Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds]On: 19 October 2014, At: 05:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Compare: A Journal of Comparativeand International EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20
Globalization and higher education inSouthern California: views from theprofessoriatePeter A. Weldon a , Jevdet Rexhepi a , ChenWei Chang a , LaurenJones a , Lucas Arribas Layton a , Amy Liu a , Susan McKibben a ,Greg Misiaszek a , Liliana Olmos a , Amy Quon a & Carlos AlbertoTorres aa Graduate School of Education and Information Studies ,University of California , Los Angeles, USAPublished online: 17 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: Peter A. Weldon , Jevdet Rexhepi , ChenWei Chang , Lauren Jones , LucasArribas Layton , Amy Liu , Susan McKibben , Greg Misiaszek , Liliana Olmos , Amy Quon & CarlosAlberto Torres (2011) Globalization and higher education in Southern California: views from theprofessoriate, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 41:1, 5-24, DOI:10.1080/03057925.2010.532360
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2010.532360
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
CompareVol. 41, No. 1, January 2011, 5–24
ISSN 0305-7925 print/ISSN 1469-3623 online© 2011 British Association for International and Comparative EducationDOI: 10.1080/03057925.2010.532360http://www.informaworld.com
Globalization and higher education in Southern California: views from the professoriate
Peter A. Weldon, Jevdet Rexhepi, ChenWei Chang, Lauren Jones, Lucas Arribas Layton, Amy Liu, Susan McKibben, Greg Misiaszek, Liliana Olmos, Amy Quon and Carlos Alberto Torres*
Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, USATaylor and FrancisCCOM_A_532360.sgm10.1080/03057925.2010.532360Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education0305-7925 (print)/1469-3623 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis4110000002010Professor Carlos [email protected]
In this study, faculty at institutions of higher education in Southern Californiawere surveyed to determine the ways they interpret the effects of globalizationdynamics upon their various teaching and research activities. Faculty in the state’sthree higher education tiers spoke positively about the intellectual benefits to begained by exposure to different worldviews made possible by an increasinglydiverse faculty and student body. Divisions were noted among the different tiers,however, with respect to their disparate levels of engagement with the privatesector. The private sector was seen as having a negative impact upon the publicsector’s research agenda while simultaneously being embraced by faculty at thecommunity colleges. Faculty at the research institutions were typically critical ofthe overarching neoliberal paradigm and spoke in political terms about the waysthis largely economic-efficiency model was reorienting their teaching and researchroles.
Keywords: globalization; higher education; USA; information technologies;autonomy; funding
Introduction1
Globalization has emerged as one of the key social, political, and economic forces ofthe twenty-first century, challenging national borders, long-established institutions ofgovernance, and cultural norms and behaviors across the globe. While many believethe process has been underway for centuries, what is clear is that it has both acceler-ated and broadened its reach in the past two decades (Torres 2009a, 2009b). Althougha large body of research has examined the effects of globalization within economic,political, and social spheres, less attention has been given to the realm of highereducation.2 This study explores some of the ways globalization has inflected thedynamic relationships among higher education, states, and markets. In doing so,insights may be gained into the vast, complex, and political issue of educationalquality within California’s multicultural higher education classrooms.
The implications of the study are of a critical importance in light of California’scurrent fiscal crisis. What role have information technologies played in advancingresearch and teaching? Within the California higher education context, how hasfaculty autonomy been impacted by neoliberally-oriented education policies? To
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
6 P.A. Weldon et al.
what extent do faculty believe discussions of a political nature are relevant withinthe classroom? How do faculty perceive reductions in funding from the publicsector as impacting the university and do they believe there are positive outcomes ofsuch reductions? These are some of the questions with which this investigation isconcerned. The study takes an exploratory approach to analyzing how globalizationis perceived by faculty at the assistant, associate and full-professor levels. A diversesample of participants was sought for the purposes of providing a wide range offaculty perspectives. Rather than providing a detailed analysis of the ways global-ization is impacting faculty in California’s three-tiered higher education structure,the study offers an overview of some of the ways these dynamics have beenperceived by faculty with respect to their various teaching, research, and otheracademic work.
Higher education in California
California’s public higher education sector is one of the largest, most comprehensive,and most distinguished in the USA. Its three tiers include the University of California(Tier I), California State University (Tier II), and California Community Colleges(Tier III). The 10 branches of the University of California, 23 California Statecampuses, 109 community colleges, and 117 accredited private institutions serveover three million students a year (California Postsecondary Education Commission2008). Annually, the University of California serves more than 208,000 students, theCalifornia State University more than 400,000, and the California Communitycolleges more than 2.5 million. Private higher education caters to an additional300,000 students per year. The private colleges and universities are accredited by theWestern Association of School and Colleges (California Postsecondary EducationCommission 2008).
For the past half century, California’s public universities and colleges have beenguided by the Master Plan for Higher Education. Since its enactment in 1960, theplan has delineated institutional roles and responsibilities as well as outlined theadmissions criteria for each of the three public higher education segments (Braccoand Callan 2002). In broad terms, the University of California incorporates thestate’s primary research institutions, the California State sector emphasizes teaching,and the community colleges serve as a springboard for individuals wishing to trans-fer to a four-year college or university as well as offering vocational and technicaleducation. In light of the fiscally-motivated reconfiguration of California’s publichigher education sector, it may be necessary to revisit the original aims of theMaster Plan and to reconsider the ways it may necessitate a readjustment in light ofpresent fiscal realities. With reductions in funding at all levels, it is necessary toexamine the extent to which the state’s post-secondary climate may be altered alongthe lines of race, gender, and socioeconomic class. Although not specificallyaddressed in this study, a number of questions relevant to the broader neoliberalnarrative are worthy of consideration in light of the study’s findings: How mightreductions in public funding and concomitant increases in student tuition jeopardizethe attendance of students who are already under financial strain? Will these rises intuition and related student fees compel some to exit higher education altogether and,if so, will this lead them unavoidably in the direction of an already tight labormarket? Will student demographics reveal a decidedly gendered portrait of Califor-nia higher education or, conversely, one which encourages greater gender parity?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Compare 7
How might cuts affect the central role research at the University of California, bothfrom a position of research content as well as methodological approach? Willrelatively quickly-produced quantitative studies be privileged at the expense of moretime-consuming, theoretical, or qualitative research agendas? Although these ques-tions are relevant to the complex higher education terrain in light of the current tideof neoliberal education ideology, they are intended for future inquiries rather thanthe intended aim of this particular study. The study’s sample included a total of 13faculty from each of the three tiers: six from Tier I institutions (of which one isemployed at a private institution), four from Tier II, and three from Tier III (seeAppendix 1). Findings are expected to add to discussions of neoliberal globalizationdynamics upon higher education at a macro, cross-national level.
Methodology
This study provides a qualitative assessment of the ways faculty at institutions ofhigher education in Southern California perceive the effects of globalization uponresearch, teaching, and their respective disciplinary fields. Study data were collectedfor a three-month period from March to June 2007.3 Data will offer a qualitative anal-ysis of faculty perceptions of globalization upon their work within each tier of Cali-fornia higher education’s three-tier structure: Tier I (research, doctoral grantinginstitutions), Tier II (teaching institutions, non-doctoral granting), and communitycollege levels (associate degree granting institutions). Institutions and participantswere selected from existing networks of the study’s investigators and sought toachieve a range of diversity across a variety of demographic categories. Theseincluded gender, race, nation of birth, professional level (full, associate, assistant,adjunct), and academic discipline, and number of years in academia. Southern Cali-fornia was selected as the research area for the purposes of geographic proximity tothe investigators’ institution as well as to limit the study’s findings to the Los Angelesarea. The diversity of the region – i.e. racially, ethnically, politically, and socioeco-nomically – furthermore provides a rich and diverse community from which to exam-ine the ways in which neoliberal-oriented educational policies are impacting a rangeof institutions, faculty, students, and larger communities. The selection of Los Ange-les is to a certain extent an ‘efficient’ research site of investigation, i.e. a vibrantregion in which a wide array of themes may be examined and documented relativelyeasily.
Interviews consisted of a common protocol for the purposes of enabling subse-quent comparability and were conducted in a semi-structured format intended to stim-ulate faculty responses (see Appendix 2). Faculty were most often interviewed at theiracademic workplaces by one of the study’s researchers for a period of 90 minutes totwo hours. Interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. Investigators alsoagreed upon a common definition of globalization in the event participants requesteda definition of the term. Giddens’s concept was ultimately selected: (globalizationmay be seen as) ‘the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distantlocalities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring manymiles away and vice versa’ (Held 1991, 9). ‘Public sphere’ was defined as ‘Encom-passing all activities not directly under the power of the market or state. This includeseducation, the church, the media and community interaction’. The Principal Investi-gator and all co-investigators subsequently met on several occasions to discuss thefindings from the different tiers, to compare findings in a search for common themes,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
8 P.A. Weldon et al.
and to formulate plans for the final paper’s writing. The subsequent analysis wasperformed inductively for the purposes of detecting common themes within and acrossinstitutional types as well as within and across different demographic categories.
Literature review
However one elects to define globalization, for at least the past decade it has beenperceived as the key social, political, and economic force of the twenty-first century.It challenges the physical and conceptual appraisal of certain aspects, like nationalborders and long-established institutions of governance, along with the functions ofmarkets, knowledge production and dissemination, and cultural norms and behaviorsacross the globe. Others see less the undoing of the nation-state (e.g., its evolution intoa non- or post-national global corporate power), but rather the latest phase of historicalebbs and flows of global mercantile and cultural exchanges. In other words, thenation-state drives global commerce, though effectuating its agendas through subsid-iaries like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and assortednon-governmental organizations. Globalization seeks to spur advances in communica-tions and computer technology, which enable capital (ideas, money) to move morerapidly through international mediums of exchange. Although the term ‘globalization’is referred to in the singular throughout this article, this does not constitute an endorse-ment of a universal definition of its complex and multifaceted dimensions. To thecontrary, it is maintained that there is no single version of globalization but rather, thatthere are many different definitions of globalization and, hence, many globalizations:as the intensification of worldwide social relations in which events occurring at greatdistances were capable of shaping one another (Held 1991); as a feature of late capi-talism and the emergence of a world system driven in large part by a global capitalisteconomy (Luke and Luke 2000); as the transformation of time and space within whichcomplex and once-impossible interactions and exchanges become daily activities(Urry 2000); as an assault of traditional notions of society altering the nature of citi-zenship and social change; and as an increasing global interconnectedness, includingeconomic, technological, cultural, environmental, and political processes (Nash2000).4
Stromquist (2002) underlines globalization in terms of its altering of worldeconomies and cultures, specifically by making use of media and digital cultures topromote ideas and common sense. Such would include the discourses on societalbelonging noted earlier, along with notions of Western hegemony, divined in theproliferation of online English-language courses and the avalanche of technicalbusiness offerings available online and at physical public and non-public institu-tions of higher learning.5 By extension, this evolution of financial instruments hashad multiple impacts on the exchanges between people and institutions, amplify-ing certain contacts while silencing others. Apple, Kenway, and Singh (2005)argue that globalization is typically framed from either a top-down or bottom-upperspective. ‘Globalization from above’ tends to focus on major trends andpatterns, such as internationalization, marketization, universalization, Westerniza-tion, and deterritorialization. This approach is most often embraced by economists,right-wing think tanks, most national governments, and much of the popular media.Alternatively, a ‘globalization from below’ orientation draws attention to theuneven and fluctuating aspects of globalization, particularly as it is experienced indifferent geographical areas. Such explanations tend to be culturally-oriented and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Compare 9
cite evidence that globalization encompasses forces which are not only distinctfrom the globalization-from-above approach, but which are perhaps even opposedto it. Globalizing dynamics as a whole have given rise to a variety of compro-mises, alliances, and power blocs, which continue to impact educational delivery atmany levels. Central questions of what constitutes knowledge, what may beconsidered good teaching and learning, and the criteria for determining a justnation are each open to discussion within the globalization discourse and havesubstantial consequences for educational policy, pedagogy, and politics.
Arnove and Torres (2007) draw attention to the dialectic between the global andthe local, which emerges from the globalization dynamic. Acknowledging this tensionproves critical to understanding the ways by which national units both develop andcompete with one another within the larger global context. Arnove points to the earlierrole of the nation-state as the primary source of national, political, and economicpower and to its role in the creation, implementation, and oversight of national policy.Because the authority of the nation-state was capable of extending itself over ageographically-bound area, it could more readily dictate the actions of its citizenry.Within the context of globalization, however, education and other social institutionsare subjected to new and vastly different forces. These forces create convergence bysubjecting all societies to the same agencies and constraints, and they create diver-gence through a process of global stratification. In this way, peripheral nations, forexample, are able to gain access to needed resources such as technology, capital, andskills, while they are at the same time subjugated to the nations that provide theseresources. Analyses of education within a strictly nation-state context, therefore,neglect to take into account a nation’s position within the larger global context.
One pressing issue from a social empowerment and emancipatory perspectivemight imply that educators, parents, students, and policy-makers need to think criti-cally about the failures of the past and the myriad exclusionary practices that stillpervade the process of schooling – hence for many, bringing to the forefront issues ofpower and domination, class, race, and gender (Torres 1998). The education processof sociali zing citizens, indoctrinating the level of civic participation involved, indi-vidual and collective rights, as well as consensus-building norms exist within stateapparatuses and reflect unique social, economic, cultural, ethical, and moral interests.For Torres (2000, 3), the state inherently reflects ‘the vicissitudes of social struggles,the tensions in the agreements and disagreements between social groups and elites …[as well as] the difficulties and contradictions resulting from the attempts to establisha coherent and unified action within the framework of a given cultural, social andpolitical project.’ So, if the education of citizens represents the state, it also tends torepresent its divisions, prejudices, uncertainties, imbalances, and frustrations. Theunique social, economic, cultural, ethical, and moral interests that it is said to repre-sent might instead depict elite interests, thereby dismissing the prevalence of hetero-geneity that exists within the polity it governs. Ideally, it should represent the polity’scontestation or resistance attempts, without stifling their voice or interests in redress-ing past inequalities, ameliorate impacts of these inequalities, and reform educationalexchange, policy, and content. In this manner, globalization-from-below might alsocreate a subculture of resistance, advocating environmental protection, labor rights,national cultures, and religious freedoms.
Torres also argues that there exists a tendency to link power and developmentforces of previous eras with the current state of development/world-making, but this
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
10 P.A. Weldon et al.
potentially obfuscates the realities transpiring beneath the loincloth of nostalgia andphilosophical posturing:
Globalization cannot be defined exclusively by the post-Fordist organization of produc-tion, but merges as a major characteristic of a global world economy. Issues of humanrights, regional states, and cosmopolitan democracy will play a major role affecting civicminimums at the state level, the performance of capital and labor in different domains,and particularly the dynamics of citizenship, democracy, and multiculturalism in themodern state. (2002, 364)
In other words, a radical social justice perspective conceptualizes processes in light ofthe human and societal impacts, but I would also contend recognition of the poten-tially hegemonic qualities of any totalizing discourse (‘democracy’).
Kellner (2002, 299) follows up on the radical transformative quotient, noting theemergence of grassroots organizations and activities that seek to counter, in thiscase, the forces of neoliberalism. Whereas these forces may be characterized bycommodification and privatization, those which oppose globalization at the grass-roots level are more concerned with the local, the specific, the particular, the hetero-geneous, and the micro-level of everyday experience. Perhaps ironically, the Internet– a symbol often associated with a globalization-from-above perspective – representssuch a potentially revolutionary force. The contradictions of globalization becomeclear when we realize how ICT has played a key role in promoting to ever-largeraudiences an adherence to the neoliberal development program but also resistanceto it.
In other words, some modernists may equate globalization to standardization andhomogeneity, while many in the postmodern camp conversely link it with diversity,hybridity, and emphasis on the local.6 In any case, globalization persists as a contestedconstruct that should be seen, in a transdisciplinary sense, in terms of how it affectseconomy, state, and culture on increasingly intersecting global and local levels.
The impacts of neoliberalism may be seen within a variety of issues related toinstitutional funding and agendas, faculty teaching and research activities, andpatterns of student enrollment. In July 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed apackage of bills for the purposes of closing the state’s $23.2 billion budget shortfall,with approximately $16.1 billion coming in the form of reductions in public spend-ing (California Budget Project 2009). Between 2008 and 2010, state funding for theCalifornia State University system was reduced by nearly $1 billion, with individualcampuses responding with a combination of increased fees, cancelled classes, reduc-tions to student support programs, and furloughing of faculty. A neoliberal logic ofreductions in public funding to public higher education coupled with a simultaneousemphasis upon academic standards within the context of unevenly distributed finan-cial resources has brought about visible changes to organizational culture andteacher roles and activities according to study participants. As will be shown, theseeffects have positive or negative consequences depending upon the perspective ofthe individual. With respect to changes in the campus demographics of faculty andstudents, increased campus diversity, on the one hand, encourages a broader rangeof knowledge available to students, while at the same time may privilege certaintypes of knowledge at the expense of others. Preparing students for active participa-tion in the labor market both contributes to a society’s larger economic base, on theone hand, while, whether explicitly or implicitly, promoting certain fields and disci-plines and neglecting others. While providing the means to widely and quickly
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Compare 11
disseminate knowledge through advances in communications technologies, thesetechnologies are available unequally depending upon the resources of different insti-tutions. Greater exchange of students and scholars likewise is available more readilyfor some than for others depending upon the existence of resources which aredistributed unevenly at different institutional tiers and across different disciplinaryfields.
Findings
Student and faculty demographics
I try to … always give [my students] a mental map about who we are, where we standand what the connections are between our experiences with other countries … It’s easybecause the students are so diverse … they can understand that now the notions likeThird World, Global South – it’s not geographic anymore, it’s right here.
The majority of faculty in all three tiers cited increases in diversity within their class-rooms as well as within their respective universities more broadly. One professor at aTier I institution noted ‘a big shift in faculty of color’ in certain departments and ashift in the types of knowledge available to students given the disparate researchinterests of these new faculty members on regional and global issues. Increasedopportunities for faculty and students to travel to international conferences and work-shops were associated with perceptions of greater scholarly exchange, including anincreased focus on issues in different nations among graduate students. Several Tier Iand Tier II faculty also mentioned the new opportunities for international students,faculty, activists, and indigenous and poor populations to participate in scholarlyexchange though publication. According to several study subjects, the increasedmobilization of scholars and ideas has contributed substantially to new trends inresearch and course content. One faculty member at a research university noted thatmany of the international students in her classes seem ‘more reticent to offer counter-normative responses’ or different perspectives in the classroom. While not a point ofinquiry in this study, an examination of the extent to which international studentpopulations embrace the dominant context in which they study (i.e. racial, cultural,linguistic, etc.) would reveal their overall level of contribution to the educationalprocess.
‘Money on these bodies’: case-based reflections on the issue of agendas and funding
Thirty additional students showed up for my morning class this year. Maybe that’sbecause the department cut half of our course offerings. They shrunk the department,said we weren’t bringing in enough money, but I know what they’re doing – for each kidwe bring in, the university gets ‘money on [their] body.’
The effects of neoliberal policies upon higher education financing may be witnessedacross a variety of terrains including funding levels for research, program develop-ment, costs to students, faculty positions, and administration. Rhoads and Torres(2006) argue that the emergence of neoliberal models of globalization provided atheoretical basis for undermining the original intentions of science and research policy
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
12 P.A. Weldon et al.
by subordinating them to the rhetoric of privatization and global competitiveness.Education policies have become increasingly rooted in a neoliberal ideology in whichthe public sphere and its responsibility of providing free and accessible public educa-tion has been subjugated to the economic logic of an educational marketplace. Despitea range of viewpoints concerning this market-oriented agenda, each of the facultyinterviewed articulated ways in which their individual agency enabled them to navi-gate the complex structures in which they work, even within the constraints of anoverarching economically-oriented institutional culture. With respect to higher educa-tion’s role in the production and dissemination of knowledge, Tier I faculty voicedconcern over the increasingly blurred line between public and private interests. Oneprofessor noted that while she recognizes that scientific research is expensive andrequires substantial levels of funding, she went on to say that such funding isfrequently secured from the private sector:
I think that’s interesting and, in many ways, an ethical, dilemma. It’s like doing researchfor pharmaceutical companies – a classic example. Again, there are rewards, where[there is] money.
One Tier I professor noted that many of her colleagues have shifted their researchfocus in order to increase their chances of securing funding. By considering a fund-ing source’s selection criteria in advance, faculty are able to more closely aligntheir research aims and methodologies with an agency’s specified objectives and, indoing so, are able to maximize their chances for selection. Ideology extendsbeyond faculty funding and also affects the ways graduate students seek funding aswell:
With the graduate students I get to see, the funding shifts. Funding agencies are veryinterested in sponsoring this multinational, transnational feminism research, yet for thesetwo students who wanted to go to the Middle East, the funding got narrowed because thebig funding agencies decided it was too volatile, and they weren’t going to fund theresearch of graduate students to these areas.
According to this professor, funding for multinational, transnational feminist researchwas to some degree tied to the broader political relationship between the USA and theforeign country. In this example, research may be constrained by the larger context inwhich an individual wishes to carry out academic scholarship, in this instance thebroader political environment and the agency’s unwillingness to allow its funding tofinance research conducted in the region.
Several study participants noted a shift in recent years in the orientation ofresearch, with studies applying a quantitative approach being favored over those of amore qualitative approach. Among interviewees, interpretations concerning the meritof this shift, however, varied. One study participant from a science field stated that asquantitative studies are generally easier to conduct due to their more standardizedmethodologies, research may be completed at a quicker rate than with qualitative-based studies. Since quantitative research more easily lends itself to comparison,proposals adhering to a quantitative approach may be privileged at the expense ofmore time-consuming, nuanced qualitative studies which are for the most part morechallenging to analyze comparatively. Quantitative research is able to promisemeasurable outcomes and, in the words of one subject, the realities of limited fundingmay compel researchers to shift more theoretically-oriented qualitative research in the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Compare 13
direction of a more quantitative approach for the purposes of securing the neededresources.
Interpretations of the connection between funding and neoliberal policies variedamong Tier I interviewees. Several faculty felt it did not have a significant affecteither upon their own research priorities or the priorities of their academic field.Others do not believe globalization directly impacts their own research agendaswhile at the same time citing an undeniable influence upon the procurement of fund-ing. Still others stated that the dynamics of globalization undeniably drive researchand funding priorities throughout academia, supporting the assertion by Rhoades andSlaughter (2006, 103–4) that ‘increasing engagement of higher education institutionsin market-like and market behaviors … creat[es] and tak[es] to the marketplace: (1)research and education products and services that commodify higher education’sbasic work and; (2) nonacademic products and services that feature higher educationas a nonacademic consumption item.’ Connections between funding, institutionalagendas, and enrollment patterns were also cited in interviews with faculty from TierII institutions. One professor who was especially critical of his university’s board oftrustees opined:
And the level of the people that make up the board of trustees, I don’t believe that theyeven know what the trustee thing means. Now there is this sort of business model on howyou run these universities. You know, you get outside funds, less state money, you tryto do technology transfer, you want to get faculty with more experience, grant writers sothey can bring in more and then you charge students more tuition. I don’t like this newspeeded up atmosphere, more students in the classes. That is what the administratorswant because they get the money on these bodies.
Reflecting upon the ways institutions acquire students and faculty through the imple-mentation of a business model, this professor suggested that in the eyes of the institu-tion, these individuals had in a certain sense become commodities.
Two faculty in the California State system voiced concern over the issue ofacademic outsourcing and its place within their respective institution’s broaderagenda. At the community college level, budget cuts have impacted the developmentof new programs and enrollment levels. Acknowledging that students face higherenrollment fees as a result of reductions in public funding, one professor stated:
The budget has a lot to do with it. The budget crisis slows us down. We didn’t have anymonies for anything … or to build new programs. They were canceling programs. [They]stopped trying to increase enrollment, which is something that we have never heard of.The fees themselves went from $11 per unit to $18 to $26 and now have come down to$20, but it has been a roller coaster if you will, and the enrollment has been related tosome of these changes.
Unable to create new programs or to accept additional students into existing ones, thecollege has been compelled to raise student fees in an effort to meet its operating costs.
Discussions about the experiences of community college professors concerningthe twin issues of research and funding resulted in similar sentiments. Two of the threeinstructors in this study do not consider themselves to be involved in the productionof knowledge but are active in the development of university and secondary teaching.One participant, however, noted a strong correlation between external funding and hisacademic field, citing that he had at one time received a grant of more than one milliondollars. The relationship between public university and the private sector is reflected
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
14 P.A. Weldon et al.
in his belief that one of the main objectives in a vocational program is creating part-nerships with industry:
The minute we can get these guys in our advisory committee, and that they can get anemployee that they can count on, we have a partnership, getting the vocational trainingprogram back on track in America. This is one of the biggest voids we have in industry,there is no real prescribed training, in any home building, contractor services, for any ofthe vocational training programs in Europe that stay there forever. It has been dissolvedin America for some reason.
The existence of vocational training programs involving collaboration with the privatesector led this professor to conclude that such programs are in some sense an ‘inter-vention’ occurring within a larger capitalist context. He may have perceived thiscollaboration as necessary and assisting his students in finding employment. Compe-tition-based reforms in higher education tend to adopt a vocational orientation andreflect the point of view that colleges and universities exist in large measure topromote the economic interests of society. Also relevant in light of this interpretationis the concept of academic capitalism which becomes ‘deeply embedded within theculture of academe [as] universities are increasingly expected to contribute to theeconomic development of a global economy’ (Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Slaughterand Rhoades 2004).
Faculty level and perceptions of globalization
Tier I faculty at the full, associate, and assistant levels noted increases in diversity ontheir respective campuses in a variety of ways. Full professors cited an increase in thenumber of faculty of color, international students, and a greater diversity of knowl-edge available to students. Associate faculty likewise mentioned higher numbers ofinternational students. Faculty at all levels noted the more business-like orientation ofinstitutional administration. One interviewee spoke about the tendency withinacademic governance to view the university as a corporation with the president serv-ing in the role of chief executive officer. Faculty at all levels also noted that studentsare noticeably focused upon the job market and in securing employment at the conclu-sion of their studies.
California State University faculty cited noticeable changes in the role of technol-ogy for their teaching and research activities. Three reported a clear link betweentechnological changes and their fields of study, while all four discussed the availabil-ity of online courses offered at their institutions. Virtual courses serve the dualpurposes of making learning more accessible while at the same time providing theinstitution with an additional source of revenue. Each subject expressed concern aboutthe impact virtual learning would have upon teaching quality as well as their job secu-rity. California State faculty referred on numerous occasions to the potentiallynegative consequences of a business-oriented approach to education that virtualeducation enabled. Full professors cited cost-cutting measures that had led to over-crowding in the classroom and reduced the amount of interaction with their students,a push toward courses with a practical orientation coming at the expense of moretheoretical ones, and the educational objectives of students who are trying to completeparticular courses and find employment at the conclusion of their studies. Each ofthese considerations points to an overarching education-market ideology whose aimsalign with the practical concerns of the job market.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Compare 15
All of the study’s community college faculty cited substantial degrees of auton-omy within the classroom and were generally satisfied with their teaching roles. Nonethought technology had transformed their classrooms although each mentioned thattechnology had aided them in their teaching. Each tied globalization as a concept tosuch issues as weapons of mass destruction and the ease with which instructors fromdifferent nations are able to collaborate with one another.
Engaging in the public sphere
Engaging with the public sphere is exactly what I do.
Study subjects at Tier I institutions described themselves as active participants in thepublic sphere in a variety of ways. This engagement took place through teaching andresearch as well as activities more formally classified as ‘service based.’ Severalsubjects characterized their research as being both embedded in and contributing totheir engagement with the public sphere. Another discussed the range of activities thatserve the larger public good, issues such as her work on income issues, public testi-mony, ballot issues, and volunteering for a political party. Conversely, faculty in theTier II and community college sample did not view themselves as being engaged inthe public sphere to nearly the same extent as those at the study’s research universities.One instructor in the California State system acknowledged the importance of raisingissues of a global nature within the classroom while at the same time stating thatopportunities to do so were limited. Although professional activities such as atten-dance at conferences and public lectures were not as relevant for this individual givenher role within an institution which emphasizes teaching rather than research, sheacknowledged the importance of these activities for higher education faculty. Amongcommunity college faculty, two subjects did not view engagement with the publicsphere as important to their roles within their institutions. The third, however, statedthat in light of the practical orientation of education at this time, the intellectual shouldtake part in deliberations within the public sphere. What is noteworthy in theseresponses is the extent to which faculty at the Tier II and Tier III institutions did nottypically view teaching as ‘engaging with the public sphere.’ This finding may beattributed to differing notions of the aims of education among the tiers, the differentstudent demographics served by the various institutional types, or to differences ineducational outcomes.
Globalization and the politics of education: concepts and challenges
While the war on terrorism has dominated headlines for much of the past decade,the engine of globalization has led to an increase in human contact via instantaneouscommunications while promoting the virtues of capitalism as an overriding ideol-ogy. Some have benefited from this neoliberal globalization model while, to thecontrary, many others have been disenfranchised as a result of this overarchingeconomic-oriented ideology. To some extent, the political, economic, and socialchallenges facing nations around the world today may trace their struggles to vari-ous manifestations of the neoliberal agenda – issues such as population growth,poverty eradication, disease prevention, education, urbanization, and the preserva-tion of identity (Zakaria 2004). Tier I and Tier II participants in this study view
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
16 P.A. Weldon et al.
politics as a necessary aspect of the education process. They cited the importance ofbringing to the classroom a diversity of viewpoints as well as the need to stimulatedebate among students for the purposes of bridging racial, ethnic, and socioeco-nomic differences. Study participants from the California State University addition-ally mentioned the importance of teaching students how to think about politicscritically.
On the subject of politics, community college faculty showed greater variation intheir responses. One instructor in the sciences notices a connection between her fieldand politics in the way scientific knowledge is appropriated for military applicationssuch as the development of weapons of destruction. A faculty member at anothercommunity college cited his administration’s recommendation that faculty refrainfrom bringing political discussions into the classroom altogether. This instructor is,she says, unable to keep politics entirely removed from her classroom as the subjectshe teaches (Latin) ties in to contemporary political issues. Another communitycollege instructor who teaches woodworking states that discussions of politics withinhis field frequently relate to environmentalism.
Concepts of globalization
Participants had varying interpretations of and reactions to globalization as a concept.The extent to which globalization was viewed as impacting educational deliverywithin the classroom varied greatly depending upon the individual as well as his or heracademic field, department, and degree of academic autonomy. It is no exaggeration,however, to assert that globalization has brought about significant advances incommunications impacting the opportunities of faculty and students alike. In somerespects, increased international mobilization of scholars, students, and ideas hascontributed in a major way to new trends both in research as well as course orientationand content. It is important to point out however that this rise in international studentand scholar numbers may be, as noted by several University of California andCalifornia State faculty, something of an untapped value. On the issue of classroomparticipation by international students, one Tier I professor noted that rather thanactively contributing to the classroom dialogue, these students seem more reticent tooffer ideas which may be viewed as counter-normative. Certainly the mere presenceof more international scholars and students is not a guarantee of greater qualitativecontributions.
Concepts of globalization for the community college sample were revealing.With respect to the daily classroom experience, subjects perceived the effects ofglobalization as playing only a minor role in comparison with Tier I and Tier IIfaculty, who have had their teaching and research activities greatly redefined as aresult of the globalization dynamic. For the most part, community college partici-pants have not incorporated technology into their teaching in significant ways. Tier Iinterviewees typically made little mention of globalization’s negative social impacts,possibly explained by the generally positive affects increased collaboration has hadupon research at these institutions. California State University faculty tended todiscuss globalization in terms of its ties to capitalism and the technology whichsupports the private sector. Community college faculty saw globalization relatedmore to issues of global security and world economics rather than to their everydayclassroom experiences.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Compare 17
Interviewees each had a certain globalization consciousness – i.e. an awareness ofthe existence and discourse of globalization in contemporary society. Faculty whoseacademic work pertains specifically to international issues or contemporary phenom-ena were more likely to actively engage the idea of globalization in their research andteaching than were faculty whose academic focus was principally historical. Incomparison with faculty from the sciences and social sciences, humanities faculty hada tendency to theorize extensively on their notions of globalization. One of the waysfaculty conceptions of globalization showed variation was with respect to theiracademic backgrounds. One female faculty member holding multiple appointments inWomen’s Studies, Education, Philosophy, and Science and Technology Studies citedthe difficulty in defining globalization, preferring instead to create a perspective thatreflected her work as a critical scholar:
There’s a lot of different stuff going on, but for my own work it proves useful to thinkof globalization as just the latest stage, another word for capitalistic expansion. Thatdoesn’t capture everything, but it works. When I’m looking at science and technologyand how they’re attached to transnational corporations, profiteering, militarism and soforth. There’re a lot of effects that happen because of the movement of resources aroundthe world, controlled largely by the people who’ve always controlled them, but thatdefinition is in some ways too narrow.
A female faculty member who teaches management likewise acknowledged the chal-lenge of providing a definition that was at once concise yet comprehensive. She usedmanufacturing to illustrate the larger global interdependencies she views as central toglobalization:
I would think of globalization as an increasing dependency of one country’s people onanother country’s people so the fact that most products are not made within … manyproducts are not made within a single country anymore, but that are reliant on differentparts of … different pieces that are made in different countries and things like that andthere’s a reliance for oil and all sorts of resources.
A number of faculty discussed globalization in conventional terms, noting theincreased interconnectedness of nations, transformations in knowledge broughtabout by the Internet, and the commercial implications of these changes in relationsand knowledge. Of particular interest were the ways they made connections to theirown academic fields. A female Latin instructor drew parallels between the global-ization which occurred during the time of the Romans – whom she labeled ‘theoriginal globalizers’ – and our own times. Another professor connected globaliza-tion to his field of woodworking and spoke at length about a meeting he had with afurniture maker from China. Despite their linguistic limitations, he stated that thetwo were able to communicate with one another through the process of creating apiece:
[The man] opens his briefcase, and when he puts this chair together, he has a chair in abriefcase, putting this Ming dynasty chair together, it was made exactly when it was madein the 1700s, he doesn’t have to say a word, but the communication is deeper because Iunderstand … the language that we are speaking is one of seeing [and] touching.
Rather than expounding theoretically on his interpretation of globalization, thisprofessor’s comments offer a more transcendent view. He went on to say:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
18 P.A. Weldon et al.
The journey that we learn in making something with our hands is a very powerful,powerful experience … and it reaches beyond language, beyond culture, and turn[s] intoreal humanity, which is to make something, to improve ones life, to improve the lives ofthe people you care about.
Information technologies7
Analysis of the interviews indicates that new technologies are significantly impact-ing faculty activities within the Tier 1 category. These technologies include theInternet broadly speaking and communications technologies which enable instanta-neous communication among people from distant locations. For Tier I and Tier IIparticipants, information technologies were considered to be intrinsically linked toglobalization and were thought to have significantly contributed to transformativeand systemic changes in the ways research and teaching are conducted within theseinstitutions. Assessments of the aggregate value of these technologies upon teachingand research, however, varied. Typically, faculty had positive evaluations of infor-mation and communications technologies to the extent that these technologies hadenabled students to conduct research more productively since large volumes ofinformation could be accessed quickly and easily. Academic journals, for example,are readily available online and may be accessed in a short period of time. At thesame time, faculty were quick to point out the problems inherent with informationoverload, i.e. the accuracy of much of the information available via the Internet andthe ability of students to process large volumes of data in meaningful ways. Whilethe content of many academic journals is overseen through the peer-review process,much of the information on the Internet is not. Study subjects also cited the role ofweb-searching technologies as one of their concerns related to the issue of informa-tion legitimacy. Internet data are collected, organized, and presented by a range offactors beyond the user’s intent and consciousness. Search engines prioritize theresults of user-initiated searches and, in the process, privilege certain sites at theexpense of others.
Interviewees voiced concern over how information is disseminated to Internetusers and for what purposes. Several Tier I subjects emphasized that knowledge isproduced and disseminated within the rubric of neoliberal logic and driven by thedemands of economic markets. One faculty member at a research universitysuggested that the hegemonic activity of the West was specifically fueled by thecorporate concentration of wealth and energy in developing knowledge. Other Tier Iinterviewees cited the transformation of information and knowledge flows from thepublic sphere and institutions of higher education. Ostensibly, universities haveembraced a mission whose objective is in broad terms the betterment of societyalthough, within a neoliberal rubric, higher education now concentrates more uponthe production of new knowledge which aligns with the interests of the privatesector. All subjects concluded that knowledge serves the hegemonic interests of capi-talism and the corporations which drive Western economies. Noted one researchuniversity faculty:
It’s all about knowledge, who creates it, who controls it, who can manage it … and asknowledge has become more central to the global economy, improvements in communi-cation and travel have made knowledge itself a global commodity, easily and quicklyexchanged. As it has become a global commodity, there also has been a push to regulateand control it by the wealthier countries, through organizations such as the World TradeOrganization.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Compare 19
Autonomy
Tenure and the ability of academics to set their own agendas, create their own syllabi,and establish their own praxis within the academy – in addition to the protectionafforded by tenure – has led to a culture of professorial autonomy that may disengagefaculty from institutional pressures to some degree. Academics may at times be obliv-ious to such forces as academic managerialism or broader neoliberal policies impact-ing their institution’s teaching and research agendas. California State Universityfaculty cited information and communications technologies as posing serious threatsto their job security due to the increasing availability of online university courses.Many critiqued the current roles played by information and communications technol-ogies, although only one voiced specific concern about job security and the quality ofteaching as a result of such courses. Raising institutional revenue was cited by onesubject as a rationale for the implementation of virtual courses while anothermentioned the importance of increasing educational access to students from aroundthe world who would otherwise have little access to higher education. Online coursesmay reduce an institution’s operating costs by transforming the traditional classroominto one without borders. At the same time, distance learning promotes competitionfor faculty positions since classes may be conducted from any place as long as an affil-iation with the university is maintained. Virtual courses promote the commodificationof education by increasing competition among faculty as well as among institutionswhich strive to increase their student numbers and, hence, their revenues. Faculty inessence ‘sell’ their services in a competitive educational marketplace while the insti-tution delivers an academic product within an education market.
Main patterns of transformation within the university
In discussing patterns of transformation within the academy, faculty at Tier I institu-tions made comparisons between their experiences as academics and students as wellas experiences in other departments and universities. Less discussion centered aroundchanges in institutional governance. Several noted an increase in the number offaculty of color on their campus and a change in the types of knowledge available tostudents as a result. An increase in the number of international students was alsoobserved by several respondents which, presumably, would have also led to anincrease in the diversity of knowledge to which students have access. Numerous TierI faculty also observed an increasingly job market-orientation of their students,suggesting that students within these institutions assume the role of higher educationto be one of preparing them for entrance into the labor market following graduation.Tier II faculty reported high levels of change as a result of advances in technology,the majority of these further connecting these technological changes with shiftstaking place within their respective academic disciplines. Among these changes wereinstitutional development and promotion of online courses, although study subjectshad different interpretations concerning the proliferation of virtual education. Onerespondent saw online classes as primarily a source of additional institutional revenuewhile another emphasized the increased access to education provided by this mediumto those in developing countries. Among Tier III faculty, one respondent reported thatfaculty are increasingly experimenting with more creative teaching techniques. Thisinstructor further mentioned an increase in hands-on and exploratory activities withinthe classroom, emphasizing that teachers lecture less and guide students more.Another faculty member noted that the existence of a teachers’ union on campus has
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
20 P.A. Weldon et al.
resulted in a loss of faculty autonomy. The union was formed during an especiallyturbulent time in which this particular institution had four different presidents withina 10-year period. Despite such a crisis in leadership, however, the respondent notedthat within his program, he and his staff attempt to instill in students a passion forlearning.
The primary patterns of institutional transformation found within the data were(1) a perceived increase in the diversity of people and ideas as well as a noticeablestudent orientation toward the job market at the Tier I institutions; (2) a recognitionof the major role played by advances in technology which is impacting both themedium of education as well the academic fields of study subjects; and (3) a contra-dictory dynamic in which faculty within the community college sector feel a decreasein autonomy while at one of the study’s sites, university personnel have becomeunionized.
Conclusions
For Tier I and Tier II faculty, information technologies (IT) have brought aboutlargely positive systemic change to their research and teaching activities, withadvances in IT enabling a ready exchange of scholarly information via the Internet.Tier I and Tier II faculty moreover tended to view the role of politics as central tothe educational experience and voiced a desire to see discussions of a politicalnature play a primary role within the classroom. The fact that students are exposedto a deluge of information that may be easily retrieved is simultaneously cause forconcern when one considers whether they have the intellectual capacity to criticallyprocess this information. For example, are they able to differentiate between legiti-mate and illegitimate knowledge? Are students and faculty alike able to perceive thelarger implications of their research? Tier I and Tier II participants repeatedly voicedconcern over the political ramifications of the knowledge that is disseminated viathe information technologies which are major aspects of the research agendas ofthese institutions.
On the issue of faculty autonomy, Tier I and Tier III participants tended to viewthemselves as having a large degree of independence in performing their roles whilefaculty in the Tier II category typically cited a substantial loss of professional auton-omy in recent years. Of particular note was that Tier II faculty tended to see virtualeducation as encroaching upon their autonomy and, at the same time, posing a threatto their positions. Broadly speaking, the ties to the private sector maintained by Tier Ifaculty for research funding seems to be viewed in a more positive light than effortsby Tier II universities to increase institutional revenue through an expansion ofvirtual education. Whether this is on ideological or practical grounds is unknown,although it could be argued that virtual education both increases educational accesswhile at the same time ‘commodifying’ an educational product in an educationalmarketplace.
With regard to politics, a division was noted between faculty in Tiers I and II, onthe one hand, and faculty in Tier III. Those in tiers I and II viewed politics as relevantto the educational experience, asserting that political dynamics are inextricably linkedto education and should therefore be discussed critically. To the contrary, Tier IIIfaculty indicated that they were removed from political discussions within the class-room and tended to view politics as it relates to broad issues such as environmentalismor weapons of mass destruction. It was inconclusive whether this disparity among the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Compare 21
tiers could be definitively tied to the central role of research within the Tier I and TierII categories. It is possible that the centrality of politics for Tier I and Tier II facultyhas occurred more or less in tandem with advances in information technologies, neces-sitating a critical approach to information obtained from the Internet. Since IT andresearch are not as central to the community college experience, Tier III faculty didnot seem to see a need for the same degree of political contextualization that wasobserved for the two research-oriented sectors. At any rate, a noticeable disparity wasobserved for Tier III faculty who seemed more detached from the theoretical andsocially-oriented discourses observed at Tier I and Tier II institutions.
On the issue of funding, there was some common ground among faculty in the TierI and Tier II categories. These faculty tended to be critical of what they saw as anambiguous division between the public and private sectors as determined by publicfunding and academic outsourcing. In other words, the university has become ‘tooclose’ to the private sector and, by extension, to the ideological implications of thisproximity. As it pertains to the higher education sector, neoliberal education policybrings about decreases in public funding which consequently requires faculty to seekout alternative sources of revenue from sources external to the institution. The fact thatTier III faculty in fact welcomed collaboration with the private sector could be attrib-uted to the fact that these faculty do not typically perform research and to the largelypractical orientation of the community college. To the extent that Tier III faculty seetheir roles in terms of providing immediate and measurable outcomes, and in consid-eration of the students they serve, this hypothesis seems plausible. Whereas collabo-rations with the private sector may be viewed as a necessity for carrying out researchin response to the shrinking availability of research funding, community collegefaculty viewed such ties more positively, i.e. as a means of promoting existingprograms of study, adding new programs to accommodate demand, and enablingstudents to build a professional network to aid them at the conclusion of their studies.In short, such collaborations seemed to facilitate rather than infringe upon theacademic and institutional missions of Tier III faculty.
The realities of an interconnected global society have become increasinglyevidenced within national and transnational political, economic, and social policies inthe first decade of the twenty-first century. Globalization’s various manifestations arevast and complex, have challenged national borders and long-established institutionsof governance, and have reconfigured cultural norms and behaviors. The integrationof worldwide social relations is bringing about new challenges to conceptions of iden-tity and citizenship (Held 1991; Torres 1998, 2009a, 2009b). This integration and itsimpact upon education, both organizationally and ideologically, can be traced to theimmediate post-World War II era and has consistently been part of a broader trend inwhich the authority of the nation-state has been diminished. Although a large body ofliterature exists seeking to better understand the multiplicity of meanings associatedwith globalization within a variety of political, economic, and social spheres, lessattention has been focused upon its impacts specifically within the domain of highereducation. This study has endeavored to provide a preliminary and qualitative assess-ment of some of the ways neoliberal educational policies have impacted the teaching,research, and academic disciplines of faculty at institutions in each of California’sthree-tier higher education system. Intending to offer a relevant although not thor-oughly representative survey of faculty perspectives, the analysis has endeavored toreveal some of the ways faculty have perceived, interpreted, and responded to thechanges they have encountered in their multiple work roles within the academy.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
22 P.A. Weldon et al.
Notes1. This article benefits from previous work by Jevdet Rexhepi, ‘Exploring globalization on
the margins: A study of the impacts on higher education in Albania’ (in progress).2. For further reading, see: Allen, Bonous-Hammarth, and Teranishi (2006); Altbach,
Berdahl, and Gumport (2005); King (2004); Levin (2001); Rhoads and Torres (2006); andSlaughter and Rhoades (2004).
3. This study was carried out as part of a graduate course at the Graduate School of Educationand Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles. The course was taught byCarlos A. Torres, Professor of Social Sciences and Comparative Education at the UCLAGraduate School of Education and Information Studies.
4. See Torres (2009b, 30–1, Note 11).5. Michael Apple (2001) cites how the success of the ‘conservative right’ has much to do with
its ability to manipulate and transpose a concise and perhaps irresistible notion of commonsense.
6. For Appadurai, worlds should be assessed in terms of their overlapping and disjunctivelandscapes (1996, 32), creating an awareness of complexity (perhaps, by way of an a prioriglobalness of human existence?).
7. For further analysis of the role of globalization upon technology, see Misiaszek et al.(forthcoming).
ReferencesAllen, W.R., M. Bonous-Hammarth, and R.T. Teranishi, eds. 2006. Higher education in a
global society: Achieving diversity, equity and excellence. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.Altbach, P.G., R.O. Berdahl, and P.J. Gumport, eds. 2005. American higher education in the
twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
Apple, M.W. 2001. Educating the ‘right’ way. New York and London: Routledge.Apple, M.W., J. Kenway, and M. Singh. 2005. Globalizing education: Perspectives from
above and below. In Globalizing education: Policies, pedagogies, and politics, ed. M. W.Apple, J. Kenway, and M. Singh, 1–29. New York: Peter Lang.
Arnove, R.F., and C.A. Torres, eds. 2007. Comparative education: The dialectic of the globaland the local. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bracco, K.R., and P.M. Callan. 2002. Competition and collaboration in California highereducation. San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
California Budget Project. 2009. Governor signs budget revisions. California Budget Project,Sacramento, CA, August 5. http://www.cbp.org/documents/090727_Governor_Signs_Budget.pdf) (accessed April 3, 2010).
California Postsecondary Education Commission. 2008. California colleges and universities,2008: A guide to California’s degree-granting institutions and degree, certificate, andcredential programs. Sacramento: California Postsecondary Education Commission.
Held, D., ed. 1991. Political theory today. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Kellner, D. 2002. Theorizing globalization. Sociological Theory 20: 285–305.King, R., ed. 2004. The university in the global age. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Levin, J.S. 2001. Globalizing the community college: Strategies for change in the twenty-first
century. New York: Palgrave.Luke, A., and C. Luke. 2000. A situated perspective on cultural globalization. In Globaliza-
tion and education: Critical perspectives, ed. N. Burbules and C.A. Torres, 287. NewYork: Routledge.
Misiaszek, G.W., L.I. Jones, L.A. Layton, A., Liu, S. McKibben, J. Rexhepi, A. Quon, C.A.Torres, and P.A. Weldon. Forthcoming. Technophilization of the ivory towers: Profes-sors’ perspectives on globalization and technology.
Nash, K. 2000. Contemporary political sociology: Globalization, politics, and power.London: Blackwell.
Rhoades, G., and S. Slaughter. 2006. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Privatiza-tion as shifting the target of public subsidy in higher education. In The university, state,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
Compare 23
and market: The political economy and globalization in the Americas, ed. R. Rhoads andC.A. Torres, 103–40. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Rhoads, R., and C.A. Torres, eds. 2006. The university, state, and market: The political econ-omy and globalization in the Americas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepre-neurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets,state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stromquist, N.P. 2002. Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power,technology, and knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Torres, C.A. 1998. Democracy, education, and multiculturalism: Dilemmas of citizenship in aglobal world. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Torres, C.A. 2000. The state, privatization and educational policy: A critique of neoliberalismin Latin America and some ethical and political implications. http://www.interna-tional.ucla.edu/lac/cat/ stapri.pdf (accessed March 9, 2010).
Torres, C.A. 2002. Globalization, education, and citizenship: Solidarity versus markets?American Educational Research Journal 39: 363–78.
Torres, C.A. 2009a. Education and neoliberal globalization. New York: Routledge.Torres, C.A. 2009b. Globalizations and education: Collected essays on class, race, gender
and the state. New York: Teachers College Press.Urry, J. 2000. Sociology of time and space. In The Blackwell companion to social theory. 2nd
ed., ed. B. Turner, 3–15. Oxford: Blackwell.Zakaria, F. 2004. The one-note superpower. Newsweek. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4051699/
(accessed January 12, 2010).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
24 P.A. Weldon et al.
Appendix 1. Sample selectionResearch universities
Subject A: Female, Latina, adjunct professor in biological sciences at a public research univer-sity. Has a PhD from a US university. Has been in higher education for 15 yearsbut been a professor for five. Born, raised, and educated in Argentina.
Subject B: Female, white, tenured associate professor in public policy and political sciences ata private research university. Received a PhD from a private research university inSouthern California. Has been a professor for approximately 25 years. Raised andeducated in the Midwest of the USA.
Subject C: Male, white, tenured professor in the social sciences at a public research university.Raised and educated in eastern USA.
Subject D: Female, white, tenured professor in the social sciences at a public researchuniversity. Received a PhD from a US university. Has been a professor forapproximately 15 years.
Subject E: Female, Chinese-American, assistant professor in a professional school at a publicresearch university. Received a PhD from a private university in California. Hasbeen a professor for three years.
Subject F: Male, Latino, associate professor in the social sciences at a public research univer-sity. Has been a professor for nearly 15 years.
Teaching universities
Subject G: Female, full professor in a department of women’s studies. Born outside the USA.Subject H: Male, associate professor in a department of literature.Subject I: Male, full professor in a department of computer science. Born outside the USA.Subject J: Male, full professor in a social science department.
Community colleges
Subject K: Male, a professional cabinet maker. Has degrees in the humanities as well as filmand television. He began teaching full time at the school in 1999.
Subject L: Female, adjunct faculty in the natural sciences at a private four-year college. Has aPhD. Born outside the USA.
Subject M: Female, adjunct Latin instructor at a community college. Has worked for thecommunity college for 10 years.
Appendix 2. Interview protocol
(1) Introductions/Background information.(2) How have things generally changed since you started teaching in the university? What
do you perceive as the main patterns of transformation in the university?(3) How have curriculum, governance and the demographics, attitudes and behaviors of
students changed since you began teaching (or were an undergraduate)?(4) What is the general nature in terms of research priorities and funding in your field of
study? Have there been any dramatic shifts in focus or methodology?(5) Do you perceive your role as a university professor including engagement in the public
sphere? If so, what activities have you undertaken toward this end? Do you believethere is a difference between politics and education? What position do you believeprofessors should take regarding political discussions in the classroom? What is yourview of changes in knowledge, knowledge production and dissemination of informa-tion as a result of the processes of globalization? Do you think that globalization hasaffected what is considered legitimate knowledge? Do you think that this ‘legitimate’knowledge is actually relevant to society?
(6) What is your view of how globalization has impacted your field of study? How has itaffected the research you do or the research undertaken in your field?
(7) What is your concept of ‘globalization’?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f L
eeds
] at
05:
39 1
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
