Hegemonic Harvard and omnipersent Oxford: Western Dominance in the Global Organization of Higher Education

Hegemonic Harvard and omnipersent Oxford: Western Dominance in the Global Organization of Higher Education

JAMES JF FOREST , P H.D. Assistant Dean, Academic Assessment and Assistant Professor, Political Science United States Military Academy West Point, NY 10996 james.

A Paper For Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association Montreal, Canada March 17-20, 2004

The views expressed are those of the author and not of the Department of the Army, the U.S. Military Academy, or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Strategic Studies Institute in funding research for this paper Abstract Universities worldwide stem from a common model. Even in India and China, which have their own rich traditions of advanced learning, modern universities are Western in origin.

Similar patterns of organization and activity are seen throughout the world in areas of faculty research, teaching, administration, and the assessment of student learning. These patterns are driven largely by Western conceptions of academic quality and socio-economic concerns, usually overriding non-western cultural values.

Within the context of globalization and the war on terrorism, recognizing the political and social implications of Western dominance in the academic world allows us to better understand (and work to overcome) existing inequities in the global knowledge network that may contribute to the hostile perspectives of non-Westerners toward ideas of democracy, academic freedom, separation of church and state, and religious pluralism, among many others. 1Introduction The modern university has a deep history.

Virtually all of the world’s universities stem from a common, medieval European model that originated with the establishment of the very first universities in Paris and Bologna. In particular, the model first developed at the faculty- dominated University of Paris continues to influence contemporary patterns of organization and activity throughout the world in areas of faculty research, teaching, and administration.

This lack of change in the academic world is strikingly unique. Of the institutions that had been established in the Western world by 1520, 85 still exist—including the Roman Catholic church, the British Parliament, and some 70 universities—and of these, perhaps the universities have experienced the least amount of change.

Pervasive similarities in the academic world are also striking, and can be traced to a mix of colonial and hegemonic influences. Much of the non-Western world had European university models imposed on them by colonial masters, while countries such as Japan, Thailand, and Ethiopia adopted a Western academic model on their own.

Even in India and China, which had their own traditions of advanced learning, modern universities are Western in origin. Today, issues of accountability, teaching quality, access for students, the generation of research and scholarship, and the desire for autonomy from governmental interference are common to institutions of higher education throughout the globe. This paper explores the broad impact of these commonalities on contemporary global human relations, particularly in the distribution of knowledge and the relatively unequal patterns of participation in the global knowledge network, and how this inequality influences student and faculty mobility, the spread of common models for university funding and accreditation, and perceptions of academic quality throughout the 2 higher education landscape.

Further, it seems clear that the influence of the center over the peripheries is increasing, due in large part by modern forces of globalization. Universities have always been global institutions, employing professors from many countries who impart knowledge and wisdom to an international clientele of students. This knowledge has most often reflected scholarly learning in the Western world at the time, although Latin (the common language of instruction during the medieval period) was replaced first by German, and then by English. Over time, knowledge has become more global in scope and orientation – particularly among faculty and researchers in the basic and hard sciences. The increasingly international scope of scholarly collaboration has significantly advanced the world’s reservoir of knowledge and intellectual capacity – a reservoir fed by the rivers of international knowledge networks. An international knowledge network can be described as the multiple connections between individuals (and their supporting institutions) that create knowledge and the interwoven structures that communicate this knowledge to and from individuals across geographic boundaries.

Each academic discipline and every field of social or scientific inquiry develops, over time and space, its own international knowledge network. The global knowledge network is seen as the interconnected backbone of all the international knowledge networks around the world. Admittedly, the generic term “knowledge” is used here to simplify a wide variety of subjects, including those which seek to advance scientific and academic disciplines, improve the health and welfare of individuals within a society, create technological innovation and new industrial products, and generally make the world a better place to live. The global knowledge network thus involves the multinational knowledge networks of all the scholarly disciplines and fields of applied learning – a loosely- 3 coupled and uncoordinated set of institutions, individuals and complex activities that together facilitate the worldwide distribution of scientific research and scholarly analysis. The boundaries of knowledge networks are formed by a variety of contextual factors, such as geography, language, culture, ideology, and personal preferences of individuals in gatekeeper positions (e.g., editor, publisher, or research funding agent).

These factors contribute to patterns of centers and peripheries throughout the global knowledge network, and play a dominant role in shaping the resources for production and distribution of knowledge products, participation within the network, and access to the knowledge legitimated by the network. Industrialized countries (and the institutions of higher education and scientific research in these countries) are at the center of a globally-interconnected knowledge networks in virtually every academic discipline and field of study.

Centers and Peripheries in the Global Knowledge Network

The general concept of centers and peripheries stems to some degree from the structure of ancient cities, where a castle, temple or other sort of powerful protectorate was located in the center of a region, encircled by residencies of bureaucrats or noblemen, and surrounded by merchants, craftsmen, farmers, and peasants in the outer peripheries. Beginning in the early 1900s, sociologists and economists began applying this concept of central-peripheral stratification to describe the relative distribution of power and capital in social systems and nation-states throughout the world.

Using measures such as economic power, political influence, or military strength, the most powerful countries are seen as being at the “center” of an international hierarchy, with other countries connected at various points along the periphery. This idea of central and peripheral relations was initially developed to illuminate pervasive 4inequalities in the opportunities for advancement provided throughout the international system of nation-states, as found in theories of imperialism (cf. Lenin, 1913; Galtung, 1972) and dependency theory (cf. Dos Santos, 1970). Building on these theories, economists hypothesized that developing countries on the periphery of the world economy were destined to remain suppliers of food and raw materials to advanced countries at the center, leading to (among other things) the eventual loss of national autonomy over domestic economic policies within the peripheral countries. Eminent sociologist Edward Shils (1975) brought this center-periphery perspective to describe the disadvantages faced by intellectuals in developing countries. Ben-David (1977) observed a similar pattern in the worldwide distribution of higher education institutions, noting that a small number of research universities in a handful of countries were increasingly viewed as the most exemplary pillars of knowledge, and that all other institutions aspired to become like these.

By viewing the world through the prism of centers and peripheries, these and other scholars point to the fundamental inequities created by this hierarchy, and caution us against marginalizing the scholarly contributions of intellectuals that, for a number of reasons, are not affiliated with these “central” institutions. Building on the work of Philip Altbach (1987; 1992; 1997), Paul Ginsparg (1996; 2001), Edward Shils (1988) and others, this essay carries forward the view of the world as a central- peripheral hierarchy to describe existing inequalities in the global knowledge network. Indeed, there are clearly “haves” and “have nots” throughout the globally-interconnected network of publishing firms, researchers and scientific institutions. Those at the center of this network enjoy a great deal of control over the global intellectual exchange and distribution of scientific knowledge, while those at the periphery tend to rely on the institutions and actors at the center to keep the network healthy and operational. Knowledge that is not seen as coming from a central source in the network is often discounted or ignored (Coser, 1975).

These structures of center and periphery can be seen both internationally and locally, and will have lasting implications on the evolution of knowledge and human understanding for the foreseeable future. There are at least three important dimensions of the global knowledge network which contribute toward a structure of center and peripheries: distribution of resources, participation, and access. First of all, the distribution of resources within each knowledge network is significantly unequal.

The world's basic and applied research and development expenditures are dominated by the major industrialized countries, particularly the United States, Japan, and the countries of Western Europe – the same regions of the world which host the largest and most successful academic library markets. This is particularly the case with basic science, which depends largely on funding from governmental sources, the existence of a large and well trained academic scientific community based in universities (or in a very few cases government- sponsored research laboratories), and a competitive scientific culture that stresses research productivity for career advancement and prestige (Altbach, 1987). Only the large, research- oriented universities in the industrialized countries offer the expensive laboratories with modern equipment and access to libraries and technology required by advanced research in basic sciences.

This creates a centralized structure to an international knowledge network, as resource ownership influences decisions of what information is made available, by whom, and for what audiences. Participants in the global knowledge network vary widely, and include research scientists, university academics, non-profit think tanks, international NGOs, and government analysts. The level of participation in this network varies as well, with scholars in the major 6 industrialized countries having a significant advantage over their colleagues elsewhere in terms of forging connections with research funding agencies, journal editors, publishers, and other resource owners within the network. Levels of participation are somewhat connected with issues of resource distribution, as the majority of the world’s scholarly literature is published in the United States and Western Europe. The major publishers are located in a relatively small handful of industrialized countries, and market their products to the world’s largest academic and public library systems.

For scientists and academics in the developing world, this means that their research and analysis must be submitted to these publication outlets if they are to reach the widest international audience. Consequently, central and peripheral patterns can be seen throughout the network in terms of who participates. For example, academics in the United States attending a regional or national disciplinary conference typically find several publishers and editors in attendance, looking to cultivate relationships with cutting edge researchers whose work will help them sell more books or journal issues. Meanwhile, academics in such places as Thailand, Norway, or Zambia do not have similar levels of access to the resource owners in the knowledge network. Participation in this network thus depends increasingly on networking—the personal and professional contacts that are helpful to scientific advancement. Being at the center of scientific development is crucial to involvement in these informal networks (Altbach, 1987). Thus, scholars throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Eastern Europe (as well as the smaller countries of Western Europe) regularly seek opportunities to study abroad and develop collaborative relationships with colleagues in the United States or Britain.

In comparison, a recent study by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching revealed that faculty in the U.S. and U.K. were considerably less likely than faculty in other 7countries to feel it important to read books and journals published abroad, or to maintain connections with scholars in other countries (Altbach & Lewis: 1996; Forest, 2001). Clearly, non-Western scientists and academics are at a significant disadvantage, and are required to do more than their colleagues in the West to enable their effective participation in the global knowledge network. Finally, access to the global knowledge network is also unequally tied to geography. Users – individuals with a need or interest in the subject of the knowledge network – must find access points to that knowledge, whether that be a public or private library, an institution of higher education, a research institute, and so forth. Maintaining these access points for knowledge networks involves a range of social, political and economic factors, leading to considerable centralization within the network. For example, scholars in students in Botswana have considerably less access to many areas of knowledge than their counterparts in Europe or the United States. Indeed, scholarly books and journals are not readily accessible in developing countries, for obvious reasons of cost and resource limitations. Granted, in today’s world access to knowledge networks has become increasingly available through the Internet. However, this form of access is still relatively limited for those in peripheral geographic regions such as Sub- Saharan Africa or Central Asia.

The result of increased technological connections has yet to diminish the strength of existing central and peripheral structures in the global knowledge network – a topic which will be addressed later in this discussion. While it is true that access to the global knowledge network is directly linked to issues of resources, an equally important form of inequitable access to knowledge stems from the dominance of one language throughout the leading scientific and scholarly literature – English (McBee, 1985). The most widely studied foreign language in the world, English is also the most 8widely used second language, and in many countries, it is a required second language. 5 Influential journals and books, those that are read by scholars and scientists throughout the world and are cited by other scholars, are published in only a few “international” languages – usually English, and to a much lesser extent French and possibly German and Spanish – and communicate major discoveries in the academic and scientific disciplines. Publications printed in English invariably have greater circulation and sales than those published in, for example, Norwegian or Portuguese.

The dilemma is real for scientists and scholars of the many proud countries in which English is not the main language. Publishing in a leading scholarly journal has become a universal ‘coin of the realm’ in the academic profession, leaving those in peripheral countries little choice but to translate their articles into English and submit them to the review process of journals largely edited and published in the U.S. and U.K. – which, as described above, leads to significant disadvantages in terms of different research paradigms, levels of participation, and familiarity with leading research in the disciplines.

English is also the language of choice at most international scientific meetings and scholarly conferences (Altbach, 1987). In the education systems of many countries, English is used as the language of instruction, thus defining the language of textbooks used in those classrooms. As textbooks are one of the most common vehicles for transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next, the impact of language in this context is most significant. Scholars are thus faced with the challenge of presenting their work for journals, textbooks, and conference papers in English, and one can be sure that an individual’s proficiency in that language can dramatically impact (positively or negatively) the reception of others to their ideas (Crane, 1972). Thus, for a non-English-speaking academic professional, the dominance of English limits both access to knowledge and an individual’s ability to contribute to the body of knowledge in 9 their discipline. In both cases, this reinforces the peripheral nature of developing countries, but they are not alone.

While information is limited and libraries are few and poorly-endowed throughout the African continent, access to books and journals in wealthier countries of Scandinavia or Asia does not lessen the disadvantage of speaking and writing in English as a second or third language. Of course, developing countries like India or China have their own impressive and large scientific communities, universities and scholarly journals, but with very few of their academic colleagues in the West reading these journals or collaborating with them, the impact of their work and ideas often goes unnoticed outside their country’ borders (Garfield, 1983). A third type of inequitable differences in access comes in the form of knowledge ‘gatekeepers.’ As observed earlier, scientists and academics in the developing world must submit their research and analysis to journals and publishers in predominantly industrialized countries. These publications are generally edited by senior scholars and scientists in a small number of countries, and are typically employed by the most prestigious institutions within those countries (Silverman, 1976). Through their quality assurance function these editors serve as gatekeepers of knowledge, ensuring that the norms and paradigms that are influential in the academic and scientific systems of the United States and the major industrialized countries dominate the world (Coser, 1975; Altbach, 1987). Because of their critical role at the junction between author and reader, editors have a powerful role in determining the nature and direction of an academic field. Their intellectual orientation, research ideas or even ideological predisposition can be a significant influence on what is ultimately accepted for publication. The result is a centralization of control within virtually all scientific fields and academic disciplines over what will become viewed as legitimate knowledge.

Further centralization of this 10 knowledge legitimating function comes from the relatively high influence accorded to scholars working at the most prestigious laboratories and universities, or funded by the most prestigious philanthropic or government organizations. Thus, articles submitted by non-Western scholars are typically examined through the lens of research paradigms of Western colleagues whose familiarity with the discipline (and, in many cases, lack of familiarity with the regional or local context in which the author wrote the article) often leads to a different understanding of a text than the non-Western author intended. Some observers have argued that this (along with the issues of language described earlier) explains why a good deal of scientific knowledge generated by academic professionals in the developing world fails to reach a mainstream international audience (Garfield, 1983).

In sum, there are centers and peripheries in the worldwide organization of higher education. Figure 1 offers a visual representation of this organization, where the wealthy, industrialized nations of North America and Western Europe dominate the center, while scattered throughout the periphery are voices struggling to be heard. Figure 1: Centers and Peripheries in Higher Education: Distribution of Knowledge 11 The powerful universities of these countries have always dominated the production and distribution of knowledge, while weaker institutions and systems with fewer resources and lower academic standards have tended to follow in their wake. 6 This central and peripheral structure in the knowledge distribution network plays a powerful role in legitimating knowledge, and is not likely to decline in importance any time soon. The influence of this structural relationship in the global higher education landscape can also be seen at the policy and institutional levels.

Policy and International Dimensions From their position at the center of global knowledge networks, a relatively small handful of research-producing higher education institutions enjoy a dominant relationship over those at the periphery. The global organization of higher education is thus dominated by the curricular models, pedagogical approaches, governance structures, financing schemes, and perceptions of quality defined by colleges and universities in Western industrialized countries, particularly Australia, Great Britain, and the United States. For example, programs of study and degrees in business administration are relatively new in most countries, having been established in recent decades to prepare professionals for work in multinational corporations or in firms engaged in international commerce. 7 As Altbach (2003) and others have observed, the dominant pattern of these programs is the MBA degree—the American-style Master’s of Business Administration. The MBA originated as the primary way to prepare American students for work in U.S. business. Based on American curricular ideas and American business practices, a key part of many MBA programs is the case study.

Today, the MBA model has been widely copied in other countries, in most cases by local institutions but also by American academic institutions working with local partners or setting up their own campuses overseas. While the programs sometimes are modified 12 in keeping with the local context, the basic degree structure and curriculum remain fundamentally American in origin. 8 Western models of higher education are also prominent in the funding arena, where policies that encourage private higher education are emerging throughout Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin America. In many countries of these regions, private colleges and universities now outnumber public institutions. Within the last five years, the number of private colleges and universities in Malaysia has increased from around 100 to 690, while in Bangladesh almost 100 new private higher education institutions were established between 1998 and 2001. Over the same period, 46 new private institutions were established in Mongolia, 20 in Nepal, and 11 in Costa Rica. Within the last decade, 18 new private universities have been established in Paraguay, and in Kazakhstan, the number of private higher education institutions increased from 41 to 123 (UNESCO 2003). 9 At the same time, several countries have considerably decreased government support as a proportion of total revenue for public higher education.

One particularly interesting example is Australia, where universities now generate almost 50 percent of their total operating revenue through tuition fees charged to domestic and international students; external research grants; student contributions through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS); commercial activities; revenue from investments; and endowments and donations (UNESCO 2003). As a result, the Australian higher education system is now described officially by the Commonwealth Government as a “publicly subsidized” rather than a “publicly supported” system. It is increasingly the case worldwide that students will be expected to pay some form of registration and tuition fees. Shifting the burden of finances to students raises a variety of equity and access issues, particularly in developing countries throughout Africa, Asia and Latin 13 America. For example, interest rates on the repayment of student loans, and informal discrimination by institutions against students with loans, currently act as deterrents to many students.

However, the World Bank requires its client countries in the developing world to adopt a “user pays” approach, as part of an overall strategy to reduce total public spending in these regions. Overall, there is currently a worldwide movement towards privatization of higher education, reducing the university’s financial dependence on public resources and shifting more of the burden to the students and their families. The outcomes of treating the university as similar to other private enterprises have not always produced positive – for example, in New Zealand, the introduction of market forces into higher education has led to the bankruptcy of several higher-education institutions, a decrease in college enrollments from the country’s poorest areas, and stratification of the elementary and secondary system by race and socioeconomic status (Courturier, 2003). In addition to these funding patterns, institutions worldwide are increasingly challenged to demonstrate the quality of their efforts, sometimes with budgetary implications. For example, the passage of the Education Reform Act of 1988 in the UK dramatically changed the funding and governance relationship between Parliament and higher education, creating a University Funding Council whose resource allocation decisions are based upon performance assessments of institutional teaching and research quality.

In both the UK and the Netherlands, performance indicators have been used to rank university departments for the purpose of research funding, while in Finland, a new funding model implemented in 1997 incorporates a performance assessment component that constituted 3% of the entire university budget (UNESCO 2003). More significant than these examples, however, is the increasingly global trend of standardizing 14 quality assessment mechanisms along a uniquely American model of formal accreditation agencies.

During the 1990s, a number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe established accreditation agencies (modeled after agencies which have existed in the U.S. for decades). In Australia, the Australian Universities Quality Agency was established as a joint federal-state government initiative, with responsibility for academic audits of both universities and those state agencies responsible for the accreditation of private providers. In Thailand, the National Education Act of 1999 established an Office of Education Standards and Evaluation and mandated that all higher education institutions must be evaluated every five years. Similar legislation was passed in many Latin American countries, creating Argentina’s National Commission for Evaluation and Accreditation (CONEAU), Brazil’s National Education Council and Higher Education Board, Chile’s National Commission of Undergraduate Accreditation (CNAP), and Costa Rica’s National Accreditation System for Higher Education. While most countries in the Arab World have rich educational traditions and governmental agencies responsible for higher education, prior to the Arab Regional Conference on Higher Education (held in Beirut, 1998) Jordan was the only Arab country to have established an accreditation agency. The Beirut Conference opened a new era of interest in quality assurance in this region, culminating in a resolution to establish a regional quality assurance and accreditation program – under the auspices of the Association of the Arab Universities – and calling upon government leaders to establish similar mechanisms at the national level (UNESCO, 2003). Regional initiatives are taking hold in other parts of the world as well.

In Africa, while several countries have established national commissions for higher education, responsible for 15 accreditation and quality assurance, multinational organizations such as the South African Development Community (SADC) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) are serving a vital role in identifying common assessment indicators and standards for the recognition of studies and degrees. Similar activities are led by the Association of Caribbean Higher Education Administrators (ACHEA) for countries in that region. In Europe, almost all countries have established national agencies and systems for the assessment of quality in higher education, and many of these are working together to foster broad cooperation in the development of regional standards and procedures for quality assurance. In June 1999, the ministers of education of some 30 European countries signed the “Bologna Declaration” the aim of which is to establish a European perspective in higher education and adopt a standardized system of credentials and degree qualifications. And perhaps the most ambitious global assessment initiative to date, Universitas 21, headquartered at the University of Melbourne, brings together a group of comparably-sized public universities from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States to accredit each other and share external examiners.

Overall, there are a wide variety of views concerning the definition of quality in higher education and how to ensure it. At one end of the spectrum surrounding this debate are those who feel that what is needed is an internationally developed and agreed-upon set of standards for measuring the quality of all the world’s universities. The European Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (ENQA) is a prominent example of a multinational initiative to develop a framework for assessing quality in higher education. The Asia Pacific Quality Network and the ASEAN University Network are in the process of developing common quality criteria, appointing chief quality officers in member institutions, strengthening national statistics 16 collection and analysis, and achieving an overall higher degree of compatibility between national sets of performance quality indicators (UNESCO, 2003).

Opposed to the regional/global standardization perspective of these initiatives are those who feel that the cultural and geographic uniqueness of a nation’s higher education system, and its relationship to meeting the needs of the local and regional society, defy broad standardization. Proponents of this view highlight the importance of measuring the relevance of a university education, and call for an examination of academic programs and degrees offered by institutions to ensure that the workforce needs of the country will be met by graduates in those programs. Leaders in many countries are particularly concerned with overcoming current shortages of specialists for the knowledge and information industries and ensuring that all graduates have at least basic competencies in the use of information technology. In Europe, the Bologna Declaration states as one of its main objectives the promotion of the employability of European graduates. Policymakers are also concerned with ensuring that degrees and diplomas awarded by their country’s universities will be recognized by governments, universities, and employers in other countries.

The issue of international recognition is also becoming increasingly important in the age of multinational corporations and globalization. Overall, from the perspective of centers and peripheries, it becomes clear that the genesis of these patterns is a fundamentally Western conception of academic quality. Figure 2 provides a visual representation of these patterns, where models developed by institutions at the center are adopted by those at the peripheries. 17 Figure 2: Centers and Peripheries in Higher Education: Models of Curriculum, Financing and Accreditation This pattern, by extension, marginalizes non-Western conceptions of curriculum, financing, assessment, and quality. Hence, colleges and universities – and the ideas they offer – are seen as less attractive by members of their local societies. This bias in favor of Western higher education is clearly reflected in global patterns of student and faculty migration, where those at the periphery migrate to the center.

The Brain Drain Dimension Studies of global student and faculty mobility often refer to the concept of “brain drain,” generally defined as a migration of talented and competent workers who leave their home country to live and work abroad. The primary pattern of global brain drain migration involves movement from developing countries (particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America) to industrially developed countries (primarily Australia, Western Europe and the United States). 18 This movement is sometimes temporary – for example, a doctor from a developing country may travel abroad to acquire first-hand knowledge of medical practices in industrialized countries, with the intention of returning and working to improve practices in his home country. However, if this doctor decides to stay in the developed country – perhaps to enjoy higher wages, more personal freedoms, or an overall higher standard of living – then one can describe this as an example of the global brain drain phenomenon. Clearly, the migration patterns which frame this discussion have important global public policy implications, especially for the developing countries that continually lose the best and brightest members of their labor pool. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) estimates that around 750,000 highly trained professionals from developing countries live and work in industrially developed countries each year. Two recent reports by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) indicate that Africa has lost nearly a third of its skilled professionals over the last decade.

Their research suggests that each year about 20,000 professionals leave Africa, emigrating to the developed countries of Western Europe and North America. This pattern is similar in the developing countries of Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe. (UNESCO, 2003). For example, recent studies have shown that migration to the U.S. has taken a large share of the most educated proportion of the workforce from El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, and Mexico (Adams, 2003). While these countries lose their best and brightest, the developed countries benefit considerably from the global brain drain phenomenon. For example, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 25% of all highly skilled workers in Australia are foreign-born. Similar figures are seen in Canada (close to 20%) and the United States (nearly 10%) among those employed in highly skilled jobs (OECD, 2003). 19 According to the 2002 U.S. Census, 28% of the foreign born population age 25 years or older had attained at least a bachelor’s degree; of these, nearly 50% were from Asia, 22% from Latin America, and 20% from Europe. Given the abundance of research on human capital theory, indicating that higher education levels contribute to greater workforce productivity, the overall impact of these trends is considerably beneficial for the industrially-developed countries. In addition to work-related migration, higher education plays an important role in the global brain drain phenomenon. According to UNESCO, nearly 1.5 million academic professionals annually study or teach in countries other than their own. Like work-related migration, the primary trend involves individuals moving from less-developed countries to those with highly developed education systems. The U.S. and Western Europe host the majority of foreign academic researchers.

According to the Institute for International Education (IIE), over 84,000 international scholars lived and worked in the United States during the 2002-2003 academic year, and nearly 18% of them were from China (IIE, 2003). Even larger numbers are seen among international student migration patterns. According to studies by UNESCO (2003), at the turn of the millennium more than 1.6 million foreign students were enrolled in a college or university outside their home country. More than three- quarters of them came to one of only ten countries: the United States (with more than 30 percent of all foreign students), France (more than 11 percent), Germany (about 10 percent), the United Kingdom (about 9 percent), the Russian Federation (about 5 percent), Japan (around 3.5 percent), Australia (about 3 percent), Canada (close to 2.5 percent), Belgium (just under 2.5 percent) and Switzerland (about 2 percent). The primary source of these international students include many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Students with considerable promise in developing countries are recruited by colleges and universities in the developed countries, and 20 after graduation these highly skilled individuals often have little difficulty finding employment and other reasons that far outweigh the attraction of returning to their impoverished country of origin.

It is also common for wealthy elites in developing countries to send their children to school abroad, given widespread dissatisfaction with the educational systems and opportunities available at home. Many observers view study abroad as a student’s first step toward resettling abroad permanently. Each year about a third of them come to one country – the United States. On average, over a half-million foreign students annually spend 3-5 years in the U.S. in undergraduate and graduate degree programs, and estimates indicate that about one-third of them do not return to their home countries (World Bank, 2002). Over half of the international students in the U.S. study are enrolled in business and management, engineering, mathematics, and computer science programs (IIE, 2003) – programs which are widely considered to provide the necessary credentials for highly-skilled professions. And according to data collected by the National Science Foundation (NSF), at the turn of the century over 26% of all science and engineering doctoral degrees in the U.S. were held by foreigners, and over half of all doctoral degrees awarded to foreign-born students were in civil engineering (NSF, 2000). In sum, the primary (though not exclusive) migration patterns which frame the global brain drain phenomenon involve the movement of highly talented workers, academics and students from developing countries to industrially developed countries.

Patterns of Student and Faculty Migration

The reasons for this migration include a variety of motivators (generally, the search for a better life) and facilitators (like globalization, transportation, and the liberalization of immigration policies in developing countries). Motivators: Generally speaking, there are two kinds of forces behind global workforce migration – the “push” dimension (reasons for which someone would want to leave their home country) and the “pull” dimension (reasons why an individual would be attracted towards living and working in a particular country other than their own). As there are many types of professionals within the highly skilled category of migrants, the push and pull factors for their migration are various (Mahroum, 1999). Discussions of brain drain often account for such factors as governmental policies, economic and social environment, scientific infrastructure, academic freedom, and the climate for entrepreneurship – factors that are seen as contributing to the migratory motivations of highly skilled individuals.

Push factors may include war, political or religious oppression, famine, disease, climate, inadequate scientific infrastructure, economic collapse, ethnic persecution, and poverty. Educational opportunities to attend a college or university in a developing country are clearly 22 limited, compared to those in developed countries. According to figures provided by the World Bank, higher education enrollment in developed countries is roughly five to six times that of developing countries. Less than half of the countries on the African continent have literacy rates above 50%, and most are well under 80%. At the turn of the century, only a third of African children of appropriate age were enrolled in secondary school (World Bank, 2002). Not only do brain drain participants consider their own future when considering leaving their home country; many have families, and want the best for their children. The education and health systems of many developing countries are abysmal compared to those elsewhere, and bright, talented individuals are the most likely members of a country’s population to recognize this. Pull factors include a variety of economic, social and educational opportunities available outside one’s home country. For example, industrially developed countries offer a variety of political and social freedoms, greater earnings potential, and intellectual opportunities virtually unseen in developing countries. As a general dissatisfaction with local conditions in their home countries sharpens people’s desire for something better, the global spread of access to information has allowed them to see more clearly the alternatives to what their home countries have to offer. In essence, pull factors can cover a wide spectrum of tangible and intangible perceived benefits that one can derive from relocating to another country.

Facilitators: Beyond an individual’s motivations for seeking better fortunes abroad, a variety of facilitators (particularly in the realms of transportation and immigration policy) have contributed to the global brain drain phenomenon. For example, the evolution of air transportation has had an increasingly important enabling effect on global migration patterns. Several decades ago, purchasing an airline ticket from Nigeria or Malaysia to the United States or Europe was prohibitively expensive except for the very well off. Today, many families of 23 even the lower middle classes are able to take advantage of modern means of global transportation.

Unfortunately, observers have noticed a consistent pattern in many countries, wherein those families who have achieved a significant modicum of socio-economic success are also those who can best afford to send their children abroad (and to pay for a university education in the United States or Western Europe), and are more likely to do so rather than encourage their children to remain at home and contribute to the development of their country. Thus, a common observation is that more often than not, the brain drain phenomenon involves a drain on the developing country’s elite.

Another important facilitator for the global brain drain can be seen in the immigration policies of several industrially developed countries, which are in many cases designed to encourage talented personnel to migrate and establish residency. As described earlier, research clearly shows that industrialized countries have much to gain from the immigration of academically talented individuals, which helps explain their active promotion of these migration patterns.

For example, During the mid-1990s, the United States increased the 65,000 annual quota for the H-1b visa program through which individuals can get a visa to work in an occupation requiring at least a bachelor’s degree for up to six years. Subsequently, 48% of all H- 1b certifications issued have been for computer-related or electrical engineering positions (NSF, 2002). Overall, there is considerable evidence that U.S. immigration policies, and the influx of highly-skilled foreign workers resulting from these policies, have indirectly contributed to this country’s central role in the information technology revolution of the last two decades. These and other facilitating dimensions of the global brain drain have helped the industrialized countries maintain their already overwhelming advantage in the scientific and scholarly knowledge networks of the world. The renewal of links between academics who 24 migrate and their countries of origin may mitigate this situation somewhat, but the fact remains that developing countries find themselves at a disadvantage in the global academic labor market (Altbach, 2003). Clearly, then, the results of these migration patterns – and the motivators and facilitators which contribute to them – have important implications for maintaining the West’s central role in the global organization of higher education. Government leaders in the developing world face enormous challenges to curbing the brain drain. Political freedoms, rule of law, economic infrastructure, health and education policies - these are just a few of the dimensions that must be addressed in order to convince the best and brightest to stay home and contribute to the development of their countries.

While improving governance and resolving conflict is perhaps the most basic necessity for developing countries to stem the adverse effects of the brain drain, clearly these countries will not be able to accomplish their development agendas without investing in their people. Persuading would-be leaders to stay, or at least return, may be a developing country’s only hope for getting out of their economic, social and political quagmire. The retention of academic professionals in developing countries requires improved governance in higher education institutions, greater intellectual opportunities, higher professional salaries, and better working conditions. Countries must also provide incentives such as academic freedom, support for international collaboration, and enhanced job security, in order to lure back and retain their most talented scientists and engineers (Altbach, 2003).

Clearly, the brain drain is an important phenomenon which requires further study at the local and national level. The problems are deep and complex and will undoubtedly frame patterns of knowledge and wealth distribution for the foreseeable future. These patterns are further exacerbated by the role of globalization in changing the worldwide higher education landscape. 25 The Globalization Dimension Globalization is a phenomenon which significantly impacts higher education and to which universities and college contribute, particularly in the economic, technological, and scientific realms of activity. As international trends reveal, globalization impacts university policies in three of the most important dimensions – funding, access, and quality assurance. While funding for higher education has traditionally been the responsibility of national governments, a worldwide shift toward privatization – particularly involving dramatic increases in the proportion of funding contributed by the students and their families – is having the effect of most any other market; viewing students as clients transforms universities into an entity requiring increasingly sophisticated marketing and sales techniques to attract and retain loyal, paying customers. And as this higher education market has become increasingly international, students are seeking a quality return on their investment, even if this means attending a university in another part of the world. Asian students are by far the largest group of students studying abroad worldwide, largely because their national leaders have failed to provide adequate access to a quality university education at home.

The resulting increased demand for Western higher education has fueled a global expansion of the central role of institutions like Harvard and Oxford. In other words, globalization is exacerbating the central and peripheral organization of higher education, and increasing Western dominance over the peripheries. This is occurring through a variety of means, including foreign campuses, franchising, and the Internet. Foreign Campuses: A small number of prestigious American universities are establishing campuses worldwide, usually in popular professional fields such as business administration. For example, the University of Chicago’s business school now has a 26 campus in Spain, offering Chicago degrees to students from Spain and other European countries using the standard Chicago curriculum, taught mostly by Chicago faculty members, but with an international focus (Altbach, 2003). The government of Singapore has been noticeably active in soliciting branch campuses and programs from prestigious foreign institutions like the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. Also, a number of U.S.-sponsored universities have been established in Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Bulgaria, with strong links to American universities (including supervision by their U.S. partners and accreditation in the United States) and a U.S.-based curriculum, delivered with English as the language of instruction.

Franchising: Sometimes foreign academic degree programs are simply “franchised” by local institutions. The foreign university lends its name and curriculum, providing some (often quite limited) supervision and quality control to a local academic institution or perhaps business firm (Altbach, 2003). The local institution is then given the right to grant a degree of the foreign institution to local students. Obviously, these arrangements can lead to a good deal of controversy over the notion of academic quality and institutional integrity. Online Initiatives: The Internet offers an increasing array of opportunities for non-Western students to obtain a degree from a Western institution of higher education. Distance learning programs of all shapes and sizes are available, from technical or vocational degrees to advanced graduate degrees in a variety of fields. As with other symptoms of inequality, only those wealthy institutions at the center of the global organization of higher education can afford to offer such programs, and only those countries wealthy enough to provide a robust technical infrastructure for Internet-based 27 knowledge exchanges can ensure their institutions are “plugged in,” further solidifying the relatively peripheral dimension of non-Western colleges and universities.

Through these and other means, globalization is strengthening existing patterns of center and periphery in the worldwide organization of higher education. Globalization of Western higher education is also facilitating the dominance of English – already the dominant language of commerce – as the language through which all worthwhile ideas are shared. As indicated earlier, the largest number of international students go to universities in English-speaking countries (Altbach, 2003). English is the language of the most prominent academic systems—including those of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand—all of which enroll large numbers of overseas students. Countries like Singapore, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka as well as much of Anglophone Africa use English as a primary language of instruction. 10 Other countries—from Azerbaijan and Bulgaria to Krgyzistan and Malaysia—are increasingly offering academic programs in English, in large part to attract international students unwilling to learn the local language and to improve the English-language skills of domestic students and thus enable them to work in an international arena. 11 Overall, just as in other spheres, we are seeing the spreading influence of Western models and ideas. Figure 4 offers a visual representation of this pattern of enlarging influence. 28  Figure 4: Centers, Peripheries, and Globalization: Increasing Western Dominance in Higher Education This diagram represents an enlarging center, driven by globalization and absorbing peripheries as it expands. This visual conception can apply to the increasingly dominant role of the English language in commerce, education and scientific research; the dominance of Western-oriented models of higher education (including curriculum, finance, and accreditation); the increasingly dominant role of Western “central” higher education institutions (and their faculty) as gatekeepers in the global knowledge network; and the impact of global migration patterns, in which the brightest students and faculty from “peripheral” states move toward the center, providing greater mass to the center and thus increasing dominance over the peripheries.

History shows that the export of educational institutions and the linking of institutions from different countries generally represented a union of unequals (Altbach, 2003). In almost all cases, the institution from the outside dominated the local institution, or the new institution was based on foreign ideas and nonindigenous values. The same is true in the 21st century. When institutions or initiatives are exported from one country to another, academic models, curricula, and programs from the more powerful academic system prevail. Thus, linkages between Australian and Malaysian institutions aimed at setting up new academic institutions in Malaysia 29 are always designed by Australian institutions. Rarely, if ever, do academic innovations emanate from the periphery to the center (Altbach, 2003). 12 Concluding Observations In sum, an analysis of global patterns in the distribution of knowledge reveals a stark reality of centers and peripheries, patterns which frame a host of challenges and inequities for participants in academe .

Economists Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik, among others, have argued that in some respects globalization works against the interests of developing countries in some ways reinforcing international inequalities (Stiglitz, 2002; Rodrik, 1997; Rodrik, 1999). 13 This paper contributes to the discussion on international inequalities by offering four observations on the central and peripheral nature of the global higher education, through which Western institutions and perceptions dominate those at the peripheries.

1). Western dominance in higher education impacts the global distribution of knowledge. Patterns of centers and peripheries throughout the global knowledge network play a dominant role in shaping the resources for production and distribution of knowledge products, participation within the network, and access to the knowledge legitimated by the network. This hierarchy of knowledge production and dissemination, involving key academic institutions, laboratories and prestigious journals, is dominated by the wealthiest countries and institutions, affecting the ability of intellectuals in peripheral states to participate effectively in – and contribute to – the knowledge network within their field or discipline. Resources are not the sole obstacle for moving an institution or a country from the periphery toward the center of the global knowledge network. For example, foreign assistance has been 30 lavished for decades on institutions such as the University of Nairobi or Kuwait University, resulting in dramatic infrastructure improvements, but no real significant impact on their relative impact in the global knowledge network. Thus, for a variety of reasons that include economics, politics, and language, academic institutions in peripheral countries are unlikely to become new international centers of scientific discovery and intellectual achievements.

Poor countries will remain poor, lacking the resources to develop an advanced scientific research capability.

2). Western dominance in higher education contributes to the spread of common models of curriculum, university finance, and assessment/accreditation. From their position at the center of global knowledge networks, a relatively small handful of research-producing higher education institutions enjoy a dominant relationship over those at the periphery. The global organization of higher education is thus dominated by the curricular models, pedagogical approaches, governance structures, financing schemes, and perceptions of quality defined by colleges and universities in Western industrialized countries, particularly Australia, Great Britain, and the United States. Examples include the growing adoption of American-based MBA degree programs and the worldwide movement towards privatization of higher education, reducing the university’s financial dependence on public resources and shifting more of the burden to the students and their families. Further, the increasingly global trend of standardizing quality assessment mechanisms along a uniquely American model of formal accreditation agencies is symbolic of the widespread assumption that definitions of academic quality developed by institutions in the center should be adopted by those at the periphery.

3). Western dominance in higher education also influences student and faculty mobility patterns. The primary pattern of global brain drain migration involves movement from developing countries at the periphery (particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America) to industrially developed countries in the center (primarily Australia, Western Europe and the United States). Factors such as governmental policies, economic and social environment, scientific infrastructure, academic freedom, and the climate for entrepreneurship contribute to the migratory motivations of highly skilled individuals, but the primary direction of this migration involves individuals moving from less-developed countries to those with highly developed education systems. Further, an alarming percentage of these individuals do not return to their countries of origin, choosing to remain in the center rather than return to the periphery, and thus enlarging the center’s available reservoir of knowledge workers.

4). Western dominance in higher education is being strengthened by forces of globalization. Increased demand for Western higher education has fueled a global expansion of the central role of North American and Western European institutions in the global higher education landscape. In other words, globalization is exacerbating the central and peripheral organization of higher education, and increasing Western dominance over the peripheries. This is occurring through a variety of means, including foreign campuses, franchising, and the Internet. Globalization of Western higher education is also facilitating the dominance of English – already the dominant language of commerce – as the language through which all worthwhile ideas are shared. 32 These four observations frame a continued Western dominance in higher education, supported by knowledge “gatekeepers,” global migration patterns, and a variety of avenues through which Western models of higher education (including privatization and accreditation agencies) are being exported.

From this perspective, a number of future projections emerge, some which may have implications for U.S. foreign policy and public diplomacy efforts.

1. Continued Western dominance in higher education is good for the United States. Through their quality assurance function, journal and book editors serve as gatekeepers of knowledge, ensuring that the norms and paradigms that are influential in the academic and scientific systems of the United States and the major industrialized countries will continue to dominate the academic world. Industrialized countries have a vested interest in securing the continued dominance of the knowledge creators and knowledge distributors within their boundaries (Altbach, 1987). Western dominance in higher education is also intimately connected to global economic relationships. In fact, it can be argued that economic hegemony will require maintaining Western dominance in higher education. Patterns of global migration which benefit the U.S. knowledge industries will by extension keep other countries weak and underdeveloped

2. Maintaining the gatekeeper function in the global knowledge network ensures the hegemony of Western ideas, values, and interests. The structure of centers and peripheries in the global knowledge network defines the textbooks we teach from, informs policymaking at the local, national and global level, and shapes the development and acceptance of new knowledge. The result is a centralization of control within virtually all scientific fields and academic disciplines over what will become viewed as legitimate knowledge. These “gatekeepers” of the 33 global knowledge network serve a vital function in providing quality control, helping to separate useful knowledge from information resources of questionable value. Few students (or their parents) have much interest in academic programs that are not seen as transmitting legitimate knowledge. Indeed, what is taught in most colleges and universities worldwide is usually dictated by faculty (often in collaboration with senior institutional administrators) based on their perceptions of legitimate versus illegitimate knowledge in their academic disciplines. Thus, the nature of teaching, research and scholarship are all greatly influenced by the central and peripheral structures of the global knowledge network. New forms of knowledge evolve into a central and peripheral structure because of the way we legitimate knowledge. As new fields of study evolve, the need for establishing its legitimacy in the global intellectual environment necessitates the identification of a central group of “experts” in this new area of knowledge. These are most likely to be legitimized by their position at central (rather than peripheral) institutions. And as the number and diversity of faculty participating in this new subject grows, peripheries are formed which look to the group at the center for intellectual direction and recognition.

3. Increasingly marginalizing the “other” (e.g., non-Western ideas, models, languages, etc.) may contribute to future global conflict. Despite the benefits of maintaining Western dominance in higher education, foreign policies which result from a protectionist/expansionist approach bring intentional and unintentional disadvantages for educational institutions and publishers in the developing world. This, in turn, fosters resentment, disenfranchisement, and in some cases outright hostility to many things of Western origin. As non-Western ideas are marginalized by central-peripheral relationships in the global knowledge network, we should not 34 be surprised by growing hostility among non-Westerners toward Western ideas of democracy, academic freedom, the separation of church and state, and religious pluralism, among many others. If one accepts the view that terrorism is a strategic reaction to the spread of Western (and particularly American) ideals and influence, then the salience of this discussion becomes clear. At the very least, underestimating the impact of globalization in higher education on those in the periphery – particularly in peripheral states which may play a prominent role in the global war on terror – undermines our efforts to find ways to address the root problems behind global terrorism.

These few ideas, linking the central and peripheral organization of the global knowledge network with rising anger towards the West, clearly require further exploration. But more generally, there are a variety of advantages to be gained from understanding the impact of centers and peripheries in the global organization of higher education. Whether or not you embrace the notion that inequality is a good or bad thing, understanding these trends and patterns helps us to sort out political relations among peoples, states, and other institutions seemingly unrelated to higher education. This understanding allows us to better recognize how non-Western cultures view the West as a threat to their way of life, which has implications for political, diplomatic, economic, and other arenas of international relations.

Finally, we must also come to recognize our own research and knowledge biases. Understanding the world of knowledge in terms of central and peripheral participants helps us become aware of our own intellectual biases and prejudices that may prevent objective analyses of new ideas. The degree to which we can overcome the biases shaped by centers and peripheries in the global knowledge network will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on our ability to respond to the complex challenges of today and tomorrow with increasing sophistication and success.

Source - All Academic