ISI KANDUNGAN Bil 6/2021
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ISI KANDUNGAN Bil 6/2021 Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh dan Salam Sejahtera YBhg. Datuk/ Datin / Prof/ Tuan/ Puan SDI@PTAR adalah salah satu perkhidmatan penyebaran maklumat terpilih yang disediakan oleh Perpustakaan Tun Abdul Razak, UiTM Shah Alam untuk ahli Mesyuarat Senat UiTM. Perkhidmatan ini bertujuan untuk menyalurkan maklumat terbaharu mengenai isu-isu semasa di dalam dan luar negara yang memberi nilai tambah serta impak kepada pengajaran, pembelajaran dan penyelidikan UiTM ke arah menjadi Universiti Terkemuka Dunia. Untuk keluaran kali ini, SDI@PTAR menampilkan artikel teks penuh mengenai University Transformation. Diharapkan maklumat ini memberi manfaat kepada YBhg. Datuk/ Datin/ Prof/ Tuan/ Puan. Sebarang cadangan dan maklumbalas mengenai perkhidmatan ini boleh disalurkan kepada En. Mohd Ismail bin Abidin, Timbalan Ketua Pustakawan (e-mel [email protected]) dan Puan Nik Zatihulwani binti Jamaludin, Pustakawan, (e-mel [email protected]), Bahagian Penyelidikan, Pembelajaran dan Rujukan, Perpustakaan Tun Abdul Razak, UiTM Shah Alam. Sekian. Terima kasih. Bahagian Penyelidikan, Pembelajaran & Rujukan Jabatan Perkhidmatan Perpustakaan Perpustakaan Tun Abdul Razak Utama UiTM Shah Alam Bil 6/2021 ISI KANDUNGAN BIL. TAJUK SUMBER h-INDEX PENULIS 1 Does the Asian catch-up model of world- Educational 11 Lee, J., Liu, K., Wu, Y. class universities work? Revisiting the zero- Research for University at Buffalo, The sum game of global university rankings and Policy and State University of New York, government policies Practice Buffalo, United States #346 World University Ranking 2 Comprehensive Internationalization in the Higher 2 Sanders, J.S. Pursuit of ‘World-Class’ Status: A Cross-Case Education Temple University, Japan Analysis of Singapore’s Two Flagship Policy Campus, Tokyo, Japan Universities #301-350 World University Ranking 3 Engineering a World Class University? The Higher 2 Fu, Y.-C., Baker, D.P., Zhang, Impact of Taiwan’s World Class University Education L. Project on Scientific Productivity Policy National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan #488 World University Ranking Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh dan Salam Sejahtera YBhg. Datuk/ Datin / Prof/ Tuan/ Puan Bil 6/2021 Does the Asian catch-up model of world-class universities work? Revisiting the zero-sum game of global university rankings and government policies Educational Research for Policy and Practice https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-020-09261-x ORIGINAL ARTICLE Does the Asian catch-up model of world-class universities work? Revisiting the zero-sum game of global university rankings and government policies Jaekyung Lee1 · Keqiao Liu2 · Yin Wu3 Received: 31 October 2019 / Accepted: 6 March 2020 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 Abstract This study examines international brain race for world-class universities as measured by the QS World University Rankings (QS) and the Academic Ranking of World Universities, particularly in the context of Asian nations’ institutional competition and benchmarking against American counterparts. Applying mixed methods with statistical analysis of time- series data from 59 nations and case study of four selected nations, the study examines the cross-national trends of global university rankings and the roles of government policies during the era of performance-driven accountability in higher education. Tracking the zero- sum game of global university rankings over the past decade, the study accounts for key driving factors that produced divergent trajectories among the nations: how and why the USA as established leader and Japan as early catch-up leader become losers, whereas China and Korea as fast followers become winners? Although the Asian catch-up model of world-class university development, high-stakes institutional competitions and targeted funding with STEM priorities contributed to their rapid growth of research productivity and rankings, it reveals major limitations and problems. Drawing cross-national lessons and implications, we discuss new directions of higher education policies and global university ranking measures. Keywords Higher education · University rankings · World-class universities · Accountability · Research productivity Growing competition in the new global knowledge-based economy is accompanied by an international brain race in higher education, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. In the midst of an international brain race, global university rankings became more visible and affected government policies in higher education (Hazelkorn 2015). Particularly, policymakers in China, Japan, and South Korea (Korea in short hereafter), where B Jaekyung Lee [email protected] 1 Graduate School of Education, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA 2 School of Public Finance and Public Administration, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, China 3 Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada 123 J. Lee et al. their research universities were viewed as key driving forces of economic development, focused on improving the performance of their higher education systems as measured by international university rankings such as the Times Higher Education (THE), the QS World University Rankings (QS), and the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). Using American or other Western top-tier research universities as benchmarks, those Asian countries made strategic investment in higher education with STEM priorities toward the goal of building or adding more of their own world-class universities (Altbach 2004; Paul and Long 2016;SadlakandCai2009; Yonezawa and Shimmi 2016). Among the top-ranked universities in East Asian countries, there have been significant changes in the global university rankings of those in China, Japan, and Korea since early 2000s (see Table 1). Over the period of 2003–2013, for example, the number of Japanese universities in the top 500 as ranked by ARWU dropped from 36 to 20, whereas the number of corresponding Korean and Chinese universities in the top 500 increased from 8 to 11 and from 9 to 28, respectively, in the same period. At the same time, the number of US universities in the ARWU top 500 ranks dropped from 161 to 149. While the dominance of both American and Japanese universities has weakened, the representation of other Asian universities, particularly from China and Korea, has increased rapidly. Previous studies did not examine nuanced differences among these Asian nations in their policy strategies and funding priorities for developing world-class universities based on their initially different positions in the global university ranking systems. Our study focused on the comparison of three East Asian nations that include Japan as an early catch-up leader and China and Korea as fast followers, all of which benchmarked their progress against world-class American research universities as established leaders. The purposes of this study were to understand the international trends of global university rankings and contributing factors, specifically, the role of performance-driven, high-stakes accountability policy and funding toward building world-class universities (see Table 1). Given the zero-sum game of university ranking trends, this study also discussed why the Asian universities’ ranking advances are restricted largely among top 200 and 500 levels (but not 100 level) and what these rapidly grown Chinese, Japanese, and Korean universities are still missing in comparison with established competitive universities in the USA. The study would help understand the effects and limitations of Asian catch-up model for world-class universities and inform discussion about the improvement of higher education policy and university ranking systems. 1 Review of prior research and policy issues On the one hand, prior research raised questions about the validity of international univer- sity rankings such as ARWU as well as domestic rankings such as US News. The ranking measures have been criticized for favoring universities with reputations (so-called academic beauty contests) and rewarding institutions with expensive research programs and sponsored research activities (Safon 2013; Volkweinand Grunig 2005). Moreover, the current university ranking measures tend to ignore or undervalue the importance of teaching quality and student learning outcomes (Liu and Cheng 2005; National Research Council 2012). In response to the university rankings, institutions tend to change resource allocations (Kim 2018). Private universities typically respond more quickly to market-like competition pressures that do their public counterparts, and those strategic behaviors such as globalization efforts tend to achieve higher status in world rankings systems such as the ARWU (Cantwell and Taylor 2013;Tay- lor and Cantwell 2014). While global and domestic university rankings continue to influence 123 Does the Asian catch-up model of world-class universities… Table 1 Snapshots of changes in world-class university rankings, research citations, R&D expenditures, and government policies among China, Japan, Korea, and the USA China Japan Korea USA Top 500 world-class university Up from 9 (in 2003) to 28 (in Down from 36 (in 2003) to 20 Up from 8 (in 2003) to 11 (in Down from 161 (in 2003) to counts, ARWU 2003–2013 2013) (in 2013) 2013) 149 (in 2013) Top 500 world-class university Up from 13 (in 2008) to 19 (in Down from 29 (in 2008) to 17 Up from 11 (in 2008) to 14 (in Down from 109 (in 2008) to