JUGAS DE ARRULLO

Agelasto and Adamson believe that universities have moved from learning academies to education enterprises (1998, p. 405). If so, there are many aspects to the business of education: all, including graduate attributes, moderated by socio-political contexts and differing views on and degrees of privatisation and marketisation. Globally, as the costs of education have increased, educational planning has become more overt and externally influenced by the funding bodies. According to Cohn and Geske (1990) the main economic theories influencing educational planning have included: a manpower requirements model, social demand, rate of return, or, aspects of all three. Whichever of the theories a country adopts, an increase in tertiary enrolments may not equate to an increase in state funding.

In countries such as the UK, education and industry have long been intertwined to greater or lesser degrees of sophistication. Sometimes the driver for this has been government, sometimes business, sometimes the Higher Education institutions collectively or alone. According to Charles and Howells (1992 cited in Charles & Conway 2001, pp. 17-8) education as a saleable business can be grouped into four broad categories: Research services, application of knowledge, people-based mobility and exchange schemes, and the formation of new companies.

Selling education to local and international markets has become a business, a new, fifth category. The business drivers such as wanting to keep costs down, increase productivity, adapt to or develop new markets, products and services, have become the language of the management teams of educational institutions. In turn, education programs that emphasise the skills of teamwork, problem solving, flexibility, decision making, reflection and effective communication, skills perceived to underpin such business drivers, should offer graduates an advantage in both the local and global labour markets

51

(Hager, Holland & Beckett 2002). These skills have, as discussed, been embedded in the education courses and pedagogy in Australia, the UK and the USA, as has in some Australian universities an attribute about developing international perspectives. Now some liberal education courses with a broad multidisciplinary skill focus have been funded at a limited number of prestigious Chinese universities (Levin 2010). According to Levin, the driver in China is to have a number of world class, globally competitive universities that genuinely foster the independence and creativity needed for the innovations that sustain long term economic growth.

Both curriculum and strategic educational alliances need to be guided by the adage: ‗act global, think local‘. Teekens (2003, p. 109), while predominantly concerned with European educational issues around globalization, identifies local and global issues that are valid for an internationalised education:

Globalisation will make education more technological and thus more system oriented and less student and teacher centred. At the same time, there is an increased demand for real-life skills in students and teachers to deal with differences in our universities and beyond. Global learning means focusing on global issues and the learning needs associated with them, while at the same time functioning within a local context— at home. The extent to which this issue is addressed, as ambivalent as it may seem, is a test of the quality and adequacy of teaching and learning in our multicultural societies and in higher education in particular. It challenges the notion of national education and what this means for all facets of traditional university life within individual countries and for individual teachers and learners.

This is an interesting perspective that seems to contradict the move to student-centred education due to a tension between global learning and the local context. In fact a system oriented model of teaching and learning may be a cost efficient way of tailoring education; students would select the discrete modules that apply to them or which broaden their outlook. It remains to be seen whether the model becomes part of the pedagogy of a Chinese multidisciplinary curriculum.

Chan (2006, p. vi) concludes that ―university internationalisation is complex, multifaceted and value- laden‖; that the nature of each university will determine where internationalisation fits in terms of objectives, strategies and practice; that what starts out as serendipity may become institutionalised; and that internationalisation can have positive outcomes. She cites the International Association of Universities‘ (IAU) survey (2003) for the top reasons for internationalisation (in descending order of priority). In essence they expand on Charles and Howells‘ four categories (1992 cited in Charles & Conway 2001, pp. 17-8):

52 2. Teaching and research collaboration 3. Academic standards and quality 4. Research projects

5. Cooperation and development assistance 6. Curriculum development

7. International and intercultural understanding 8. Promotion and profile of institution

9. Diversify source of faculty and students 10. Regional issues and integration

11. International student recruitment

12. Diversify income generation (Chan 2006, p. 35).

For all reasons except maybe diversifying income sources, an understanding of a university‘s purpose, goals and drivers such as graduate skills, attributes or capabilities can add value and indeed may assist in establishing a university‘s competitiveness.

Chan refers to de Wit‘s (2002, p.136 cited in Chan 2006, p. 55) ―Internationalisation Cycle, Modified Version‖ which is a complex cycle of analysis, awareness, commitment, planning, operationalising, implementing, reviewing, reinforcing and integrating, to ensure that international activities are embedded and explicit. De Wit‘s cycle is valid and strategies may be developed but ―the meanings and interpretations each attaches to the core ideas and concepts may vary dramatically‖ (Dimmock 2002, p. 32). Dimmock (2002) argues for more cross-cultural research in education as a way of ensuring that western theories are not inappropriately transferred to non-western contexts.

Unfortunately the good practice of having strategy, infrastructure and budget aligned, is rare. In the IAU survey (2003, p. 11):

63 percent of its 176 member institutions ... indicated that they had ―a policy/strategy in place‖ for internationalisation. Among the 63 percent, about two-thirds indicated that the strategy was ―institution wide and that there was an office to oversee internationalisation,‖ but only half of them had a budget or a framework to monitor the implementation process.

At a local level Australia Education International (AEI) and DEST have been trying to overcome barriers to trade in education and training with China by working with organisations and processes such as the World Trade Organisation and General Agreement on Trade in Services. However, as some ―barriers in the education services sector can be perceived as 'legitimate' government policy, quality control or consumer protection mechanisms, it is unrealistic to expect the elimination of all barriers for the sector‖ (DEST 2005b, p. 10). Cooper (2004) listed Australia‘s weaknesses as: its Westernised view of the world, lack of cultural understanding and sensitivity, and the enigma of the

53

Chinese learner. These aspects negatively impact on Australia‘s international education business dealings and reinforce the value of VU‘s fifth Graduate Capability (see p. 35).