REFLECTIONS ON THE GLOBALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION: TOWARDS AN AGENDA FOR RESEARCH. Susan L. Robertson

Transcription

1 REFLECTIONS ON THE GLOBALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION: TOWARDS AN AGENDA FOR RESEARCH Susan L. Robertson Centre for Globalisation, Societies and Education, U of Bristol SRHE International Research and Researchers Network Tuesday, 30 March 2010, London 1

2 This presentation 1. Troubling our conceptual armoury 2. Isms explained 3. The consequences of isms for researching the globalisation of higher education 4. Beyond isms 5. A critical research agenda for IRRN 6. Final thoughts 2

3 a whole series of key concepts for the understanding of society derive their power from appearing to be just what they always were, and derive their instrumentality from taking on quite different forms (Smith, 2006: 628). PRIVATE PUBLIC AUTONOMY UNIVERSITY RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE 3

4 Both self-evidently global and denationalising dynamics destabilize existing meanings and systems. This raises questions about the future of crucial frameworks through which modern societies, economies and polities have operated; the social contract of liberal states, social democracy as we have come to understand it, modern citizenship, and the formal mechanisms that render some claims legitimate and others illegitimate in liberal democracies (Sassen, 2006: 2-3) 4

5 Theoretical and methodological challenges in HE research on globalisation: (- isms) methodological statism spatial fetishism methodological nationalism higher educationism 5

6 The idea of ism is used to suggest an approach to the objects that takes them as unproblematic, and assumes a constant and shared meaning; they become fixed, abstract and absolute (Fine, 2003: 465). 6

7 Assumptions methodological statism A particular form assumed to be intrinsic to states (resources, law, legitimacy, welfare) which converged in national constellations and national institutions (e.g. Westphalian; the social democratic national welfare state) 7

8 Assumptions That space is inert, a backdrop, rather than the object and outcome of social processes and social relations. spatial fetishism Spatialising processes are reified, naturalised and given agency ( globalisation does ) 8

9 Assumptions higher educationism That higher education can be understood via the classical activities/scholarship outputs (Biesta, 2009) of the sector. This output is oriented toward management and improvement of existing institutions. It tends not to focus on new parallel developments, or the co-constitution of HE as a result of wider political, economic and social processes (Dale, 2009) 9

10 Assumptions That the nation state is the container of society; internationalism infers spatial extension from the national outward toward other nations. It assumes a world made up of nation states. However, we can see regions, cities, sectors, firms, etc all involved in HE each with their different horizons of action. methodological nationalism 10

11 methodological statism spatial fetishism methodological nationalism higher educationism 11

12 The outcome of these isms is that: Globalisation is reduced to the more obvious out there processes (mobility, international student markets, international agencies etc) rather than it being viewed as the outcome of a complex of in-here and out-there processes involving institutions, knowledge, people, ideas, research etc (Sassen, 2006: 2) We fail to see an array of new projects and actors with different metaphors, logics, and temporal horizons operating in HE, that are transforming HE (through denationalising, de-statising, desectoralising ) (see also Olds, 2009). 12

13 Cont: The governance of HE is being redistributed across different scales and into different sectors, in turn reconstituting the sector and the wider political economy of HE. This removes from view some HE activity (agents/projects) including knowledge, its purposes, and outcomes (Robertson, 2009) HE ism s tend to undermine relational understandings and relational thinking, which is central to opening up a wider debate. 13

14 In summary - we can understand globalisation as: a localism which has become hegemonic (Santos, 2003) social relations that stretch out more broadly over space (Massey, 2005) social processes where the furtherest horizon of action is the global (Jessop, 2008) tendentially associated with the emergence of new regional initiatives, and the creation of new norms that value concentration (clustering, categorisation, differentiation, segmentation, benchmarking) whilst accepting its corollary (exclusion) 14

15 A good part of globalization consists in the enormous variety of micro-processes that begin to denationalise what has been constructed as national whether policies, capital, political subjectivities, urban spaces, temporal frames, or any other variety of dynamics and domains. Sometimes these processes of denationalization allow, enable, or push the construction of new types of global scalings of dynamics and institutions; other times they continue to inhabit the realm of what is still largely national (Sassen, 2006: 1). 15

16 From Robertson, 2009 Model for Norm Setting Minds for Knowledge Economy Markets for Service Economy state building strategy Lisbon Bologna EHEA European Research Area globalising through regions Mobility of academics, students and labour Quality and Attractiveness of EHEA Mechanism of Cooperation, Learning Robertson SHRE IRR G 30th

17 Without an adequate account of transformations in the sector, we limit our ability to intervene and shape higher education to more socially equitable ends 17

18 We need to: draw upon a range of disciplines - sociology, geography, politics, law, education, history, economics, etc to help us ask new questions about time, space, sociality, power, authority, institutions, subjectivities develop theoretical tools from this inter-disciplinary approach that are critical and reflexive map the emerging landscape, its manifestations, and consequences, and ask about the underlying mechanisms which have given rise to these social practices advance the development of new infrastructures that enable us to shape the terms of engagement 18

19 Bringing an emerging global higher education landscape into view. 19

20 Example 1 K. Olds (2009) Associations, Neworks, Alliances, etc. Making Sense of the Emerging Global Higher Education Landscape, GMAIII. Mexico 20

21 PRIMARY SCALE OF OPERATION Global Examples of Emerging and/or Increasing Powerful Actors ACTORS GOAL/LOGICS TEMPORAL HORIZON Private firms (e.g., Thomson Reuters, The Economist Intelligence Unit) Private firms (e.g., Google, CIsco) Private firms (e.g., media) Private foundations (e.g., Gates Foundation; Soros) Private firms (e.g., Standard and Poors) Private firms (e.g. Apollo Global; i-graduate) Research services & insights, (e.g., citation indices) for profit; forecasting, benchmarking Enhancing access to information for profit Ranking to enhance profit Development Risk analysis for profit; emerging markets Return from investment portfolio Quarterly/yearly with strategic plan Quarterly/yearly with strategic plan Once per year Short; longer term (e.g. Central Eastern University) Client-driven Shareholder driven KEY UNIVERSITY ENTRÉE POINTS Library systems, funding councils Consortia; Library systems; Personal computer web browsers All levels Faculty and administrators Senior administrators All levels 21

22 Regional and Interregional Multilateral agencies (e.g., IFC, OECD, UNESCO, WTO; IAU) Sovereign wealth funds (e.g., the King Abdullah University of Science & Technology) Regional organizations (e.g., EU, ASEAN, APEC, ASEM, OECD, IFC) Regional higher education areas (e.g., the EHEA; UNILA) Regional funding councils (e.g. European Research Council) Regional champions (e.g. Bologna Promoters; West Midlands in Europe) Development and system change Development and branding Regional integration and development Regional development and reform years Ministries and senior administrators (universities and associations) 5 years Researchers and key STEM departments departments/un years Ministries, senior administrators (universities and associations), funding councils 1-5 years Ministries, universities Facilitating research 1-5 years University research units and researchers Regional development and reform years Regional development agencies; university academics 22

23 National Ministries of Trade Enhancing trade Singular (signing) and then term of free trade agreement Ministries and monarchies (e.g., Qatar) Funding councils Funding councils Think tanks (e.g., Lumina) Student mobility brokers (e.g. Gap year) Capacity building and branding Global research infrastructure Joint calls for proposals Insights for development Creating safe travel products Post-economic crisis or during economic boom Irregular Irregular or annual Issue-specific cycle Economic cycles N/A Senior administrators Faculty and senior administrators Faculty and senior administrators Senior administrators Families; university careers advisors 23

24 Example 2 J. McNamara and A. Williamson (2010) Measuring and Benchmarking the Internationalisation of Education, presented to Going Global 4 Conference March 23 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

29 Towards a Research Agenda Some Questions: How has the de-sectoralisation of HE been advanced, by whom, with what interests, what outcomes? What forms of de-nationalisation are taking place in HE, and what are the implications of this for knowledge production? How do processes of globalisation reshape the conditions for academic autonomy? How, why, with what outcomes is rescaling of the governance of HE being advanced, and how does this alter the nature of universities, academic autonomy, the nature of research, and so on. 29