at
Kwansei Gakuin University,
Japan. He also directs Cross Cultural College jointly
established by Mt. Alison, Queens and Kwansei
Gakuin Universities and the University of Toronto in 2011.
Prior to this appointment, he lived abroad for 25
years and taught at Toronto, Cambridge, London,
Monash, Kyushu, Chinese (Hong Kong) and Waseda
Universities. At Waseda, Tokyo, he was a Professor of
Global College and Associate Dean at the Center for
International Education. He was also engaged in the
Japan Program for Harvard, Yale and Lund Universities
as its advisor or director. He has extensive experience
in research, risk management, staff development and
student mobility in international education.
Professor Mito was an advisor for the Academic
Council of Venice International University and Monash
International; a founding member and elected
Vice President of Japan Association of International
Students’ Education and Chief Editor of its professional
journal for a number of years.
He is a graduate of International Christina University,
Tokyo, and was also educated at the Universities
of Keele, London (SOAS), and Toronto, Tuskuba,
Japan, from the last of which he received a Master of
International Affairs and Ph.D. in Law.
Professor Joshua Mok
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES
Professor Takamichi Tam Mito
Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
Professor Joshua Mok is Chair
Professor of Comparative
Policy, Associate Vice
President (Research and
International Exchange)
and Dean, Faculty of Liberal
Arts and Social Sciences at
The Hong Kong Institute of
Education (HKIEd).
Professor Mok has been
awarded as Changjiang Chair Professor since 2010,
a highly distinguished national chair professorship
conferred by the Ministry of Education, People’s
Republic of China, to serve at Zhejiang University,
China. He has been elected as President of East Asia
Social Policy Research Network (EASP), a regional
research consortium in promoting social policy
research in the Asia-Pacific region, since July 2012
and he also serves as an executive member of the
Asian Political and International Studies Association
(APISA).
Before joining the HKIEd, he was Associate Dean and
Professor of Social Policy, Faculty of Social Sciences,
The University of Hong Kong (HKU). Being appointed as
founding Chair Professor in East Asian Studies, Professor
Mok established the Centre for East Asian Studies at the
University of Bristol, UK before taking the position at HKU.
Associate Professor Surakit Nathisuwan
Mahidol University, Thailand
Biography unavailable at time of printing.
In addition to international education, he has a wide
range of research interests including international
relations, international comparative political economy
and public policy, Asian and North American Studies.
He lives in Kobe, Japan, with his wife and three children.
57
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES
Associate Professor Anne Pakir
National University of Singapore
Professor Monique Skidmore
The University of Queensland, Australia
Associate Professor Anne
Pakir (Department of
English Language and
Literature, National
University of Singapore)
is the Director of
International Relations at
NUS. She obtained her
PhD in Linguistics from
the University of Hawaii,
Manoa on an NUS
scholarship and focused on a linguistic investigation of
Baba Malay for her thesis. A Fulbright scholar at U.C.
Berkeley (MA in English) and later at Cornell (post-doc),
Anne Pakir also won a Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science (JSPS) award to Tokyo and was an ASEAN
University Network (AUN) Distinguished Visiting Professor
in Manila. She received the Chevalier dans l’Ordre des
Palmes academiques in 2010 from France.
Professor Monique
Skidmore joined The
University of Queensland
in March 2014, as Deputy
Vice-Chancellor and VicePresident (International).
Professor Skidmore brings
to the position significant
academic and senior
leadership experience,
most recently as Pro Vice-Chancellor (International and
Major Projects) at the University of Canberra and adjunct
professor at Australian National University. Prior to this, she
was the University of Canberra’s Dean of the Faculty of
Arts and Design.
She serves on several editorial boards in the fields of
Applied Linguistics, Language Planning, Language
Policy, World Englishes and Asian Englishes. She also
serves in the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal
of Studies in International Education. Her most recent
publication, co-edited with Lisa Lim (University of Hong
Kong) and Lionel Wee (NUS), is English in Singapore:
Modernity and Management, 2010 (Hong Kong University
Press). She was President of the International Association
for World Englishes (1998–2000) and a member of the
TOEFL Board, Princeton NJ (2004–2009); President of the
Fulbright Association (Singapore) from 2008–2011.
Professor Fazal Rizvi
The University of Melbourne, Australia
Fazal Rizvi is a Professor
in Global Studies
in Education in the
Melbourne Graduate
School of Education
at the University of
Melbourne, and also
an Emeritus Professor at
the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
He is a fellow of the Australian Social Sciences Academy,
and serves on the board of Asia Education Foundation
and Hong Kong’s RAE 2014. He has written extensively
on issues of mobility, identity and culture in transnational
contexts, as well as theories of globalisation and the
internationalisation of higher education. His most recent
books are: Globalizing Education Policy (Routledge 2010)
and Encountering Education in the Global: Selected
Papers of Fazal Rizvi (Routledge 2014).
58
Professor Skidmore has a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and
Bachelor of Science from the Australian National University
and a Master’s degree and PhD in medical anthropology
from McGill University in Canada. She taught medical
anthropology at McGill University and a variety of subjects
as a lecturer at the University of Melbourne. Professor
Skidmore was also a Rockefeller Visiting Fellow at the
University of Notre Dame, Indiana, and a post-doctoral
fellow and Associate Dean in the College of Arts and
Social Sciences at the Australian National University.
An internationally renowned expert on Burma, Professor
Skidmore has authored several books on the country
and frequently comments on Burmese issues in the
national and international media.
Christopher Ziguras
RMIT University, Australia
Christopher Ziguras
is Deputy Dean,
International at RMIT’s
School of Global, Urban
and Social Studies. His
research focuses on
globalisation processes in
education, particularly the
regulation of cross-border
provision.
He oversees a wide range of international projects
at RMIT and is a Board Member of the International
Education Association of Australia. He received
the RMIT University Vice-Chancellor’s Distinguished
Teaching Award in 2011 and was Tony Adams Visiting
Senior Scholar at the Centre for Higher Education
Internationalisation at Universitá Cattolica Del Sacro
Cuore, Milan, in 2013.
His next book, Governing Cross-Border Higher
Education, will be published in late 2014.
59
Contact us
IEAA Secretariat
PO Box 12917
A’Beckett Street
Melbourne VIC 8006
Australia
+613 9925 4579
admin@ieaa.org.au
ieaa.org.au/ieaa-apaie-symposium
60 | VISTA