Notes for 1 pm presentation on ‘Work in Progress’ at York University Colloquium 6 March 2006
‘Work in progress’ implies that the work is moving forward. Sometimes I wonder! There are so many unfinished canvasses. I have to stop it becoming ‘work in regress’. Going on holiday can be dangerous…. It’s hard to get back to it… A window looking into an untidy studio with a lot of half finished canvases, canvases that are in, or on, (inside/outside) higher education and globalization. I say inside/outside because of the need to secure critical distance on what is distinctive about contemporary developments in higher education, without disengaging from it. Longer term objectives of program of scholarship The medium term objective is to develop a theorization of globalization in higher education that draws on both political economy and cultural and social theory, and explains the higher education sector in terms of a world mapping of the field of power. Beyond that I hope to prepare a more normative essay that attempts to grasp the tensions in the research university as a ‘world-wide’ institution and to draw out a possible trajectory for the institution. Methods In the extensive literature on globalisation there is little theorisation focused on globalisation in higher education. By globalisation I mean… [Held definition 1999] … in the words of David Held and his collaborators, ‘the widening, deepening and speeding up of all kinds of worldwide interconnectedness’. Methods Now the higher education literature is the whole theoretically timid and derivative. It is largely shaped by instrumentalist perspectives driven by applied research for governments and university managers. There is a widespread tendency to read globalisation in higher education in terms of popular clichés, and among the more rigorous scholars to read it deductively from more general theories of globalisation. But to understand the global in higher education we must situate it historically in terms of the specifics of higher education and that means local individuals and institutions situated in contexts. Globalization is not just something outside us and our institutions it is something inside us and out institutions too. We must be able to talk as much about global transformations in subjectivities as about changes in the larger material settings and to explore the interaction of these dimensions interact, that provide conditions of possibility for each other. It goes without saying that the analysis of globalization can benefit from a cross-disciplinary approach. My take on method is to draw on both social and cultural theory, and political economy and to more or less constantly move between the two, using each to interrogate the other. This some of my work is comprised by the political economy of cultural phenomena in education, and other studies provide a cultural analysis and political and economic phenomena. Each way of seeing (political economy and cultural theory) interrogates and re-imagines the phenomena of the other. Others have done this too, e.g.
2 Appadurai’s (1996) cultural theorization on economic ‘scapes’, Held et al. (1999) on the global political economy of language and publishing, and so on. Globalization… Combines two elements that constitute each other (though the potentials of each are not bound by the other): (1) the formation of integrated world markets producing private economic goods and operating in real time, resting on (2) the first global system of communications, knowledge and culture. This global system of knowledge and communications comprises primarily public goods and is partly state financed, though, ironically perhaps, it also provides mediums and legitimations for global markets. I will explore this further at 6.30 pm tonight. Types of project So what kind of work do I do, using these approaches and definitions/ Everyone has a different explanation for how they go about their work, though the outputs often look more homogenous. This is my take on me, no doubt it is a partial not to say blinded and biased reading! More or less at the same time, though in different projects, I pursue two contrasting lines of inquiry – (1) conceptual inquiries where the primary purpose is theorization without empirical referencing (though past empirical work no doubt sensitivizes the processes of criticism and re-imagining); and (2) empirical research projects, mostly funded by specific authorities and using primarily qualitative methods, that enable me to observe and engage with higher education institutions and people. From time to time the two strands are drawn together in synthetic projects that for me are the ultimate outputs. Let’s look at specific projects (which end in the production of texts). I won’t discuss all of these but I’ll say a little about the projects in bold in the slides. Primarily conceptual projects For me the conceptual projects are the engine room for forward analytical moves. Conceptual innovation enables us to see everything differently. It transforms the potential for synthesis and can have many practical applications. It is here (rather than the empirical domain) I ask the determining ‘research questions’. 18 months ago the question was ‘what are global flows in higher education?’ I was attracted to the liquidity of flows as globally sensibile metaphor but mistrusted it a little because it was so popular. I understood ‘flows’ as a container for storing empirical observations and as such a bounded framework with certain limitations. The underlying issue here is what does the conceptual innovation allows us to imagine and what does it occlude? Does it constitute a forward move in the theorization of higher education, and what might lie beyond it? I reviewed the literature and developed an analytical framework that synthesized Appadurai on cultural flows, Castells on the sociology of communications and Held on the political economy of global transformations .Together with Erlenawati I tested that framework by applying it to case study data we had collected. These seemed to confirm that the analytical framework had broad applicability. My current question is ‘what are the limits and possibilities of nations and national policy in the global higher education environment? A sub-question is how might the capacity for national self-determination vary by nation and also in the case of different kinds of higher education institutions? A subsequent question is about the potentials of global governance. I am at the reading stage. I am reading in geography, cultural theory, political science and international relations theory, and political economy ,as well as education studies; plus case
3 study reports in the higher education literature. This inquiry is also being stimulated by ongoing empirical work in contrasting national sites, which I will discuss in a moment. Definitions of ‘internationalization’ and ‘globalization’ In higher education studies the terms ‘internationalization’ and ‘globalization’ are sometimes used interchangeably to mean the same thing. Sometimes they are contrasted with each other, or rendered as opposites, but there is a breat variety of such approaches. There is no consensus in the field yet the terms are very widely used for different purposes, in a self-referential manner, in arguments that are otherwise rigorous and useful. This eclecticism is a recipe for theoretical incompetence, muddied analysis and poor policy advice. To take three examples to point out the range of definitions: In a valuable recent paper in the Journal of Studiesin International Education, Anneke Luijten-Lub and co-authors suggest that ‘internationalization’ refers to cross-border inter-connectedness that leaves the nation-state unquestioned and is policy controlled (as in EU initiatives) while ‘globalization’, which perhaps can be understood as Americanisation, is external to nations and to higher education, is almost beyond policy control and is more transformative and perhaps more dangerous. Interntionalization good cop, globalization bad cop. This suggests that at the root of the distinction are dualisms of politics/economy, and Europe/America. Welch (2002) creates a dualism in the form of Weberian ideal types. His ‘globalization’ is a pro-capitalist ideology supporting the extension of worldwide markets; while educational ‘internationalization’ is about cultural exchange and cooperative relationships based on equality of respect. It’s no surprise that Welch wants more internationalization and less globalization. Knight (2004, p. 11) takes a more modest normative approach. She defines ‘internationalization’ as ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education’, in the national system or in individual institutions. But Knight, like Luijten-Lub but more strongly, also sees the distinction as geo-spatial. Her ‘international’ refers to relations between nations, while ‘global’ is at the world level. ‘Globalization’ is ‘the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values [and] ideas … across borders’. Unlike Welch, Knight does not see ‘globalization’ as being dualistically opposed to ‘internationalization’ in zero-sum terms, but as part of the environment in which internationalization takes place and one reason why the international dimension of higher education is becoming more important. My own view is that (1) it is useful to equip ourselves with two contrasting terms for analytical purposes, especially if like Knight we can start to understand the interactions between the two sets of phenomena they describe (2) it is unhelpful to arrange these two terms in a dualism, and (3) it is unhelpful to deploy them normatively. Overly normative framing and preaching and persuading in place of analysis is one of the curses of education studies. In this case it can only install a war over definitions as proxies for values while obliterating any possibility of agreed definitions that could take forward the field of global studies in education. It is better to conduct our debate over values explicitly, not through the medium of definitions which because the values are implicit is not politicizing it is depoliticizing. And we need to be able to inform our normative projects, whatever they might be, with solid concepts. This approach also helps us to find the critical distance on globalization that we need. We no longer pre-empt the issues with our normative definition, blinding ourselves to that which does not fit our preconceptions. And it enables us to engage with the substance of globalization, rather than focus primarily on the realization of our pre-conceived norms.
4 And in any case I am reluctant to accept a definition of globalization that treats the global dimension as economic and confines culture and politics to the national sphere, or treats communications and culture as simply epiphenomena of the ‘economic base’. That seems to me to miss much of what is distinctive about contemporary globalization. I prefer to treeat ‘internationalization’ and ‘globalization’ as two different dimensions of cross-border human action, dimensions that have differing implications for transformation. ‘Internationalization’ means the thickening of relationships conducted between nations (‘inter-national’ relations), where national institutions and practices are affected at the margins but essentially remain intact. ‘Globalization’’ means the enhancement of the worldwide or pan-European spheres of action. It has potentially transformative effects within nations, as well as remaking the common environment in which they are situated and they relate to each other. Thus I agree with Jane Knight where she understands the distinction in geo-spatial terms. Of course it is not a distinction that turns simply on national versus global. Both internationalization and globalization encompass the nation-state but in a contrasting manner. In the international realm, national politics and culture might still be dominant. In the global realm the nation-state is decisively relativized by global relations and no longer the ultimate horizon of possibility. This does not necessarily imply the negation of the nation-state as such. In fact nation-states are often primary instruments of global transformation in higher education and in other sectors. Strikingly, the one globally dominant nation-state, the USA, generates continuous global effects while remaining self-referenced and utterly nation-centric. The dialectic between these two different kinds of cross-border practice, international and global, is foundational to the university as an institution. The university was originally grounded in pan-European mobility and scholarly Latin; that is, global relations. Worldwide disciplinary networks today often constitute stronger academic identities than do domestic locations. But each university was also locally idiosyncratic and partly open to other powers; and in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the institution became a primary instrument of nation-building and population management. Today higher education is subject to national culture and government while imagined by national policy makers as a primary instrument of the ‘competition state’ in the global setting. Here all governments have some room to move strategically, even those in poorer developing nations, though the global strategic options before governments and institutions are limited by the economic strength and demographic size of the nation, languages of use, the coherence and robustness of state agencies, and the inherited resources and reputation of higher education institutions. In sum, global and international practices have become layered onto and mixed with each other; and this plays out in variable manner in different nations, different disciplines, different kinds of institution and different parts of a single institution. When the concepts are understood rigorously they become useful tools for interrogating these empirically observable variations. Primarily empirical projects I see the empirical as the domain not where the most essential questions are posed; rather as the domain where specific inquiries are conducted, in support of the essential inquiry shaped in the conceptual/ theoretical domain. Nevertheless if our theorizations are to be anchored in policy and professional worlds, and open as they should be to continuous testing and refinement, then systematic and continuously reflexive empirical engagement is an essential part of the overall program of work. Like most people I do much of my learning here. I try to
5 maximize the potential of the empirical domain by using a purpose-driven, variable approach to the selection of methodologies. I attempt to avoid the common error of driving the findings from the prior assumptions. No doubt I am only partly successful in this but I believe it crucial that we sustain a critically reflexive approach to method. I see the role of reflexive empirical work not to confirm pre-given theories but to operate in conjunction with reflexive theorizations as two different and interacting inputs to the process of intellectual judgment. University strategies in the global environment In many respects this is the most fertile project I am currently engaged in. Dr Sawir and I are conducting case studies of one leading national research university in 12-14 different nations (one university per nation0 with an emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region. This template allows us to observe variations between the cases in terms of the pattern of global/national/local interactions, while controlling for variation in university type. The research helps us to map the patterns of difference and inequality in the global environment and to explore the potential for and limits of self-determining global strategies. The research consists of interviews with presidents/rectors, their deputies, administrators of international programs, and faculty and research leaders in (a) social sciences (b) engineering. The questions focus on definitions of and perceptions of globalization, cross-border competition and cooperation, each person’s sources of information about the global environment, the university’s cross-border activities (people flows, knowledge flows and research collaboration, alliances, commercial dealings), national policy and its effects on university global capacity, and the extent to which the university’s organizational design is shaped by global influences. We have now competed cases at U Indonesia, Australian NU, U Tokyo, U Twente, the national university (UNAM) in Mexico. We conduct interviews at the University of Toronto next week. We ask almost the same ‘stem’ questions of each person, within a semi-structured interview format. This provides us with a uniform data set while at the same time to explore many issues specific to local perceptions, contexts and strategies. We facilitate our understanding of each local context by two means. We study documents on the mission, activities, where available history, and the statistical portrait of each institution, and documents and statistical data that provide an overview of the relevant national system. And in most of our case studies we have worked with local scholars who have provide indispensable insight into the context; these local collaborators normally become co-authors. The social and economic security of international students This is not one project but a fecund group of projects that was designed initially to attempt to change the way the commercially minded Australian higher education sector understands the international education ‘industry’. Mobile populations such as cross-border students cannot access full national citizen rights in the country of origin and they lack such rights in the country of education. They are unusually vulnerable and open to exploitation by employers, universities and other parties. They are dependent on informal networks for support, especially when things go wrong, but not all students have the same access to family, friends and national compatriots. And our research, like other studies, shows that the level of interaction between foreign students and local students is often disappointing. Most international students experience an initial period of isolation and some remain profoundly lonely. Unlike most research on international students our work uses a former international student as interviewer and it foregrounds international students’ own voices. Dr Sawir has now
6 conducted 202 interviews with individual international students in Australia and another 40 in New Zealand, where we will complete more interviews in April/May. In this research full feepaying international students are imagined not solely as consumers with economic rights, as in market research, but as multiple rights-bearing subjects with the potential for human, civil, legal, political, occupational, educational rights. In this context student security includes more than welfare or pastoral care. It covers health care, welfare, housing , financial welfare and freedoms, legal and civil rights, including mobility, consumer protection, freedom from abuse and discrimination, and from exploitation at work. This work is raising questions about the potential for regulated pastoral care (e.g. as already operating in New Zeland), and the potentials of bilateral and multilateral governance in providing better security for cross-border populations such as students. The research also provides rich data about degovernmentalization in the commercial educational context and the role of informal and civil organizations in human security. How should the relationship between state regulation and informal organizations be configured, given that informal security is not enough by itself? Synthetic projects In the synthetic projects I draw together these two distinctive lines of inquiry, theorizations on one hand and empirical inquiry on the other. For example, Mapping the world-wide field of universities, using Bourdieu’s (1993) notion of ‘fields’ I am one of many working in education studies who is making use of Bourdieu’s notion of ‘field’. For example, in higher education studies, fine work has been done already by Rajani Naidoo at Bath. This frame the global higher education environment is understood as an hierarchical and uneven ‘field of power’ (Bourdieu 1988), structured, semi-open and unpredictable; a ‘world system’ in the words of the great French historian Fernand Braudel, with distinctive processes of differentiation, production, and social/ symbolic/ economic exchange. ‘A field of power maybe defined as a network, or configuration, of objective relations between positions’. [second slide on this topic] In facing this stucturalist framework, which can tell us some things but not other things, I would emphasize also the shifting character of subjectivity with its potential for the selffashioning of the self. In other words, universities are both ‘positioned’ and ‘position-taking’ in the global setting. All have potential for self-determining action (not always used to the full!), but this potential varies. This work will draw on the earlier conceptualization of global/ national/ local interactions and of global flows, work on the potential and limits of nations and of self-determining institutions, and the empirical work on university strategies. The earlier work on flows suggests that the approach to structure should be more fluid and contingent than is Bourdieu. This project will later be used to frame the summative theorization of globalization and higher education, if I don’t go on a long holiday that lurks temptingly at the edge of my mind, and if I don’t take part in too many seminars, in strange lands and intriguing places, seminars that are attended by fine scholars and innovative students such as yourselves. Concluding slide Thank you very much for having me with you today!