The Global Space


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Global Space

  1. 1. THE GLOBAL SPACE Some strategic implications for research-intensive universities, of cross-border flows and global rankings Simon Marginson, Monash University, Australia (The University of Melbourne from 01.07.06) ‘ Leading the Next Phase of Internationalisation’ U21 Symposium, Auckland, 10 May 2006
  2. 2. ‘ Globalisation’ and ‘internationalisation’ <ul><li>Internationalisation - enhanced relations across borders between nations, or between individual HEIs situated within national systems </li></ul><ul><li>Globalisation - the widening, deepening and speeding up of interconnectedness on a world-wide and meta-regional scale (Held et al., Global Transformations 1999, p. 2). </li></ul><ul><li>Internationalisation takes place in the border zones between nations. Global flows run through the centre of nations and are intrinsically transformative </li></ul><ul><li>Cross-border global flows – people, ideas, knowledge, policies, technologies, finance </li></ul>
  3. 3. Four spaces of strategy-making global national/local HEIs nation-state Inter-governmental negotiations on HE HEIs as global players System organization (New Public Management) local servicing role of HEIs SITE OF CHANGE AGENT OF CHANGE
  4. 4. Forms of global transformation in higher education <ul><li>The expanding role of integrative world-wide ‘systems’ that operate across nations and are largely beyond their control, e.g. the global labour market in researchers </li></ul><ul><li>World-wide tendencies driven by the global flows of people, ideas, knowledge, policies, technologies, and finance that engender changes in each nation (with some variation) and promote convergence and integration, e.g. academic publishing, the increasingly similar approaches to the PhD </li></ul><ul><li>Parallel reforms by different national governments, under their control, that over time promote some degree of global convergence, e.g. new public management (NPM) techniques </li></ul>
  5. 5. Globalisation, nations and higher education <ul><li>Nations and HEIs are both ‘positioned’ and ‘position-taking’ (Pierre Bourdieu) in the global higher education environment. </li></ul><ul><li>Position is a function of the capacity to operate in the global environment, which is unevenly distributed between nations and HEIs on the basis of system and HEI size; quality of resources, especially in research; language; etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Nations and HEIs have a greater range of position-taking options in the global environment than the national setting. There are more permutations and more scope for securing advantage via policy capacity, responsiveness, imagination </li></ul><ul><li>We see the partial ‘disembedding’ of HEIs from the nation. (Varies by nation. All HEIs remain in part nationally dependent) </li></ul><ul><li>There is enhanced and under-recognised potential for global public goods in and through higher education and research </li></ul>
  6. 6. Factors affecting the global options of nations/ HEIs Mission and identity. HEI policy, resourcing (non-government), executive steering, management systems. HEI strategies, including pro-active strategies Position-taking (HEIs) Size of HEIs. Specialisation/ diversification. Policy, system steering, resourcing. Future research capacity. National strategies, including pro-active strategies Position-taking (nations) History, culture. Size of HEIs (but in some cases can be modified). .Prior location on world research map. National policy, resourcing, system steering. Position (HEIs) History, culture, identity. Size of system: big nations are less vulnerable, though smaller ones can have global impact. Prior location on world research map. Position (nations)
  7. 7. Conditions of global self-determination 1. Research intensive university developcourse ware # # # # # potential for path-breaking strategies conditions enabling self-determination of research intensive university aspect of self-deter-mination # # # agency freedom (identity) # # # # # # # freedom as power (positive freedom language plurality magnet for global staff strong global connects executive steering capacity academic autonomy research capacity strong resources
  8. 8. Conditions of global self-determination 2. For-profit vocational provider # # # course- ware # # potential for path-breaking strategies conditions enabling self-determination of for-profit vocaitonal provider aspect of self-deter-mination # agency freedom (identity) # # # freedom as power (positive freedom) language plurality magnet for global staff strong global connects executive steering capacity academic autonomy research capacity strong resources
  9. 9. One of the positioning factors: Global hegemony of the USA in HE <ul><li>Spends 2.6% of GDP ($11,000 billion) on higher education (2002) </li></ul><ul><li>17 the top 20 Shanghai Jiao Tong research universities, and 53 of the top 100 (2005) </li></ul><ul><li>3568 ISI HighCI researchers in USA compared to 221 in Germany, 215 Japan, 135 France, 20 China, etc </li></ul><ul><li>31% of the world’s scientific papers (2001) </li></ul><ul><li>102,084 (2004-2005) foreign doctoral students, which is half of the world’s cross-border doctoral students </li></ul><ul><li>28% of the total cross-border market in degrees (2003) </li></ul>
  10. 10. World scientific papers 2001
  11. 11. Top 100 research universities 2005 data from Shanghai Jiao Tong University Institute of Higher Education Others: Israel, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Norway, Russia, Italy each 1.
  12. 12. The top 20 in 2005 from Shanghai Jiao Tong University data Tokyo Japan 20 Oxford UK 10 Johns Hopkins USA 19 Chicago USA 9 UC San Francisco USA 18 Princeton USA 8 Washington (Seattle) USA 17 Columbia USA 7 Wisconsin-Madison USA 16 Caltech USA 6 Pennsylvania USA 15 MIT USA 5 UC Los Angeles USA 14 UC Berkeley USA 4 UC San Diego USA 13 Stanford USA 3 Cornell USA 12 Cambridge UK 2 Yale USA 11 HARVARD USA 1
  13. 13. National research performance compared to economic capacity 1 2.4 2.0 1.3 Netherlands 2.2 3.0 0.8 Switzerland 2.2 4.0 0.6 Sweden 2.8 2.0 1.7 Australia 6.8 5.0 10.4 Japan 8.0 5.0 6.3 Germany 4.2 4.0 4.6 France 4.6 4.0 2.9 Canada 8.0 11.0 4.6 UK 0 53.0 share of Jiao Tong top 100 universities % 6.5 3.2 China 33.6 41.8 USA share of Jiao Tong top 500 universities % share of world economic capacity %
  14. 14. National research performance compared to economic capacity 2 Ireland, Brazil, Japan, India, Portugal , Czech Republic, Russia, Italy, Korea , Spain, Poland, Greece, China, Argentina, Mexico Italics: over 20% of students in independent private sector Nations with research capacity less than their economic wealth suggests Germany, New Zealand, Hungary, Belgium, Austria, Norway, Chile , France, Hong Kong, South Africa Nations with research capacity about on par with economic wealth Israel, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Netherlands, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Australia, USA Nations with research capacity greater than their economic wealth suggests (in order of performance)
  15. 15. Exporters of cross-border degrees 2003 OECD data
  16. 16. Languages with more than 100 million voices world-wide 125 German 125 French 130 Japanese 160 Malay-Indonesian 250 Bengali 250 Arabic 320 Russian 450/ 200 Spanish/ Portuguese 900 Hindi/ Urdu 1000 Putonghua (‘Mandarin’) 1000 English millions
  17. 17. Another positioning factor: Rankings and the intensification of global competition <ul><li>Universities are widely judged by research performance which is foundational to reputation, and operates as a proxy for degree power and even teaching quality. Now Shanghai Jiao Tong has provided a credible set of data on research performance. The Times Higher data also help to shape reputation </li></ul><ul><li>Marketing (‘we are world-class’, ‘we are a research university’ etc.) is no longer enough - the data must confirm the claim </li></ul><ul><li>Governments/nations now want ‘super-league’ universities. Leads to concentration, stratification, selective investment </li></ul><ul><li>Every university (except Harvard) wants to lift its rankings, every university in the top 500 wants more HICi researchers. This generates price effects </li></ul>
  18. 18. Jiao Tong rankings: weightings 100% total 10% Research performance (compiled as above) per head of staff 20% Articles in citation indexes in science, social science, humanities 20% Articles in Nature and Science 20% High citation (HiCi) researchers 20% Staff of institution: Nobel Prizes and field medals 10% Alumni of institution: Nobel Prizes and field medals weighting criterion
  19. 19. HiCi researchers selected universities, 2005 135 all France combined 42 Cambridge UK 29 Oxford UK 20 all China combined 3568 all USA combined 72 MIT USA 72 Harvard USA 81 UC Berkeley USA 91 Stanford USA
  20. 20. Global salary competition 2000-2004 data, various sources, Purchasing Power Parity $71,000 average 2000 Korea (private sector only) $40,000-70,000 2002-03 France, Spain, Finland $60,000-70,000 2002-03 Germany, Netherlands $75,000 2003 Australia $92,000-130,000 2001 Singapore $101,000 average 2003-04 USA (salary only, 9-10 months) Professorial salary USD p.a. data year nation
  21. 21. … but too normative a ranking system closes off strategic possibilities <ul><li>All rankings are purpose driven, and they are partial in coverage, i.e. all rankings perpetuate biases. The rankings used so far favour English-speaking science-strong universities against all others. Worse, the Times Higher rankings are a rigged game promoting UK (and as an unintended effect Australian) university marketing </li></ul><ul><li>Little can be accurately measured on a comparative basis aside from financial inputs and publications/citations </li></ul><ul><li>Even when differences between universities are not statistically significant, they are rank ordered in league tables anyway </li></ul><ul><li>The rationale for rankings is student choice. Yet data on research performance, student-staff ratios, etc can tell us nothing about the quality of teaching or of professional preparation! </li></ul><ul><li>Rankings reflect and manufacture university reputation. Subjective opinion-based rankings reinforce the pecking order in circular fashion. This blocks genuine merit and upward mobility </li></ul><ul><li>Rankings might generate a lemming-like rush to poor policy, e.g. research concentrations without increasing research funding </li></ul>
  22. 22. Times Higher rankings: weightings 100% total 20% Research citations per head of academic staff 20% Student-academic staff ratio (proxy for ‘teaching quality’) 5% Internationalization of student body (quantity measure) 5% Internationalization of academic staff 10% Global employer review (survey, not transparent) 40% ‘ Peer review’ (survey, not transparent) weighting criterion
  23. 23. Good rankings are… <ul><li>Clean. The data are free from self-interest </li></ul><ul><li>Coherent. The measures do not mix chalk and cheese, and the conclusions are consistent with the reach of the data base </li></ul><ul><li>Transparent. The measures and weightings are theorised, and data collection is an open process </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose-driven. Different purposes and different criteria for outcomes each require their own customised measures </li></ul><ul><li>Informative. Data on specifics, e.g. disciplines, research, are more informative and accurate than wholistic university places </li></ul><ul><li>Customer-driven. e.g. the select your own criteria interactive web-based rankings by Germany’s CHE/Die Zeit </li></ul>