Feb. 22, 2014
International Symposium on
New Direction in Higher Education for
the Development of Global Human Resources
Launching AIMS Programme in Japan
By Univeristy of Tsukuba and SEAMEO RIHED
Regionalization of Higher Education in East Asia
Kazuo Kuroda, Ph.D.
Professor, Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies
Director, Center for the Study of International Cooperation in Education,
Waseda University
Research Fellow, CRISED, University of Tsukuba
1
1
1. Background
Regionalization in East Asia
Economic and political integration
• ASEAN was formulated in 1967
• ASEAN+3 Meeting started in 1997
• Asian Regional Integration Prospect - ”East Asian Summit”
started in 2005 by ASEAN+3 (10 ASEAN, China, South
Korea, Japan) with Australia, New Zealand and India to
discuss a long-term process for the creation of an East Asia
Community
• APEC(1989)→TPP
• CKJ Summit started in 2008
• ASEAN Community Prospect by 2015
2
1. Background
Background of Policy Discussion on
Asian Regional Integration
Growing relative presence of East
Asia in the world economy
Increasing economic interdependence within the region
Formulating a self-sustaining
economic structure, lessdependent on the West
“Asianization of Asia” is
witnessed in the economies of
the region
3
Necessity for
Asian regional
Governance
Framework
“ASEAN Community”
“East Asian Community”
“Asia Pacific Community”
3
Inbound Mobile Students
to Three Western Countries
1986
1996
2010
**
***
2010/1986
US
349,610
453,787
684,807
1.959
France
126,762
170,574
259,935
2.050
56,726
197,188
389,958
6.874
533,098
821,549
1,334,700
2.503
UK
Total
4
*
Source: * UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1988)
** UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1998)
*** UNESCO Global Education Digest (2012)
Inbound Mobile Students
to Three Asian Countries
1986
China
Korea
5
6,174
1,309
Japan
14,960
Total
20,612
1996
****
*
****
41,211
2,143
*
2010
53,511
2010/1986
****
238,184(2009)
**
**
78,409
Source: * UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1988)
** UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1998)
*** UNESCO Global Education Digest (2012)
**** Chinese Ministry of Education (2010)
38.578
***
59,194
141,599
438,977
45.221
***
9.465
21.297
International Students in China, Korea and Japan
(UNESCO UIS 2012)
160000
140000
120000
100000
JPN
80000
CHN
KOR
60000
40000
20000
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
6
Numbers of international students in Japan
(by Regions)
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1980-2000)
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2003-2008)
7
http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=IF_Language=eng
Students from China in Japan
100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
8
Students from Korea in Japan
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
9
ASEAN Students in Japan
Students from Brunei
Darussalam
Students from Cambodia
3500
3000
Students from Indonesia
2500
Students from Lao People's
Democratic Republic
Students from Malaysia
2000
Students from Myanmar
1500
Students from Philippines
1000
Students from Singapore
500
Students from Thailand
Students from Viet Nam
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
10
International Students in Japan
Students from China
Students from Korea (Republic of)
Students from Viet Nam
Students from Thailand
Students from Malaysia
Students from United States of America
Students from Indonesia
Students from Bangladesh
Students from Nepal
Students from Mongolia
11
Numbers of international students in Korea
(by regions)
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1980-2000)
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2003-2008)
12
http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=IF_Language=eng
International Students in Korea
70000
60000
50000
40000
Students from China in Korea
International students in Korea Total
30000
20000
10000
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
13
International Students in Korea
Students from China
Students from Mongolia
Students from Viet Nam
Students from Japan
Students from United States of America
Students from Asia, country not specified
Students from India
Students from Malaysia
Students from Indonesia
Students from Bangladesh
14
Japanese and Vietnamese students in Korea
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1980-2000)
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2003-2008)
15
http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=IF_Language=eng
Numbers of ASEAN students in Korea
(without Vietnam)
500
450
Students from Brunei Darussalam
400
Students from Cambodia
350
Students from Indonesia
300
Students from Lao People's Democratic
Republic
250
Students from Malaysia
200
Students from Myanmar
150
Students from Philippines
100
Students from Singapore
50
Students from Thailand
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
Numbers of international students in China
(by regions)
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
Africa
100,000
Europe
80,000
America
Oceania
60,000
Aisa
40,000
20,000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Education (1997-2007)
17
South Korean students in China
70000
60000
50000
South
Korea
40000
30000
20000
10000
19
8
19 0
8
19 1
8
19 2
8
19 3
8
19 4
8
19 5
8
19 6
8
19 7
8
19 8
8
19 9
9
19 0
9
19 1
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
9
19 6
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
0
20 2
0
20 3
0
20 4
0
20 5
06
0
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1988-1994)
Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Education(1997-2007)
18
Japanese students in China
25000
20000
15000
Japan
10000
5000
0
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1988-1994)
Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Education(1997-2007)
19
Thai students in China
6000
5000
4000
3000
Thailand
2000
1000
19
8
19 0
8
19 1
8
19 2
8
19 3
8
19 4
8
19 5
8
19 6
8
19 7
8
19 8
8
19 9
9
19 0
9
19 1
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
9
19 6
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
0
20 2
0
20 3
0
20 4
0
20 5
06
0
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1988-1994)
Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Education(1997-2007)
20
Vietnamese students in China
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
Vietnam
3000
2000
1000
19
8
19 0
8
19 1
8
19 2
8
19 3
8
19 4
8
19 5
8
19 6
8
19 7
8
19 8
8
19 9
9
19 0
9
19 1
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
9
19 6
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
0
20 2
0
20 3
0
20 4
0
20 5
06
0
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1988-1994)
Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Education(1997-2007)
21
Indonesian students in China
6000
5000
4000
3000
Indonesia
2000
1000
19
8
19 0
8
19 1
8
19 2
8
19 3
8
19 4
8
19 5
8
19 6
8
19 7
8
19 8
8
19 9
9
19 0
9
19 1
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
9
19 6
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
0
20 2
0
20 3
0
20 4
0
20 5
06
0
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1988-1994)
Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Education(1997-2007)
22
Numbers of international students in China
(without top 5 countries)
North Korea
Malyasia
3500
Phillipenes
3000
2500
Myanmar
Singapore
Laos
2000
1500
1000
Brunei
Cambodia
Hong Kong
Macau
500
Australia
19
8
19 0
8
19 1
8
19 2
8
19 3
8
19 4
8
19 5
8
19 6
8
19 7
8
19 8
8
19 9
9
19 0
9
19 1
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
9
19 6
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
0
20 2
0
20 3
0
20 4
0
20 5
06
0
Taiwan
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook (1988-1994)
Chinese Statistical Yearbook of Education(1997-2007)
23
Numbers of International Students in Thailand
25000
20000
15000
Students from China in Thailand
International students in Thailand Total
10000
5000
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
24
Numbers of International Students in Malaysia
70000
60000
50000
40000
Students from China in Malaysia
International students in Malaysia Total
30000
20000
10000
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
25
Numbers of International Students in Vietnam
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
International Students from China
International students in Vietnam
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
26
1. Background

Growing number of students move from Asia to Asia

Inbound mobile students:* 1999 or circa ⇒ 2010 or circa
China
902
↓(5072%)
45757
1387
↓ (1272%)
17633
25655
↓(337%)
86553
6256
↓(856%)
54790
11,731
↓ (532%)
62442
Korea
Japan
715
↓(198%)
1428
5,296
↓(232%)
12326
170
↓ (2028%)
3449
ASEAN
Source: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook & UNESCO Global
Education Digest
Note: Numbers in parenthesis indicate the percentage
growth
27
Growing number of inter-university linkages within Asia
出典：文部科学省・「大学等間交流協定締結状況調査の結果について（平成１８年１０月１日現在）」
（平成１９年９月１９日発表）
Growing number of inter-university linkages within Asia
Branch Offices Abroad by Regions
出典：文部科学省・海外拠点の設置に関する状況調査」（平成１９年９月１９日発表）
29
Japanese university branch offices abroad
by countries
National
Universities
No.
%
All
Universities
No.
%
1
China
33
24
China
57
21
2
Thailand
17
12
USA
42
15
3
USA
12
9
Thailand
29
11
4
Indonesia
11
8
S. Korea
19
7
5
Vietnam
8
6
Indonesia
14
5
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/19/09/07090416.htm
30
Faculty members exchange based on Japanese
inter-university agreements
31
出典：文部科学省・「大学等間交流協定締結状況調査の結果について（平成１８年１０月１日現在）
Regions of partner universities for East Asian
cross border collaborative degree programs
(from JICA RI Survey in 2010 n=1,041)
Rank
Region
%
1
East Asia
34.0
2
West Europe
31.3
3
North America
20.2
4
Oceania and
Pacific
11.4
32
De facto of international higher education in Asia
• Growing presence of Asian countries as hosts of
international students.
• Growing number of students move from Asia to Asia
• Possible Growing number of inter-university linkages and
transnational programs within Asia
“Asianization of Asia” is also confirmed in international higher
education
Necessity to discuss Asian Regional Governance from the
perspective of international higher education
33
33
Asian Version of ERASMUS
Speech by H.E. Mr. Yasuo Fukuda, Prime Minister of Japan
on the occasion of
the 14th International Conference on the Future of Asia (May,2008)
• “I also hope to expand dramatically our exchanges among
universities within the Asia-Pacific region, and I intend to
exchange views with knowledgeable people within Japan
and abroad, aiming to come to a conclusion on this plan at the
East Asia Summit to be convened at the end of this year. Here
one may recall the "ERASMUS Programme" that has been
underway in Europe since the 1980's, and I would like to bring
about what would be called its Asian version.”
Joint Press Conference by
Premier Wen Jiabao of the People's Republic of China,
President Lee Myung-bak of the Republic of Korea and
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of Japan
following the Second China-ROK-Japan Trilateral Summit Meeting
on 10 October 2009
• “I also stated that what will be indispensable for trilateral cooperation
is exchanges among the youth of the three countries, in particular those
among university students. As one aspect of university student
exchanges, we should for example actively consider permitting the
interchangeability among universities of credits earned. This would
naturally require a degree of consistency in the levels of the schools
concerned. While I do not consider this something that is possible for
all universities, we will be promoting cooperation as qualitative levels
are standardized. I proposed that through such cooperation, it would be
possible for the various political and psychological hurdles still
remaining among our three countries to be transformed and
overcome.” -Prime Minister Hatoyama
Japanese New Educational Cooperation Policy announced
by H.E. Mr. Naoto Kan Prime Minister of Japan at the HighLevel Plenary Meeting of the 65th Session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations on Sep. 22nd, 2010
- Promote the creation of regional networks in higher
education within and among regions in order to address
common and similar education challenges by sharing
experiences and knowledge of Japan and other
countries, with the cooperation of Japanese universities.
(AUN/SeedNet)
- Promote the acceptance of international students and
encourage exchange among universities with quality
assurance, and foster highly specialized human
resources through the promotion of international student
internships.
36
The Sixteenth ASEAN Plus Three Summit 2013
• “Prime Minister Abe reiterated that Japan is actively promoting
assistance towards strengthening ASEAN Connectivity, attaching special
importance to “People-to-People Connectivity” such as education and
tourism in the APT framework. He expressed his wish to utilize the
outcomes of the 11th East Asia Forum (EAF) held in Kyoto this August,
which discussed the theme of enhancing tourism cooperation.”
• “On education, the Prime Minister mentioned that Japan hosted the “1st
APT Working Group on Mobility of Higher Education and Ensuring
Quality Assurance of Higher Education among APT Countries” at the end
of September in Tokyo, discussing the ways to promote mutual
exchange among universities and students of the APT, while ensuring
quality assurance of education. He added that Japan would like to
continue to actively contribute to the efforts to enhance “People-toPeople Connectivity” such as education and tourism.”
Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/page3e_000109.html
37
Regionalization of Higher Education
Recent Moves
• ASEAN + 3 Higher Education Policy Dialogue was
started in 2009
• SEAMEO/RIHED Malaysia-Indonesia-Thailand (M-I-T)
Student Mobility Pilot Project was initiated in 2009
→ ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS)
Programme → Japan joined AIMS in 2013.
• CAMPUS Asia (Collective Action for the Mobility
Program of University Students) was started among
China, Korea and Japan in 2011
• ASEAN+3 University Network was formulated in 2012
• ASEAN+3 Working Group on Mobility of Higher
Education and Ensuring Quality Assurance of Higher
Education was launched in 2013.
Growing Regional Quality Assurance Frameworks
• ASEAN University Network for Leading Universities in
Southeast Asia
• SEAMEO-RIHED for Southeast Asia
• APQN for Asia Pacific
• Campus Asia for Northeast Asia
• ASEAN + 3 Working Group
- Multilayered Structure of Quality Assurance Frameworks
is being formulated in Asia.
Possible policy objectives for Asian regional
governance in higher education
1. Internationalization and Regionalization for International
Understanding/International Peace
• Based on the spirit of the Constitution of UNESCO “That
since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds
of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed”
• →Considering East Asian history of conflicts and wars,
and political and cultural diversity of the region, this
policy dimension is specially important.
2. Internationalization and Regionalizationfor nurturing
“Global Citizen” and “Regional Identity”
• Creation of “People’s Europe” and promotion
of “European” identity have been recognized
as main objectives of intra-regional mobility in
Europe in the process of European integration.
→Also for the East Asian context.
→Not denying national identity, but formulate
healthy multiple identities from local and
national to regional and global.
3. Internationalization and Regionalization for
Development and Regional Competitivenes
• Based on Human Capital Theory/ Modernization Theory
• Sending students abroad for development and modernization
－Policy effort of Meiji Japan and many other Asian countries.
• Inviting and hosting students from developing countries as
development cooperation
－Provision of scholarship to students from developing countries by
ODA and private foundations
• Arising recognition on the positive effect of not only sending students
abroad but also hosting foreign students on their own economic
prosperity.
→Increased recognition of “Brain Circulation” in the regional context.
→Internationalization and regionalization has been recognized as
human resource development strategy for enhancing regional
economic competitiveness in European integration
→ Asian region should also have the vision for its regional
competitiveness.
4. Response to Marketization of International Higher Education
•
•
•
•
Corporatization and privatization of national universities.
Growing number of private universities.
Increasing self-cost recovery of educational costs.
Rapid increase of privately financed international students
→Formulation of international education market
→Foreign students as “customers”
→ Education for foreign students as “export industry”
→Explosive increase students from China
・ Increasing strategic international university partnerships and alliances
among Asian universities
→Formulation of Asian regional education market
→Necessity to build sound systems to ensure quality of higher education
and credit transfer
Searching for guiding principles of Asian
regional framework of higher education
The Kuala Lumpur Declaration
First East Asian Summit (in 2005)
• Article 6 – We will enhance people-to-people exchange aimed at developing a "we"
feeling.
• Article 7 – We will encourage the sharing of ideas through greater interaction
between students, academicians, researchers, artists, media, and youths among
countries in East Asia.
• Article 8 – We will conduct regular exchange of intellectuals, members of think
tanks, religious personalities and scholars, which will benefit East Asia and the
world through deeper knowledge and understanding so as to fight intolerance and
improve understanding among cultures and civilizations.
44
Asian Version of ERASMUS
1. Should it target
(1) elite exchange through promoting linkages among elite institutions or
(2) more popular exchange through promoting system-wide harmonization?
AUN Model or UMAP Model?
Given factors
- Large diversity within a country - Large diversity across countries
- Multi-layered structure is another response to the great diversity in Asia.
2. “Asian Bologna Process” vs “Asian ERASMUS”
System harmonization rather than student mobility?
Student mobility prepares system harmonization?
→They should go together.
Theoretical Development
1. “Melting Pot” Integration vs. “Mosaic” Integration
– Higher Education “ASEAN Way”?
Emphasizing connectivity and embracing diversity
2. Fast developing Asian Higher Education cannot
be explained by “Dependency Model” any more.
3. Applicability of “Flying Geese Model”
What can be a new theory to explain Asian higher education?
アジアの大学の国際連携の理念的モデル
Regionalization
as a counterforce for CenterPeriphery Structure of Higher Education
or/and Frying Geese?
Prospecting Asian Regional Governance Framework
of Higher Education
What countries should be in this framework?
Can Northeast Asia (Korea, China and Japan) have
an independent framework?
How do they cooperate with ASEAN?
How about Taiwan and Hong Kong?
How about Australia and NZ?
How about North America?
- ASEAN, East Asia and Asia-Pacific.
(1) Hub-spoke system or opposite-hub-spoke system?
- ASEAN and Northeast Asia
(2) Multi-layered regional governance frameworks
should be established embracing diversity of the
region. However, cohesion and cooperation among
different frameworks should also be established.
東南アジアと北東アジアの連携過程のモデ
ASEAN+3 Integration
ル
as a noodle ball or sandwich?
K
C
J
ASEAN
CKJ
ASEAN
JICA Research Institute
Research Project (2009-2011) on
“Political and Economic Implications of
Cross-Border Higher Education in the
Context of Asian Regional Integration”
50
Research Core Team by JICA-RI
JICA-RI Team
SEAMEO/
RIHED
Leader: Kuroda & Yuki
Advisor/Member: Yoshida & Koda
RA: Kang & Hong
Consultant Team
for Survey and Follow-up:
ASIASEED (from Japan)
Consultants in
Indonesia, Vietnam,
Cambodia for Part I
Consultant
team in
Malaysia
For Part I &II
51
Overview
Overall Structure of Research Project
Objective: To assess socio-economic implications &
challenges of cross-border higher education in East Asia
PART 1: Overview of
Cross-border Higher Education in Asia
Current status, expected outcomes,
Changes towards regionalization of Asia?
Features of cross-border collaborative degree programs
PART 2: Case of Malaysia
Effects of cross-border
(collaborative degree) program in labor market
52
52
Overview
Structure of PART 1
Overall question:
What are political and economic implications
of internationalization of higher education in Asia?
Three types of surveys:
PART 1-1
Leading
universities
in ASEAN plus 5
(about 300)
PART 1-2
Cross-border
collaborative degree
programs in leading
universities
(about 1000 programs)
(e.g. twinning)
PART 1-3
Industry
organizations
(15 orgs)
53
Overview
Previous relevant studies
• Not much, but one: 2003, 2005, 2009 International
Association of Universities (IAU) Global Survey Report – led
by Prof. Jane Knight
• What is different from 2005 IAU Global Survey
- Different recipients
 IAU: 3,057 IAU member institutions in 95 countries
 JICA: analytically selected 300 “leading” universities in 15 Asian
countries with relatively high response rate of approximately 43%.
- JICA included additional dimensions to survey
54
Overview of the survey for 300
“leading” universities
55
Survey for 300 universities
• Slelection method
• Survey Target
– Identify approximately 300 institutions that can be considered
as "leading universities" in ASEAN and plus 5 countries, while
ensuring representatives from ASEAN countries & avoiding
over-representativeness from non-ASEAN.
• Selection Method
– 1st step, we identify universities that appear in any list of 3
university rankings* and 8 international (or regional) university
organizations‘ memberships* (*next slide)☆
⇒ Applied for 8 ASEAN countries
– 2nd, identify universities that appear at least twice in the above
lists ⇒ Applied for 2 ASEAN countries and China
– 3rd, identify universities that appear at least three times in the
above lists ⇒ Applied for the rest of countries
– Lastly, added 22 universities suggested by the participants
from the Bangkok Workshop.
56
Survey for 300 universities
• Selection method (continued)
☆ University rankings used
①Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings 2008
(Complete Rankings) (400 ranked)
②Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Academic Ranking of World
Universities 2008 (500 ranked)
③Ranking Web of World Universities 2008, by Webometrics (5000
ranked)
☆ International (or regional) organizations used
①UMAP: University Mobility and Asian and the Pacific (324)
②AUN: ASEAN University Network (21)
③IAU: International Association of Universities (593)
④IARU: International Alliance of Research Universities (10)
⑤APRU: Association of Pacific Rim Universities (42)
⑥AERU: Association of East Asian Research Universities (17)
⑦ASAIHL: Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of Higher
Learning (165)
⑧AUAP: Association of Universities of Asia and the Pacific (206)
57
Survey for 300 universities
1
2
3
RWWU Shanghai THE-QS
Brunei Darussalam 1
Cambodia
0
0
0
Indonesia
23
0
3
Laos
Malaysia
20
0
5
Myanmar
0
0
0
Singapore
9
2
2
Vietnam
8
0
0
Philippines
5
0
2
Thailand
33
0
3
China
30
18
8
Japan
29
21
19
Korea
8
8
7
Australia
27
15
21
New Zealand
7
5
6
Total
200
69
76
1
2
UMAP AUN
1
1
4
1
0
3
1
20
3
0
2
0
2
2
2
17
3
24
3
0
0
14
0
4
0
27
0
4
0
117 21
3
4
5
6
7
8
IAU IARU APRU AERU ASAIHL AUAP Total
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
1
0
1
0
32
20
50
1
7
0
1
0
15
4
28
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
9
0
0
0
0
1
6
12
9
0
1
0
19
19
29
4
0
1
0
35
16
38
3
1
6
5
0
14
31
21
1
6
6
2
0
29
1
0
2
3
0
0
8
13
1
3
0
17
11
28
1
0
1
0
5
0
7
60
4
23
14 131 90 278
Survey for 300 universities
Workshop in Bangkok, Thailand
(June 30, 2009)
• Collaborated with SEAMEO-RIHED
• Discussed the research project to receive inputs and
endorsements.
• Attended by policy makers and researchers from
ASEAN+3+1 countries
59
Survey for 300 universities
By criteria
1st Step 2nd Step 3rd step
ASEAN
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Singapore
Vietnam
Philippines
Thailand
(Sub total-ASEAN )
China
Japan
Korea
Australia
New Zealand
(Sub total-Plus 5 )
Total
1
5
50
1
28
2
9
12
89
83
280
349
286
96
47
13
791
1071
1
1
17
0
18
1
2
3
29
38
110
31
78
24
38
7
178
288
11
29
8
28
7
83
83
By participants
(Sub totalAdded
Sum
by criteria) by participants
1
5
50
1
28
2
9
12
29
38
175
31
29
8
28
7
103
278
0
1
11
0
0
2
0
2
3
2
21
0
0
1
0
0
1
22
1
6
61
1
28
4
9
14
32
40
196
31
29
9
28
7
104
300
60
Survey for 300 universities
Response rates
Country
Brunai Darussalam
Cambodia
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
China
Japan
Korea
Australia
New Zealand
Total
Freq.
0
5
30
0
16
1
8
0
9
14
19
17
4
7
0
＊ 130
* May be less due to the effective answer rate by questions
Response Number of
rate (%) Universities
0%
1
83.3%
6
49.2%
61
0.0%
1
57.1%
28
25.0%
4
25.0%
32
0%
9
22.5%
40
100.0%
14
61.3%
31
58.6%
29
44.4%
9
25.0%
28
0%
7
43.3%
300
Survey for 300 universities
Dimension : Regional partnerships
North America
Central Asia
Western Europe
Central and Eastern Europe
Northeast Asia
Arab States
Sub Sahara Africa South and West Asia
Latin America and Caribbean
Southeast Asia
Oceania and Pacific
62
Activeness of cross-border activities
Past
Rank
Cross-border activity
Outgoing mobility opportunities for
1
faculty members (F)
International/ cross-border institutional
2
agreement (I)
3
Cross-border research collaboration (F)
4
Acceptance of foreign students (S)
Activeness of cross-border activities in East Asia
Present
Mean
Cross-border activity
Mean
International/ cross-border institutional
2.36
3.08
agreement (I)
Outgoing mobility opportunities for
2.29
2.98
faculty members (F)
Outgoing mobility opportunities for
2.06
2.78
students (S)
Future
Cross-border activity
International/ cross-border institutional
agreement (I)
Outgoing mobility opportunities for
faculty members (F)
Outgoing mobility opportunities for
students (S)
1.91
Acceptance of foreign students (S)
Acceptance of foreign students (S)
2.77
Mean
3.75
3.74
3.68
3.65
Outgoing mobility opportunities for
1.85
Cross-border research collaboration (F)
2.74
Cross-border research collaboration (F)
students (S)
Recruitment of full-time foreign faculty
Recruitment of full-time foreign faculty
Cross-border collaborative degree
6
1.47
2.06
members (F)
members (F)
programs (I)
Cross-border collaborative degree
Cross-border collaborative degree
Recruitment of full-time foreign faculty
7
1.10
1.87
programs (I)
programs (I)
members (F)
Use of ICT for cross-border distance
Use of ICT for cross-border distance
Use of ICT for cross-border distance
8
1.10
1.80
education (I)
education (I)
education (I)
Source: JICA Survey.
Note: "Highly active"; 3 = "fairly active"; 2 = "moderately active"; 1 = "slightly active"; 0 = "not active"; (I) = institution; (F) = faculty; (S) = student. The mean for
both "cross-border collaborative degree programs" and "use of ICT for cross-border distance education" is 1.104348.
5
63
3.64
3.09
3.04
2.95
Findings for dimension 1
• Conventional activities such as “cross-border institutional
agreement” and “outgoing mobility opportunities for faculty
members” are regarded as having more vigor than innovative
activities such as “cross-border collaborative degree
programs” and “use of ICT for cross-border distance
education.”
• While the lists of cross-border activities in the ranking order of
the degree of activity have not changed significantly over
time, the vigor of innovative activities is expected to grow
extensively in the future.
64
Significance of expected outcomes
Significance of expected outcomes for overall cross-border activities in East Asia
Present
Future
Rank
Expected outcome
Expected outcome
Mean
Mean
To improve international visibility and
To improve international visibility and
1 To improve the quality of education (A-I)
2.59
3.23
reputation of your university (P-I)
reputation of your university (P-I)
Past
Expected outcome
Mean
3.78
2
To promote national culture and values (P-N)
2.54
To improve the quality of education (A-I)
3.19
To improve the quality of education (A-I)
3.78
3
To achieve research excellence (A-I)
2.39
To achieve research excellence (A-I)
3.17
To achieve research excellence (A-I)
3.78
2.39
To promote intercultural/ international
awareness and understanding (A-N)
3.13
To promote intercultural/ international
awareness and understanding (A-N)
3.75
2.38
To promote national culture and values (P-N)
3.09
To promote national culture and values (P-N)
3.68
4
5
6
7
8
9
To improve international visibility and
reputation of your university (P-I)
To promote intercultural/ international
awareness and understanding (A-N)
To meet the demands of your national
economy (E-N)
To promote regional collaboration and
identity of Asia (P-R)
To generate revenue for your own institution
(E-I)
To meet the demands of Asian regional
economy (E-R)
2.36
2.24
To meet the demands of your national
economy (E-N)
To promote regional collaboration and
identity of Asia (P-R)
3.01
2.93
1.94
To meet the demands of global economy (E-G) 2.69
1.89
To generate revenue for your own institution
(E-I)
2.68
To promote regional collaboration and
identity of Asia (P-R)
To meet the demands of your national
economy (E-N)
To generate revenue for your own institution
(E-I)
To meet the demands of Asian regional
economy (E-R)
3.63
3.53
3.39
3.34
10
To meet the demands of global economy (E-G) 1.87
To promote global citizenship (P-G)
2.63
To meet the demands of global economy (E-G) 3.31
11
To promote global citizenship (P-G)
To meet the demands of Asian regional
economy (E-R)
2.62
To promote global citizenship (P-G)
1.85
3.29
Source: JICA Survey.
Note: 4 = "Highly signficant"; 3 = "fairly signficant"; 2 = "moderately signficant"; 1 = "slightly signficant"; 0 = "not signficant"; (A) = academic; (P) = political; (E) = economic;
(G) = global; (R) = regional;(N) = national; (I) = institutional.
65
Findings for dimension 2
• The most highly prioritized expected outcome are “to improve
the international visibility and reputation of [their] own
university”, “to improve quality of education” and “to achieve
research excellence”.
• The expected outcome “to generate revenue for your own
institution” is low, despite the fact that for profit-side of
internationalization is increasing in numerous countries.
• Asian leading universities prioritize academic expected
outcomes ahead of the economic expected outcomes.
66
Activeness of regional partnerships for overall
cross-border activities: Southeast Asia
Overall cross-border activities (ASEAN)
4
3.5
3
2.5
Past
2
Present
Future
1.5
1
0.5
0
Southeast Northeast
Asia
Asia
Western
Europe
North Oceania and South and Central and Central Asia Arab States Sub-Sahara Latin
America
Pacific West Asia Eastern
Africa America and
Europe
Caribbean
Highly active: 4, Fairy active: 3, Moderately active: 2, Slightly active: 1, Not active: 0
67
Degree of activity of overall cross-border activities'
partner regions for Southeast Asia
TABLE 2
DEGREE OF ACTIVITY OF OVERALL CROSS-BORDER ACTIVITIES' PARTNER REGIONS FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA
Past
Present
Future
Rank
Partner regions
Mean
Partner regions
Mean
Partner regions
Mean
1 Southeast Asia
2.22 **
Southeast Asia
2.88 ***
Southeast Asia
3.72 **
2 Western Europe
1.97
Northeast Asia
2.57
Northeast Asia
3.56
3 Northeast Asia
1.83
Western Europe
2.54 **
Western Europe
3.43 ***
4 North America
1.66
North America
2.26
North America
3.14
5 Oceania and Pacific
1.50 ***
Oceania and Pacific
2.11 ***
Oceania and Pacific
3.08 ***
6 Central and Eastern Europe
1.03
South and West Asia
1.55 *
South and West Asia
2.54
7 South and West Asia
1.01 ***
Central and Eastern Europe
1.38
Central and Eastern Europe
2.47
8 Central Asia
0.67
Arab States
1.13
Central Asia
2.26
9 Arab States
0.61
Central Asia
1.13
Arab States
2.14
10 Sub-Sahara Africa
0.49
Sub-Sahara Africa
0.97
Sub-Sahara Africa
1.93
11 Latin America and Caribbean 0.38
Latin America and Caribbean 0.82
Latin America and Caribbean 1.86
SOURCE. — JICA Survey.
NOTE. — 4 = 'Highly active'; 3 = 'fairly active'; 2 = 'moderately active'; 1 = 'slightly active'; 0 = 'not active'.
The time differences (present and future) in means are stastiscally significant (p<.01).
*p<.1 in T -test of differences in means between a partner region and one immediately below in the ranking list.
**p<.05 in T -test of differences in means between a partner region and one immediately below in the ranking list.
***p<.01 in T -test of differences in means between a partner region and one immediately below in the ranking list.
Activeness of regional partnerships for
overall cross-border activities: Northeast Asia
Overall cross-border activities (Northeast Asia)
4
3.5
3
2.5
Past
2
Present
Future
1.5
1
0.5
0
North Southeast Northeast Western Oceania South and Central and Central AsiaArab States Latin Sub-Sahara
America
Asia
Asia
Europe and Pacific West Asia Eastern
America
Africa
Europe
and
Caribbean
Highly active: 4, Fairy active: 3, Moderately active: 2, Slightly active: 1, Not active: 0
69
Degree of activity of overall cross-border activities' partner
regions for Northeast Asia
TABLE 3
DEGREE OF ACTIVITY OF OVERALL CROSS-BORDER ACTIVITIES' PARTNER REGIONS FOR NORTHEAST ASIA
Past
Present
Future
Rank
Partner regions
Mean
Partner regions
Mean
Partner regions
1 North America
2.74
North America
3.18
North America
2 Southeast Asia
2.56
Southeast Asia
3.10
Southeast Asia
3 Northeast Asia
2.49
Northeast Asia
3.07
Northeast Asia
4 Western Europe
2.33 **
Western Europe
2.98 ***
Western Europe
5 Oceania and Pacific
1.98 ***
Oceania and Pacific
2.49 ***
Oceania and Pacific
6 South and West Asia
1.48 *
South and West Asia
1.98
South and West Asia
7 Central and Eastern Europe
1.20
Central and Eastern Europe
1.80
Central and Eastern Europe
8 Central Asia
1.08
Central Asia
1.75 *
Central Asia
9 Latin America and Caribbean 0.92
Arab States
1.45
Arab States
10 Arab States
0.77
Latin America and Caribbean 1.45 ***
Latin America and Caribbean
11 Sub-Sahara Africa
0.54
Sub-Sahara Africa
1.00
Sub-Sahara Africa
SOURCE. — JICA Survey.
NOTE. — 4 = 'Highly active'; 3 = 'fairly active'; 2 = 'moderately active'; 1 = 'slightly active'; 0 = 'not active'.
The time differences (present and future) in means are stastiscally significant (p<.01).
*p<.1 in T -test of differences in means between a partner region and one immediately below in the ranking list.
**p<.05 in T -test of differences in means between a partner region and one immediately below in the ranking list.
***p<.01 in T -test of differences in means between a partner region and one immediately below in the ranking list.
Mean
3.75
3.63
3.61
3.59 **
3.29 ***
2.80
2.73 *
2.45
2.33
2.28 ***
1.82
Activeness of regional partnerships for
“Outgoing mobility opportunities for students”:
ASEAN & Northeast Asia
Outgoing mobility opportunities for students (Northeast
Asia)
Present
Outgoing mobility opportunities for students
4
Present
Future
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
Southeast Northeast Western Oceania and North
Europe Pacific America
Asia
Asia
Future
4
North
America
Western Northeast Oceania and Southeast
Asia
Pacific
Asia
Europe
Highly active: 4, Fairy active: 3, Moderately active: 2, Slightly active: 1, Not active: 0
71
Activeness of regional partnerships for “Crossborder research collaboration”: ASEAN & Northeast Asia
Cross-border research collaboration (Northeast Asia)
Cross-border research collaboration (ASEAN)
4
Present
Future
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
Southeast Northeast Western Oceania and North
Asia
Asia
Europe Pacific America
Present
Future
North Northeast Western Southeast Oceania and
America Asia
Europe
Asia
Pacific
Highly active: 4, Fairy active: 3, Moderately active: 2, Slightly active: 1, Not active: 0
72
Activeness of regional partnerships for “Crossborder institutional agreement”: ASEAN & Northeast Asia
Cross-border institutional agreements (ASEAN)
Cross-border institutional agreements (Northeast Asia)
Present
Future
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
Southeast Northeast Western
Asia
Asia
Europe
North Oceania and
America Pacific
Present
Future
North Northeast Western Southeast Oceania and
America Asia
Europe
Asia
Pacific
Highly active: 4, Fairy active: 3, Moderately active: 2, Slightly active: 1, Not active: 0
73
Preliminary findings
Activeness of regional partnerships for
“Acceptance of foreign students”: ASEAN & Northeast Asia
Acceptance of foreign students (ASEAN)
Acceptance of foreign students (Northeast Asia)
Present
Future
4
4
3.5
3.5
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
0
Southeast Northeast
Asia
Asia
Western Oceania and South and
Europe
Pacific West Asia
*
Present
Future
Northeast Southeast North
Asia
Asia
America
Western
Europe
Highly active: 4, Fairy active: 3, Moderately active: 2, Slightly active: 1, Not active: 0
South and
West Asia
*
74
Activeness of regional partnerships for “Crossborder collaborative degree program”: ASEAN &
Northeast Asia
Cross-border collaborative degree programs (ASEAN)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Present
Future
Western EuropeSoutheast Asia Oceania and Northeast AsiaNorth America
Pacific
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Cross-border collaborative degree programs (Northeast
Present
Asia)
Future
North America Southeast
Asia
Western
Europe
Northeast Oceania and
Asia
Pacific
Highly active: 4, Fairy active: 3, Moderately active: 2, Slightly active: 1, Not active: 0
75
• Summary
1. Regional partners (for overall cross-border activities) :
Southeast Asia: Southeast & Northeast Asia are the most active partners
followed by North America and Western Europe.
Northeast Asia: North America and Southeast Asia are the most active partners,
while Northeast Asia and Western Europe are almost equally active partners.
2. Regional partners (for each cross-border activity) :
1) Southeast Asia: Southeast Asia is the most active regional partner for the
different types of cross-border activities, except for “cross-border
collaborative degree programs,” which has Western Europe as the most
active regional partner.
Northeast Asia: North America is the most active regional partner for the
different types of cross-border activities, except for “Acceptance of foreign
students,” which has Northeast Asia as the most active regional partner
followed by Southeast Asia.
76
• Summary (continued)
Preliminary findings
2 Regional partners (for each cross-border activity) :
2) Southeast Asia:
The top 5 active regional partners are the same for the different
types of cross-border activities, except for “acceptance of foreign
student,” which includes South and West Asia instead of North
America.
Northeast Asia:
The top 5 active regional partners are the same for the different types
of cross-border activities, except for “Acceptance of foreign students,”
which has South and West Asia instead of Oceania and Pacific as one of
the top 5 active regional partners.
77
Suggestions for East Asian Regional Framework of Higher Education
on intra-sub-regional cooperation
• First, the finding shows the deeper collaboration related to higher
education within each of the sub-regions, Southeast Asia and
Northeast Asia. As the findings generally indicate, Southeast Asian
universities most prioritize building partnerships with the other
universities in their own region, and Northeast Asian universities
also place high priority on building partnerships with the other
universities in their own region. These findings support the current
regional policy directions. Southeast Asia began discussing
regionalization in the education sector within its own region with the
construction of the Socio-Cultural Community, and in 2009,
Northeast Asia initiated the creation of the Asian version of
ERASMUS, CAMPUS ASIA, within its own region. These ongoing
active intra sub-regional collaborations may lead to the
development of a concrete regional framework of higher
education for both Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia.
78
Suggestions for East Asian Regional Framework of Higher Education
on “East Asia” regional cooperation
• Second, for overall cross-border activities, both Southeast Asia and
Northeast Asia highly prioritize each other as partners for their
cross-border activities, even compared to their priorities for other
parts of Asia and the Pacific. This fact indicates that integrating
the two sub-regions may be a functional next step in
constructing a regional higher education framework in East
Asia. Therefore, with ongoing active partnerships between the two
regions, developing a framework that integrates the two sub-regions,
often referred to as ASEAN+3, may function as a useful coordinating
forum. In the venue of ASEAN+3, the issue of integration (or
harmonization) in higher education has not yet been prioritized.
Nevertheless, many expect an increase in awareness of the
importance of regional integration in the higher education sector
among ASEAN+3 countries in the future.
79
Suggestions for East Asian Regional Framework of Higher Education
on Inter-regional cooperation
• Thirdly, although the process of the East Asian regionalization of
higher education may begin with an ASEAN+3 structure, it may not
end there; rather, it may expand to involve strong complementary
relationships with other active regions of partners. Our finding of
North America as the most active (and projected to be the most
active) partner for Northeast Asian universities clearly indicates
that an appropriate partnership with North America needs to be
included in the future dialogue for a regional higher education
framework in East Asia. North America does not necessarily have
to be included, but appropriate policy linkage with North America is
necessary for East Asia as we have between Europe and Asia with
the ASEM framework.
80
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Altbach, Philip G. and Selvaratnam Viswanathan. 1989. From Dependence to Autonomy, The
Development of Asian Universities. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Altbach, Philip G. and Umakoshi Toru. 2004. Asian Universities, Historical Perspectives and
Contemporary Challenges. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Carnoy, Martin. 1995. International Encyclopedia of Education. Pergamon.
Challenger Concept. 2008. Education Guide Malaysia. Challenger Concept.
Clark, Robin E., Guy R. Neave, and Burton R. Clark. 1992. The Encyclopedia of Higher
Education.
Pergamon.
Huang, Futao. 2006. Transnational Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific Region. Research
Institute for Higher Education Hiroshima University.
Husen, Torsten, and T. Neville Postalethwiate. 1994. The International Encyclopedia of Education.
Pergamon.
International Association of Universities. 1997. World List of Universities and Other Institutions of
Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Knight, Jane. 2005. “Cross-Border Education: Not Just Students on the Move.” Journal of
International
Higher Education, no. 41 (Fall 2005),
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number41/p2_Knight.htm (accessed
September 14, 2009).
Knight, Jane. 2006. 2005 IAU Global Survey Report: Internationalization of Higher Education:
New Directions, New Challenges. International Association Universities,
Knight, Jane. 2008. Higher Education in Turmoil. Sense Publishers. Rotterdam, Challenger
Concept.
2004. Education Guide Malaysia. Challenger Concept,
OECD, and IBRD/World Bank. 2007. Cross-border Tertiary Education, A way Towards Capacity
Development. OECD and IBRD/World Bank.
Thank you!