This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Del Rosario]On: 29 October 2013, At: 09:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Reimagining internationalizationin higher education: internationalconsortia as a transformative space?Marc Tadaki a & Christopher Tremewan aa Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) , 11 Kent RidgeDrive, 2/F, Singapore , 119244 www.apru.orgPublished online: 27 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Marc Tadaki & Christopher Tremewan (2013) Reimagining internationalization inhigher education: international consortia as a transformative space?, Studies in Higher Education,38:3, 367-387, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2013.773219

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.773219

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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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

Reimagining internationalization in higher education:international consortia as a transformative space?

Marc Tadaki and Christopher Tremewan*

Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU), 11 Kent Ridge Drive, 2/F, Singapore119244, www.apru.org

From ongoing practices and rhetorics of globalization have emerged a new set ofactors, logics and relations between and beyond institutions of higher educationand research. As universities across the world continue to grapple withfundamental changes in resource structures and institutional missions, the‘rolling back’ of state support and involvement in university governance hasgiven way to more decentralized and market-oriented forms of organization,leading to new strategies for cooperation and competition. For a variety ofreasons, universities are increasingly seeking to develop internationalizationstrategies and programmes as a part of their evolving institutional missions, andan increasingly important element of these strategies is engagements with andthrough international consortia. Despite the wealth of scholarship that hasemerged exploring internationalization discourses as a predeterminedinstitutional priority, there is a lack of scholarship on the politics andtransformative potential of consortia as deliberative spaces capable of reframinginternationalization agendas. This article attempts to sketch and interrogate thetransformative potential of international consortia by developing a theoreticalframework for agency in globalizing universities, and then exploring anempirical case from an international consortium of prestigious researchuniversities in the Asia Pacific. By understanding the discourses and practices ofinternationalization as always ‘in the making’, we can draw our attention towhere and how certain ideas, projects and norms of internationalization becomeestablished, and perhaps we can expand our ability to make them differently.

Keywords: internationalization; higher education; consortia; agency; globalization;transformation

1. Introduction

For universities across the globe, the institutional and political projects variouslyreferred to as ‘internationalization’ are increasingly a part of organizational life.From developing nations’ higher education institutions aspiring to become ‘worldclass’ universities, to western hegemons seeking to maintain and enhance their relativepositioning in the global field of university reputations, the continuing formation andenhancement of international relationships is widely understood to be a major com-ponent of institutional progress within the ‘knowledge economy’ (Altbach and Salmi2011; Egron-Polak and Hudson 2010; Marginson 2008; Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development [OECD] 2009). Often embodied in the form of

© 2013 Society for Research into Higher Education

*Corresponding author. Email: secgen@apru.org

Studies in Higher Education, 2013Vol. 38, No. 3, 367–387, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.773219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

student and staff mobility programmes, co-taught degrees and research collaborations(to name a few), the projects pursued under collaborative ventures are as diverse andevolving as their parent institutions (Knight 2007). International projects are generallyundertaken to add value to the ‘product’ of universities, whether that be through widen-ing skills development opportunities, improving the curriculum or by increasing theuniversity’s symbolic prestige through associating with strong partners. However,while internationalization projects can certainly contribute to a range of institutionalmissions and a range of institutional products, there are continuing contestationsover what the university is, who it is for, what and what it is meant to produce(Shore 2010; Shore and Taitz 2012). Resolving these debates will be an empiricalmatter rather than a rhetorical one, as the practices which university managers andfaculty pursue are what ultimately matter to the making of investment streams andlivelihoods.

In the current historical moment, while internationalization discourse is becomingever more embedded into our higher education institutions, we are probably nearingthe point of saturation. With the rise of auditing technologies and new regimes ofaccountability for university investments (Cupples and Pawson 2012; Norrie 2012),it is not a far step to anticipate a discussion around ‘cost effectiveness’ and prioritizationwith respect to internationalization projects. Indeed, in a recent report for NAFSA(www.nafsa.org), the largest professional organization in the student mobility industry,Green (2012) argues that ‘institutions need to judge not only the quantity of activity butalso its quality and its contribution to overall institutional goals’. She promotes thedevelopment of indicators and benchmarks to help decision makers select projectsthat add most effectively to their institutional mission. This contrasts markedly withinternational ranking exercises, which use international student percentage metricsas positively related determinants of university quality (e.g. Williams et al. 2012).Internationalization can be measured in different ways, and can be put to work fordifferent ends.

After so many debates attempting to clarify the structure of the concept of interna-tionalization (Knight 2004; Mok 2007; Yang 2002), it appears we are approaching apoint where internationalization activities are likely to be more strongly disciplinedand ordered into a more tangible, political form. Universities will increasingly haveto make decisions about which networks and international relationships are worthbuilding, and why. It is into this context that we present our argument for theorizinga politics for international consortia.

As spaces for meeting, discourse and relationship building, we argue that inter-national consortia are key sites where ‘the international’ is made in practice, and wewonder whether this might present the possibility of making the international differ-ently. To make our argument, we proceed as follows. First, we lay out some broadthinking around globalization, and advance the proposition that, rather than thinkingof globalization as a fact or force, it is a process which is actively conducted byhuman agents and in association with a range of cognitive resources. Second, wesketch a few of the dominant rationales and discourses underlying internationalization,and highlight that the level of rhetoric leaves much room for manoeuvring for the levelof practice – internationalization per se can be achieved in more or less post/colonial orelitist ways, and we encourage scholars and practitioners to concern themselves withthe actual practice of internationalization projects, because it is their practice, ratherthan the rhetoric on which they are based, which creates material outcomes. Third,we draw out relevant research that has been done on consortia, and put it to work in

368 M. Tadaki and C. Tremewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

the present context to outline its contributions to consortia politics. Fourth, we developa theoretical account of agency to construct a political framework for consortia – struc-ture/agency, fields of power, governmentality, and network power. Fifth, we apply ourframework to the case of a prestigious network of research universities, in order to drawout how context shapes the opportunities and constraints which fashion agency.Finally, we conclude by reflecting on the broader politics of internationalization prac-tices, as well as the question we initially set ourselves up to pursue – can consortia bedeveloped as a transformative space?

2. Globalization – from fact to practice

The methods and concepts deployed to understand globalization processes are immensein scope and depth, and while we make no attempt to do justice to that literature here,three key movements in thinking can be fruitfully drawn out to inform a critical trans-formative project in higher education: globalization as convergence, globalization asdivergence, and globalization as practice.

Globalization as convergence

A foundational and hegemonic notion of globalization holds that the continuing expan-sion and intensification of economic and sociocultural flows across national borderswill lead to a greater convergence or like-ness of social organization at the globalscale (Held et al. 1999; Marginson 2010). This diffusion of incentives, norms andvalues will ultimately create systematic similarities in functions and forms of sociallife, whether it be free trade policy or Internet ‘culture’. In the context of higher edu-cation, the proliferation of global rankings, the English language dominance and con-cerns around the massification of universities are frequently cited as examples ofglobalizing convergences which are ‘largely inevitable’ in the contemporary world(Altbach 2007) and ‘cannot be fended off by national governments’ (Chan 2004).While there is a strong sense of inevitability embedded within the idea of global con-vergence, an increasing number of education scholars are highlighting that the thingswhich are to be converged can and should be open to contest, such as the neoliberalmanagement practices, governmentalities of international rankings, the idea of a‘world class university’ or the increasing marginalization of non-English languages(Beerkens 2003; Deem, Mok, and Lucas 2008; Mok 2010; Yang 2002).

Globalization as divergence

When an uneven world is exposed to similar or even identical processes, bifurcationsand heterogeneity in system response may result. The idea that globalization canproduce difference instead of – or in addition to – sameness is an idea increasinglyembraced by critical globalization scholars (Beerkens 2003; Denman 2002; Knight2007; Vaira 2004). To what extent can universities’ structural transformations (suchas internationalization rationales) be said to be a product of a ‘global’ force or incentive,relative to being a product of a geographically, historically, institutionally and cultu-rally located set of pursuits? In higher education, Vaira (2004) offers the notion oforganizational allomorphism to characterize an understanding of institutional changeas related to – but different from – wider pressures and structures. The practices of uni-versities in transformation are thus not simply determined by the ‘global’, but can be

Studies in Higher Education 369

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

understood as a complex conglomerate of action relating local, national and globalscales (Marginson and Rhoades 2002).

Globalization as practice

If the prospect of divergence and convergence creates some freedom to move within aglobalizing set of processes, this thinking can be further extended to create room tomove within a particular institutional setting. Decisions about organizational practiceare negotiated with – rather than determined by – the ‘global’, and further, the ideaof what the ‘global’ is or demands of institutions is revealed as a social constructthat is conditioned by our values and epistemologies, practised into particulardecision-making contexts and given material efficacy at their point of assertion(Fraser 2010; Larner and Le Heron 2002a). In noting how globalization is often usedas a rhetorical resource to give effect to local political narratives, Kelly (1999)argues that ‘globalization must be treated as a set of processes, not an inevitableend-state that implies the necessity of certain political outcomes’. To understand theconstructedness and contingency of ‘global’ power in practice, new foci and methodo-logical orientations need to be advanced. If we begin to approach the globalization nar-ratives as a cognitive resource mobilized to support a range of propositions for differenttypes of local social organization, then analytical discourse shifts from a fatalist deter-minism to normative arguments about which types of social relations ‘globalization’ought to be about (Clark, Massey, and Sarrre 2006; Santos 2006). We move from think-ing about globalizing processes as objective boundary conditions to thinking aboutthem as deliberative constructions, created and recreated in a range of sites andmoments across institutional trajectories (Larner and Le Heron 2002a). As Tsing(2000) argues, ‘it is important to attend to these sites to understand what projects of glo-balization do in the world – and what else goes on with and around them’ (emphasis inoriginal).

Instead of globalization we have globalizations, competing sets of relations that arevariously ignored and embedded, theorized and forgotten, turned into policy and imbri-cated in practice. From his interviews with university presidents, Marginson (2011)argues that these administrators actively recreate the global field of universitiesthrough imagining particular notions of global convergence, inevitability andagency, and positioning local institutions as adaptive to some orderings of these.These acts of imagining can involve social networks and research reports, world rank-ings, international consortia and ideas about local/global economic development.Through these imaginaries, universities then pursue acts of production, where globalrelations become materialized through international student recruitment efforts,student mobility programmes, curriculum sharing and other international projects.The constitution of imaginaries and the politics of practice are inextricably intertwined.

Rather than being an objective set of relationships against which institutions mustadapt according to some universal logic, globalization is revealed as a contingent andpeopled process, with many alternative globalizations possible. The choices we makeabout which relations to embed (or which flows to globalize) within our institutions donot merely reflect these ‘forces’, they actually give them effect and make them stronger(Whatmore and Clark 2006). Globalising processes are not some inevitable scriptwhich has to be followed – at the very least, we can begin to question who wrotethe script and who benefits from its playing out (Robertson 2005). This orientation‘alerts us to the socially constructed nature of globalising processes and to the

370 M. Tadaki and C. Tremewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

power-geometries of the narratives told, the listening posts by which these are broad-cast, the effects in different settings as the stories are learned and unlearned’ (Larnerand Le Heron 2002b). To engage with the re/imagining of the globalization ofhigher education is to be involved in a political and normative project. As we moveforward to consider the ‘settings’ and ‘listening posts’ under which narratives of inter-nationalization unfold, we should remember that universities are not just the objects ofglobalization, they are also its agents (Scott 1998).

3. Internationalization as a political project: competing rationales for (andstructures of) connection

Internationalization has emerged as an institutional project for many universities acrossa range of national, economic and cultural contexts. While almost always marketedunder the rhetoric of global citizenship, many programmes are, in practice, narrowlyeconomic and instrumental in their structure and function (International Associationof Universities 2012; Mok 2007; Ng 2012). As a way of analytically separating outthe range of internationalization projects undertaken by universities, an ongoing con-versation in the literature has sought to place bounds around internationalization toprovide conceptual (and perhaps political) clarity and accountability (Hawawini2011; Knight 2004; Stier 2004; Yang 2002). For present purposes, however, internatio-nalization can be understood as describing administrative university projects explicitlyrelating to the international flows of people, ideas and/or resources. Importantly, wealso take ‘internationalization’ to be an emergent political project that is imagined, dis-cussed and acted out by university administrators to each other as well as other agents inand beyond the university.

Table 1. One typology of internationalization rationales (from Knight 2007).

Type Rationale

Social/cultural National cultural identityIntercultural understandingCitizenship developmentSocial and community development

Political Foreign policyNational securityTechnical assistancePeace and mutual understandingNational identityRegional identity

Economic Economic growth and competitivenessLabour marketFinancial incentives

Academic International dimension to research and teachingExtension of academic horizonInstitution buildingProfile and statusEnhancement of quality

Studies in Higher Education 371

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

The analytically emergent (rather than officially stated) rationales for internationa-lization have been the subject of intense scrutiny, and Knight’s (2007) four-part typol-ogy provides one way of canvassing its diversity into simple form (see Table 1), whichseparates out academic, economic, political and social-cultural categories. In contrast toKnight’s approach of listing a range of reasons cited or observed in the literature, Mar-ginson (2011) developed a typology of particular university strategies (practices ratherthan reasons), which tries to draw the connections between the projects pursued and theaims which guide them. Others have similarly sought to realign thinking about interna-tionalization activities along an axis of human agency (operational rather than abstractaims) by advancing a typology of coherent discursive projects evident within theirempirical cases. Stier (2004, 2010) focuses on the prominence of instrumentalism rela-tive to educationalist and idealist (emancipatory) projects on display in European Unionpolicy, and Vincent-Lancrin (2009) distils four coherent agendas that policy packagesmight be designed to pursue: (1) mutual understanding across cultures, (2) excellenceand competition for talent, (3) revenue generation and (4) capacity development.

This realignment is both analytically significant – in that it allows new people-basedand political-economy-based understandings of the world to unfold – and normativelyengaged. Rather than simply listing rationales as if ‘at a distance’, a people-centredapproach to globalizing processes pays close attention to how certain ends andmeans become bundled, rather than assuming an unproblematic connection betweenthem.

Despite the best intentions of those involved, the worlds of theory and rhetoric –

imaginaries of the global convergence and adaptability, ‘best practice’ and so on –

are not necessarily borne out in practice. There are mediating imaginaries and prac-titioners, unspoken assumptions and resource constraints which all fashion the meansthat are used to pursue particular (often ill-defined or general) ends. There has been sig-nificant blowback from critical scholars against the too-often-evident colonial dis-courses embedded within international projects, and many have argued thatinternationalization projects in practice (as well as in theory) reproduce structuralsocial inequalities, embed forms of cultural dominance and basically undermine themoral basis on which the projects marketed as ‘global citizenship’ are meant to bebased (Balarin 2011; Bianco 2006; Findlay et al. 2012; Mannion et al. 2011; Sidhuand Dall’Alba 2012). The aims, benefactors, ideologies and styles of internationaliza-tion projects are all up for contest in much the same way as ‘ownership’ of universitiesis being fiercely fought over (see Shore and Taitz 2012). However, none of thesedebates will be solved by issuing a new official statement from the administration,so long as practices do not bring the spirit of its claims to life.

Although the oft-stated principles of internationalization projects are built aroundthe notion of global citizenship and cosmopolitan solidarity, if the means used topursue those ends are selected and measured through instrumental or economic prac-tices of assessment then perhaps the effort might be better referred to as an internatio-nalization industry (Lewis 2011) or as ‘transnational transactions’ (Habib 2012).However, for practitioners and scholars who want to reclaim these emerging internatio-nalizations in the making in service of an epistemologically plural and collectivelyempowering intervention into the global field of higher education, there is much tobe done to understand where and how such a deliberative and transformative conversa-tion might take place. We suggest that, as a site through which scholars and prac-titioners might come together to develop progressive norms and practices aroundinternationalization, international consortia of universities may provide space to have

372 M. Tadaki and C. Tremewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

and cultivate these notions, to foster broader thinking and develop an ethic of solidarityacross institutions in different institutional contexts and different structures andcapacities.

4. The work of university consortia

University consortia are organizational networks of three or more universities that aimto affiliate, converse and interact with each other for mutual benefit. Consortia can havediverse aims, forms and functions, but what they share is a desire to achieve ends thatare not possible for institutions to achieve alone. In this section, we outline a few of themajor rationales, structures and concerns that have emerged about consortia, to set upour account of agency which follows.

Early consortia were founded as a way to develop structures for universitycooperation beyond bilateral arrangements, to provide a forum to share experiencesand practices of institutional change as well as increasing the collective prestige ofmembers (de Wit 2004a). Central to all of this has been the prospect of reaping econ-omies of scale and efficiency, by learning from others how to save money and stream-line institutional functionality (Denman 2002; Teather 2004). All consortia aredeveloped out of some form of collective identity proposition, whether it be notionsof regional solidarity, building university–community relations, global elite researchuniversities, disciplinary or thematic specialisms, among others (Beerkens 2002; deWit 2004a; Olds 2012). A common set of practices developed through consortia topursue these projects includes (from Chan 2004; see also Stockley and de Wit 2011):

. Student and staff mobility;

. Academic exchanges;

. Curriculum development;

. Joint course delivery;

. Research collaboration;

. Joint bidding for research projects;

. Benchmarking.

In the current historical moment, however, the environments in which consortia operateare changing. Olds (2012) suggests that many are undergoing a phase of redefinition,and he outlines a number of emerging contexts through which consortia are becomingincreasingly central:

. new collaborative degrees;

. massive open online courses;

. professional master’s degrees to serve non-traditional student populations;

. reduced opportunity to find large-scale research funding;

. project-specific resource networks;

. institutionalizing disciplinary networks;

. creating deep partnerships across 2–3 universities.

Although the landscapes of and for consortia are changing, there are contingencies incapital and it is important to get a sense of some relevant players moving forward. Table2 lists a range of prominent consortia present in the Asia Pacific region, canvassing arange of institutional forms, aims and capabilities.

Studies in Higher Education 373

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Table 2. Some prominent consortia with members in the Asia Pacific region.

Name Membership Scope Key activities Website

Association of AmericanUniversities (AAU)

61 USA &Canada

Top research universities.Lobby at federal level on higher educationand research issues.

www.aau.edu

Association of EastAsian Universities (AEARU)

17 East Asia Forum of presidents of leading north-east Asia research universitiesfor research exchange

www.aearu.org

Association of Pacific RimUniversities (APRU)

42 Pacific Rim Global positioning of leading Asia-Pacific research universitiesof APEC economies, research collaboration, administrativebench-marking, student activities.

www.apru.org

International Association ofResearch Universities (IARU)

10 Global Global positioning of leading international universities involvingresearch collaboration.

www.iaruni.org

International Association ofUniversities (IAU)

604 Global UNESCO-based open membership association for networking andinternationalization

www.iau-iau.net

Universitas 21 (U21) 23 Global Global positioningInnovation in teaching and learningStudent and faculty exchange, summer schools

www.universitas21.com

Worldwide Universities Network(WUN)

19 Global Facilitating research collaboration www.wun.ac.uk

374M.Tadaki

andC.Trem

ewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Beerkens (2002) distinguishes consortia according to their scope in size (number ofmembers), their scope in time (defined versus ongoing programme) and their scope inactivities (whether disciplinary, thematic or central vs. decentralized administration).While such typology provides descriptive clarity (see also de Wit 2004a) it does notaddress the functional capacity of consortia, leading Beerkens and der Wende (2007)to argue that consortia should also be approached in terms of their complementarityand compatibility. Complementarity refers to the synergistic potential of contributorsto a project or programme, and compatibility refers to the institutional norms and struc-tures which will make projects implementable. This represents a significant shift inthinking from the description of consortia to an attempt at explaining how and whythey succeed and fail (see also de Wit 2004b; Stockley and de Wit 2011).

As analysis moves from thinking about the forms to the functions of consortia, anumber of insights and concerns have already begun to emerge. Because consortiaactivities are built around the entrepreneurial (and often voluntary) actions of a fewadministrative and academic champions, there needs to be more focus given to howto foster new academic cultures that (institutionally) reward and acknowledge colla-borative practices in various performance and organization assessment practices(Chan 2004). Consortia missions are often derived ‘from the top’ of the administrationand intended to trickle down and effectively change the actions of faculty – wherefunding is promised, these opportunities are quickly taken up, but as soon as fundingexpires so does faculty support, unless other meanings of/for collaboration areembedded and maintained. Similarly, even if there is initial ‘buy-in’ across staff andfaculty, the changing relevance of institutional priorities as well as flows of implement-ing staff may see cycles of dis- and reinvestment that cannot sustain projects after theyget off the ground (Chan 2004). Stockley and de Wit (2011) and Kinser and Green(2009) provide much-needed summaries of the very complex and practical work ofbringing internationalization to life through partnerships and consortia.

What consortia are capable of in practice is not something that is necessarily deter-mined at the administrative, rhetorical or structural level. The best intentioned and mosttheoretically or ethically compelling narratives of regional or cosmopolitan solidaritycannot necessarily prevent initiatives from failing (de Wit 2004b). What is needed toproceed is a vision of solidarity that emerges from and is consistent with the practicesthat actually compose internationalization projects, critically reflective of these politicsin the making. As Marginson’s (2011) interviews with university presidents reveal,consortia are highly valued and acknowledged as a space where global relationshipsare imagined and then collectively produced through the material practices thatresult. As consortia continue to reorganize around the collective recognition that prac-tices and skills (i.e. getting things done) matter, an opportunity arises in which newmoralities of internationalization may emerge as academic faculty and staff can worktogether to practise a progressive vision of global interconnectedness.

5. Theorizing agency in/for consortia

If we accept the notion that there are multiple ways of practising international projects –even ones under the same mission statement – then we acknowledge that multipleworlds are already possible. However, to engage with practices (rather than just rheto-rics) in a coherent way requires a kind of coordination, perhaps a kind of benchmarkingor ‘convergence’ of ideas about practices. Since benchmarking is understood as one ofthe things consortia are generally quite good at, the deliberative development of

Studies in Higher Education 375

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

progressive narratives of practice seems to be a viable and valuable pursuit for consor-tia. The question then becomes how to imagine and act in a complex set of intersectingprocesses of globalizing higher education institutions. To aid in this task, we draw outfour key propositions to act as a guide to thought and action.

Proposition one: structure and agency are co-constitutive

While human agents can be understood to be acting within structures that constrain therange of (acceptable, normal, profitable, etc.) actions, they do have agency throughwhich to incrementally change those structures by virtue of the choices they make.Giddens (1984) famously argued that ‘the structural properties of social systems areboth medium and outcome of the practices they recursively organize’. The norms,codes and habits of action – such as neoliberal incentives or framings of students ascommodities – can be constraining but are not determinative. Actions are resourcedby human social and cognitive rules and resources, but they are always being redefinedthrough every application. In internationalization practices, recent scholarship has high-lighted the selective and contingent ‘power’ of certain norms and ideas relative to othersin decisions about university projects, thus recentring agency and revealing the truelogics underlying change (Cantwell and Maldonado-Maldonado 2009; King 2010).The various constraints or structures governing internationalization practice, fromNew Public Management reforms to knowledge economy strategies, may be constrain-ing in some ways but it is also helpful to consider how they can be remade through prac-tice (Cupples and Pawson 2012; Hoffman 2011).

Proposition two: discourse is productive

To say that internationalization practices presently occur without guiding imaginarieswould be untrue. Rather, there are many competing discourses and imaginarieswhich intersect tacitly and explicitly and emerge through the actions of practitionersof international projects. Ideas about global convergence and competitiveness, neolib-eral notions of ‘accountability’ and ideas about global citizenship and the role of theuniversity (e.g. to produce skilled graduates or encourage critical thinking?) are justa few of the often competing and contradictory ideas that fashion institutional pro-grammes (Larner and Le Heron 2005; Shore 2010). Recent critical work developingFoucault’s notion of ‘governmentality’ provides a rich set of understandings of howdiscourse provides a platform for establishing a hegemony of logic, able to affectaction ‘at a distance’ by virtue of embedding certain logics into institutions ofhuman action (Cupples and Pawson 2012; King 2010; Moutsios 2010). Which logicsshould we give effect to, by virtue of our framings of projects and repetitions of stories?

Proposition three: network power is uneven

Within the context of networked entities and institutional dynamics, the distributions ofresources and varying abilities of actors to influence the involvement of others need tobe understood and engaged. Castells (2009) has gone some way toward developing alanguage of networks and power. He outlines four distinct concepts:

. Networking power – the ability to control who constitutes the network (and thuswho benefits from membership). For example, who controls decisions aboutmembership into the consortia?

376 M. Tadaki and C. Tremewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

. Network power – the ability to set the standards for membership. Once set, thestandards become compelling for all nodes. For example, what must membersdo to be a part of the consortia?

. Networked power – the ability of certain actors to affect the organization ofothers. For example, whose say matters most in consortia activities?

. Networking-making power – the ability to reprogram specific networks accordingto the interests and values of the programmers. For example, who controls thestrategic direction of a consortium?

In approaching the unevenness of networks one aim may be to highlight and reduceaspects of structural inequality across nations, but another point is more pragmatic:how can we use network concepts to understand how the system functions, and thusinform how it might function differently?

Proposition four: capital is symbolic

The global field of higher education is populated by many actors making various claimsto relevance and ‘value’ as political economic projects worthy of investment. Bourdieu(1993) suggests that we might think of higher education institutions as variously posi-tioned (and positioning themselves within) ‘fields of power’, coherent social structureswith governing laws, codes and what constitutes ‘capital’. The distinction betweenmassifying versus elite or ‘world class’ universities is a classic example – each fieldhas its own set of codes, aims, logics and capital. As economic landscapes change,higher education institutions variously attempt to reposition themselves in efforts tosecure particular kinds of capital within their field (such as hegemony in world rank-ings), and these position-taking strategies play out through the habitus (the tacitlydeveloped patterned practices) of the institutions themselves (Marginson 2008).Thus, institutional change is envisioned as occurring within dominant fields ofpower, and undertaken in order to secure or increase the symbolic capital valued bythe organization. In the context of debates about ‘world class’ universities, there areobvious incentives for hegemons to want to secure their symbolic capital by globalizingparticular rationalities of ‘world-classness’which will reliably reproduce the status quo.Arguments for embracing institutional diversity in universities across the developedand developing world are consistently being undercut by a push by certain intereststo allocate weight to world university rankings, which all measure the same thing,and thus apply the same kind of ‘capital’ to all institutions (Deem, Mok, and Lucas2008; Hazelkorn 2008; Marginson and Van der Wende 2007; Mok 2010).

The ways in which we understand the practice of power affect the ways in which wego about developing it for ourselves and put power to work for a progressive project ofinternationalization. By envisioning structure and agency as co-produced, by viewingdiscourse as productive, by engaging with network power and the symbolic productionof capital, we inform and expand the range of actions available to pursue an emancipa-tory internationalization project.

6. APRU: making global relations

In mobilizing the theoretical framework developed here to understand an empiricalcase, we draw on organizational material and ethnographic observations ‘from theinside’ of the institutional reorganization of a high-profile international consortiumof research universities in the Asia Pacific. Marc Tadaki was enrolled into APRU

Studies in Higher Education 377

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

reform processes from February to July 2012 as an academic ‘outsider’ employedthrough the Secretariat to help survey, understand, critique and contribute thoughtson future pathways for the organization. As an ‘outsider’ in a more operationally-focused role, he asked many questions of APRU senior staff (as well as university pre-sidents) through two major APRU meeting points – the Senior Staff Meeting in March2012 and the APRU President’s Meeting in June 2012. Since June 2011, ChristopherTremewan has been the Secretary General of APRU and has been involved directly instrategic discussions at the level of university presidents about the future of the organ-ization. In addition to our observational strategies, the Secretariat has been a locusthrough which key texts (e.g. a draft Strategic Plan, meeting programmes, speakertopics) were produced, negotiated and circulated, and our analysis builds on a systema-tic interpretation and interrogation of these evidential threads. The methodologicalapproach of project has been an attempt to ‘study through’ (cf. Robertson et al.2012) this particular set of moments in which intersecting processes collide, discoursesare solidified, and norms emerge which contour the emerging politics of universitypractices. By situating these ‘rooms and moments’ (Le Heron 2009) within wider tra-jectories of actors, discourses and political projects, the possibilities for transformationmay be revealed more clearly.

The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) is an international consortiumof (currently) 42 elite research universities across the Pacific Rim (see http://www.apru.org). It was established in 1997 through the entrepreneurial efforts of the heads of fourCalifornian universities, who envisioned a higher education parallel to APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) as a bridge between East and West, and whose organ-izational mission was to ‘promote scientific, educational and cultural collaborationamong Pacific Rim economies’ (APRU 2008).

Membership

APRU’s reputation as a network of prestigious universities has been enabled in partthrough its membership policy and maintenance of its ‘top national university’ brand.APRU membership has always been governed by nomination through the SteeringCommittee and a vote by general members. Eligibility for APRUmembership has his-torically been given to institutions with high quality (read top national) research andacademic programmes, as well as paying consideration to geographical spread(APRU 2004). The elite nature of APRU provides a kind of symbolic capital – mem-bership produces value. However, recent movements have begun to add pressure toAPRU’s membership policy which affect its ‘symbolic capital’ in three ways. First,the Pacific Rim as a geopolitical, economic and cultural entity bears interest farbeyond the Pacific Rim geographical area – central and south Pacific, Europe,central Asia, for example – but universities from these areas (even prestigiousones) do not fit within the APEC model. APRU needs to decide whether universitylocation versus university interest should be of primary importance. Second,within the geographical area of the Pacific Rim there are many universities of‘world class’ and other qualities that are not within the current membership – whyshould these universities be excluded? Could the APRU mission of promoting inter-national collaboration not gain from wider participation, or would this ‘dilute’ thesymbolic capital of the group, and is that something that should not be allowed tohappen? Third, there is significant heterogeneity in terms of contributions to APRUactivities. Some universities host and contribute to many activities, whereas others

378 M. Tadaki and C. Tremewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

– for a variety of reasons – do not. The prospects for an active network versus a pres-tige network are not necessarily the same.

Ultimately, however these questions about regional ‘relevance’, active participationand notions of ‘prestige’ are addressed, it is important to consider the kinds of inter-national relationships that they legitimate (and deny). How will APRU make use ofits (changing) symbolic capital, and how can it develop various forms of network-power (eligibility criteria, conditions of membership) to pursue and promote a visionof active collaboration in and for the Asia Pacific region?

Activities

In the context of the ecology of university consortia, APRU’s activities revolve four keyareas, with the first two the most significant by far:

(1) Meetings of university administrators. University presidents (annual). University senior staff (biannual), those in charge of the APRU portfolio. Chief information officers (others less regular). Deans’ meetings of various faculty – Law, Agriculture, Business, Education

(2) Research symposia, conferences on topics of interest and relevance to theregion. Recent examples include. 8th Research Symposium on Multi-hazards around the Pacific Rim (TohukuUniversity, 2012)

. 4th Symposium on Brain and Mind Research in the Asia-Pacific (Keio Uni-versity, 2012)

. 4th Research Symposium on Gerontology (Fudan University, 2011)(3) Student and staff development:

. Fellows (emerging researchers) programme

. Undergraduate summer school

. Doctoral students’ conference(4) Research themes, residual from a one-off injection of funding into a parallel

‘APRU World Institute’ research venture:. Sustainability and climate change (hosted by University of California SanDiego)

. Global health (hosted by University of Southern California)

From conversations with senior staff and university presidents, the primary contributionrepeatedly cited for APRU has been as a forum for networking and sharingor benchmarking knowledge and practice (areas 1 and 2). There is a strong sensethat without these networking spaces, APRU would cease to have a value propositionof a magnitude equal to the investment required to sustain it. APRU has struggledto develop a narrative of being more than a ‘president’s club’, a project which a signifi-cant number of senior staff and a few presidents and institutions are committed toadvancing.

APRU senior staff meet biannually to discuss APRU functions and projects, and ithas been through these somewhat informal spaces that the ideas for the current sympo-sia and other programmes have emerged, pitched by champions and often carriedthrough after succeeding once or twice. What is interesting here is the contingencyof the topics chosen – until the present reform process APRU has not had a formal

Studies in Higher Education 379

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

strategy for coordinating activities. The symposia that run presently are there because(1) some senior staff at some point brought it up and championed it through a pilot, and(2) they seem to have ongoing viability. Thus, the prospect of coordinating activitiesaround a set of central themes finds itself in tension with the necessarily bottom-upnature of project implementation (and success).

New spaces and imaginaries

APRU is currently trying to distil key priorities through which to move forward (avision) and also trying to develop a framework for coordinating activity resourcesand implementation (a plan). Through a series of consultation exercises withmember presidents and senior staff – facilitated by the Secretariat – the followingthree thematic priorities have been drawn out as focusing imaginaries (from APRU,2012):

(1) Shaping Asia-Pacific Higher Education and ResearchAPRU universities can together shape the policy environment for higher edu-cation and research and influence social, economic, political and culturalforces that impact the future of universities

(2) Creating Asia-Pacific Global LeadersAPRU universities will cooperate to enhance the global leadership capabilitiesof faculty, administrators and students – as well as of their institutions

(3) Partnering on Solutions to Asia-Pacific Challenges (research)APRU universities will work together and with partners from government andbusiness, international organizations, other universities and communityleaders on solutions to regional and global challenges

APRU activities have not been previously structured within an overarching frameworkapart from the general APRU mission statement, and there is a sense among manysenior staff that this consolidation and reframing of activities is not only necessary(as universities’ international networks saturate) but also potentially empowering asit provides a stronger sense of purpose and collective agency around the internationa-lization project of APRU. In the 2012 senior staff meeting, for example, the three the-matic priorities (above) were put through to senior staff and discussed at length – arethese coherent and plausible programmes of action, and how might they be giveneffect? A number of senior staff related that this was the first time the annualmeeting had done some reframing, compared to the rehearsed and mechanicalfeeling of previous meetings. A number of illustrative suggestions developedthrough the meeting are summarized in Table 3.

These spaces reveal the ‘global’ as very much in the making, and could quite easilybe made differently. Far beyond simply reflecting a brainstorming session from a par-ticular consortium undergoing restructuring, we contend that through these prop-ositions we can see how the global is being made material, as intersecting politicalprojects are variously narrated in and out of discussion and put to work in variousways. For example, in response to the proposition for an ‘Asia-Pacific WomenLeaders in Higher Education’ programme, a colleague from Japan urged the groupto consider that a symposium on the topic should be accompanied by the productionof an official white paper which could be construed as informal (but very powerful)APRU policy on female empowerment within universities. The idea was that senior

380 M. Tadaki and C. Tremewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Table 3. Some suggestions tabled in the APRU senior staff meeting (from internal notes).

(1) Shaping Asia-Pacific Higher Education and ResearchSymposia on ‘critical issues’ in the Asia PacificSymposia to explore ‘critical issues’ for the region and for APRU. This might begin with asurvey or workshop exercise, building on the suggestions raised in the discussion: tsunami,demographic change, population health, food security, sustainability, climate change, resilience.APRU needs to determine which critical issues are already being explored by members and otherorganizations, as well as where there is collective capability to add further to discussion. APRUefforts should be complementary rather than competitive in contributing to regionaldevelopment.

APRU crisis managementAPRU could develop research and student/faculty/course networks around crises, making use ofthe broad disciplinary and experiential diversity from APRU members. APRU could developstudent, faculty and administrator exchanges as a way of sharing crisis expertise acrossorganizations. APRU can also function as a ‘support network’ across universities, for instanceTohuku’s experience in earthquake recovery. Additionally, a mechanism such as large-scalestaff and student mobility might also be considered as ways of dealing with physical crises.APRU efforts should have the conscious aim of producing white papers for policy, state-of-knowledge, thematic or regional areas. There may be opportune links that can be developed withother organizations to resource and implement related activities.

(2) Creating Asia-Pacific Global LeadersWomen leaders in the Asia PacificCreate a forum for institutions to share best practice with respect to women leadership andinstitutional practices. Can serve to benchmark institutional positions and progress over time,and develop communal capability. Should aim to be solutions-oriented (overcoming rather thandescribing barriers), and could engage private sector and non-profit actors. An APRU reportmight help provide rationale and tools to facilitate implementation among and beyond members.

APRU virtual campusCreate an online repository of APRU courses designed for students of member universities.Courses could be delivered at the home institution in line with the virtual curricula, or berecorded and distributed for students to engage with electronically. Need to provide credit andrecognition to contributing institutions.

International languagesTake an APRU-wide inventory of innovative language pedagogy, and establish areas of mutualinterest and potential synergy. Consider the role of student mobility in language pedagogy andresearch, and think about how the threads might be more effectively combined through distancelearning and exchange (among other approaches). Develop pilot projects around existingstrengths.

APRU leaders’ academyBuild on summer school concept to provide platform for networking amongst emerging AsiaPacific student leaders. Could be organized around APRU-themes such as hazards, populationhealth, etc. and could be developed with private sector and other organizations to work onproblems/topics relevant to APRU’s mission.

(3) Partnering on Solutions to Asia-Pacific Challenges (research)Global health and climate changeThe high-profile and policy-relevant nature of the existing ‘Global Health’ (GH) and‘Sustainability and Climate Change’ (SCC) workstreams made them high-priority topics for alldiscussion groups. Because of their public good aspects and potential scope for application, itwas suggested that government partnerships might be sought to resource the initiatives, possiblywithin the APEC frame – although the audience should extend far beyond APEC andgovernments. The generic and broad sweep of these programmes can be an asset but also a

(Continued)

Studies in Higher Education 381

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

staff from Japanese universities could then put the white paper to work in their homecontexts as they argue for stronger gender equity in universities’ hiring and employ-ment practices. The notion of benchmarking a progressive political project wouldattempt to develop networked power through APRU, using the symbolic capital ofthe elite and intercultural nature of the Association to exert a normative moral forceonto local contexts – in short, benchmarking for social justice.

In a different way, the propositions around ‘making a case for collaboration’ arealso undergirded by global discourses and practices. Notions of citation analyses or col-laboration-impact studies can be interpreted as further extensions of New Public Man-agement ideology. They are calculative practices which attempt to render decisionmaking into a technical exercise instead of a deeply normative one. With collabor-ation-impact metrics for journal papers, for instance, there is evidence to suggest thatsuch simplistic quantitative approaches to research funding allocation provide muchstronger benefits for those universities that are already ‘world class’ (Jones, Wuchty,and Uzzi 2008) as well as reifying instrumental (rather than critical or lateral)notions of collaboration, thus privileging the natural sciences against the social sciencesand humanities, as well as de-privileging interdisciplinary research in general (Abramoet al. 2009; Lewis, Ross, and Holden 2012; Rafols et al. 2012). The proposition is muchmore about ordering decision making about internationalization into a particular cogni-tive and ethical framework, in much the way that Green (2012) suggests is both inevi-table and desirable. In the context of worlds-in-the-making, we can ask – should APRUreify these practices and this kind of logic, or should we develop a different way ofmaking decisions about internationalization, and set a different set of norms, objectivesand visions for the academy, economy and the function of university collaboration?

Situating the political moment

Through understanding the discursive power of calculative practices, the networkedpotential of norms, and the ways in which these processes intersect at multiple levelsof institutional narratives, we can begin to reformulate a situated sense of politics. Inthinking about the constraining structures and empowering possibilities (or freedoms

liability, and APRU needs to consider how an Asia Pacific ‘bent’ to GH and SCC can bedeveloped (and marketed) through its activities.

Make a (quantitative) case for collaborationAPRU senior staff and secretariat to form working group/s to coordinate and pursue:1. A social network citation analysis of key APRU-related research areas, with the aim ofderiving a sense of pre-existing research networks of APRU researchers. This could be used tomake the case for symposia and research stream development2. A survey of international collaboration assessments (e.g. collaboration–citation impactrelationships) to make a financial argument for presidents and other organizations as a pitch forfunding APRU research programmes.

Public engagementAPRU activities should be made more public. Official papers and press releases could beproduced to gain policy and media salience, and collaboration with extra-universityorganizations (such as NGOs, APEC, etc.) could provide more opportunities for this. A moreactive and ‘live’ website could act as a portal to communicate how APRU activities are evolvingand what is being done.

Table 3. Continued

382 M. Tadaki and C. Tremewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

to move), we might distil a sense of APRU’s current political moment, which perhapsmay not be too different from other consortia across the world (see Table 4).

To understand theworld as in themaking, to see openingswhere imaginaries are formedand then norms are set and practised, reveals power as far more distributed than might haveoriginally been thought. APRUdepends on champions tomake programmeswork, and it isthrough successful programmes that practices and norms are developed, discourses materi-alized, and aims attained (or not). The answer to the question, ‘what are the politics ofAPRU?’, is not as determined by rhetorical statements or presumed neoliberal governmen-talities so much as by the very contingent activities and practices that it pursues. APRU’sfundamental challenge is a neoliberal one – how to mobilize decentralized groups ofpeople? To realize the political moment requires a fundamental engagement with practices.No amount of theorizing will realize a new programme if champions do not step forward topush it through and embed and narrate its politics into the discourse of internationalization.There are many resources, both discursive and institutional, through which proponentsacross a range of scales – from presidents, to senior staff, to faculty to NGOs and others– can develop to pursue a progressive vision of internationalization grounded in epistemicpluralism, social justice, and collaboration-for-community development, or not.

Table 4. Understanding the political moment for APRU.

Resources Constraints

Evolving imaginaries‘Asia Pacific’ region, geopoliticallysignificantUniversities as integral to knowledgeeconomyUniversities linked to national developmentUniversities as critics and consciences ofsocietyPrestigious network of knowledge producersand producers of new elites

Need to mobilize senior staff, engagepresidents and empower championsNeed to develop a funding structure forprogrammesNeed for senior staff to be working with facultychampions – need energy and expertise to putforward pilot projectsSecretariat is limited to administrativefunctions. Fees are low, not tied to inflation. Ifsecretariat is expected to be entrepreneurial, itneeds to be active as a strategic hub initiatinginnovative collaborations in partnership withmembers.

Institutional opportunitiesGeographical spread of membersInternationalization as key project foruniversitiesConsortia as key site of imaginary-formationAPRU as site of norm-development (networkpower) and establishment for internationalpracticeDirect presidential involvement makes formalengagement possibleOpportunity to develop coherent politicalproject for APRU

In process of going beyond APRU as asymbolic organization, maintaining presidentand senior staff connections and studentactivities but not venturing into the research-policy-mobility nexus.Voluntary organization – beyond the fees,members contribute or invest according to theirinterest. Some members have limited theirparticipation to a minimal level while othershave participated strongly.How to engage presidents as champions and todeal with cyclic commitment to APRU bypresidents and senior staff?Some universities compartmentalizeinvolvement and have policies around whatthey do with consortia and what they do asbranding exercises by themselves. How doesAPRU add value for its members in thisenvironment?

Studies in Higher Education 383

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

7. Conclusion – internationalization in the making

This article emerged from an effort by its authors, an academic geographer and thepresent chief administrator of APRU (who is also a political scientist), respectively,as an attempt to understand the political moment and potential to collectively imagine– and pursue through practice – an international narrative of cosmopolitan solidarity,epistemological and institutional difference and a transformative (rather than subservi-ent) role for universities in regional economies and discourses of development.

As sites where the ‘global’ is made, we have advanced the case that internationalconsortia should be understood and approached as spaces where the values-foundationsof international institutional relationships are established. They are spaces in whichthese values become visible and are contestable, and their extent of embedding is con-tingent upon many things, most of which have to do with where the effort and imagin-ation come from to pursue international projects. There is ample space for universityfaculty, senior staff, and presidents to contribute and define what ‘internationalization’is and will become. There are many reasons for concern that without active engagementand vision development, internationalization practices may develop along ‘default’neoliberal lines, the possibilities of which we have observed here.

The mission of the university is not something that can be unproblematicallyassumed, either in a positive or negative light. There is an opportunity here towonder about how we might collectively develop an internationalization ‘governmen-tality’ that operates in service of the communities – local, regional and global – in whichwe are embedded, rather than the narrow self-interest of any individual institution ornation-state. Through insights brought forward through critical social science, newunderstandings of the contingency and symbolic operation of power can reposition nar-rowly competitive futures as much less predetermined, and alternate ones much morepossible. By approaching globalization as a set of practices conducted by people andconstituted by their governing rationalities, we create space to know and make differentkinds of globalizations. We also recognize that consortia –while unique kinds of spaces– are not the only spaces where institutional narratives are formed, contested andembedded. Powerful scholarship is emerging which attempts to contour why andhow wider intergovernmental institutions such as the World Bank, UNESCO and theOECD imagine and exercise discursive power over investment narratives and insti-tutional imaginations (Lebeau and Sall 2011; Van der Wende 2011). Consortia andthese other spaces constitute an argument for moving beyond the university as aprimary object of inquiry, for both understanding and enacting institutional change(Robertson et al. 2012).

It may be idealistic to think that universities occupy a special and powerful place inthe global landscape, but we do think this way, and we also think that, as prestigiousinstitutions of knowledge and the production of social elites, universities can andshould be at the forefront of developing a collaborative ethos that can dialoguethrough difference to create a better world. To pursue such an agenda is not only theor-etically ambitious but practically demanding. We hope to have made the case here thatpursuing a progressive vision is not only a matter of critical theory but embodiedknowledge and the hard work of acquiring it.

ReferencesAbramo, G., C.A. D’Angelo, and F. Di Costa. 2009. Research collaboration and productivity: Is

there correlation? Higher Education 57: 155–71.

384 M. Tadaki and C. Tremewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Altbach, P.G. 2007.Globalization and the university:Realities in anunequalworld. In Internationalhandbook of higher education, ed. J.J.F. Forest and P.G. Altbach, 121–39. Dordrecht: Springer.

Altbach, P.G., and J. Salmi. 2011. The road to academic excellence: The making of world-classresearch universities. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU). 2004. Constitution of Association of PacificRim Universities. Singapore: APRU.

Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU). 2008. APRU in its element: The first decade.Singapore: APRU.

Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU). 2012. Strategic framework 2012–2015: TheAsia-Pacific network for global leadership. Singapore: APRU.

Balarin, M. 2011. Global citizenship and marginalisation: Contributions towards a politicaleconomy of global citizenship. Globalisation, Societies and Education 9, nos. 3–4: 355–66.

Beerkens, E. 2002. International inter-organisational arrangements in higher education: Towardsa typology. Tertiary Education and Management 8: 297–314.

Beerkens, E. 2003. Globalisation and higher education research. Journal of Studies inInternational Education 7, no. 2: 128–48.

Beerkens, E., and M. der Wende. 2007. The paradox in international cooperation: Institutionallyembedded universities in a global environment. Higher Education 53: 61–79.

Bianco, J.L. 2006. Educating for citizenship in a global community: World kids, world citizensand global education. In Towards a global community: educating for tomorrow’s world, ed.J. Campbell, N. Baikaloff and C. Power, 209–26. Dordrecht: Springer.

Bourdieu, P. 1993. The field of cultural production. Cambridge: Polity Press.Cantwell, B., and A. Maldonado-Maldonado. 2009. Four stories: Confronting contemporary

ideas about globalisation and internationalisation in higher education. Globalisation,Societies and Education 7, no. 3: 289–306.

Castells, M. 2009. Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chan, W.W.Y. 2004. International cooperation in higher education: Theory and practice.

Journal of Studies in International Education 8, no. 1: 32–55.Clark, N., D.Massey, and P. Sarre. 2006. Aworld in the making. Milton Keynes: Open University.Cupples, J., and E. Pawson. 2012. Giving an account of oneself: The PBRF and the neoliberal

university. New Zealand Geographer 68: 14–23.de Wit, H. 2004a. Academic alliances and networks: A new internationalisation strategy in

response to the globalisation of our societies. In Consortia: international networking alli-ances of universities, ed. D. Teather, 28–48. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

de Wit, H. 2004b. Ten years of institutional networking: The Network of Universities from theCapitals of Europe and the League ofWorld Universities. InConsortia: international network-ing alliances of universities. ed. D. Teather, 201–22. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Deem, R., K.H. Mok, and L. Lucas. 2008. Transforming higher education in whose image?Exploring the concept of the ‘world-class’ university in Europe and Asia. HigherEducation Policy 21: 83–97, p. 83.

Denman, B. 2002. Globalisation and the emergence of international consortia in higher edu-cation. Globalization 2, no. 1. http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v2.1/05_denman.html.

Egron-Polak, E., and R. Hudson. 2010. Internationalization of higher education: Global trends,regional perspectives. Paris: International Association of Universities.

Findlay, A.M., R. King, F.M. Smith, A. Geddes, and R. Skeldon. 2012. World class? An inves-tigation of globalisation, difference and international student mobility. Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers 37: 118–31.

Fraser, A. 2010. The craft of scalar practices. Environment and Planning A 42: 332–46.Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge:

Polity Press.Green, M.F. 2012. Measuring and assessing internationalization, NAFSA: Association of

International Educators. http://www.nafsa.org/resourcelibrary/Default.aspx?id=32455(accessed 25 May 2012).

Habib, A. 2012. Building partnerships in an unequal world. Chronicle of Higher Education, 13June. http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/building-partnerships-in-an-unequal-world/29699

Hawawini, G. 2011. The internationalization of higher education institutions: A critical reviewand a radical proposal, INSEAD Faculty & Research Working Paper. http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfmdid=48726

Studies in Higher Education 385

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Hazelkorn, E. 2008. Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of insti-tutional leaders. Higher Education Policy 21: 193–215.

Held, D., A. McGrew, D. Goldblatt, and J. Perraton. 1999. Global transformations: Politics,economics and culture. Oxford: Polity Press.

Hoffman, S.G. 2011. The new tools of the science trade: Contested knowledge production andthe conceptual vocabularies of academic capitalism. Social Anthropology 19, no. 4: 439–62.

International Association of Universities. 2012. Affirming academic values in internationaliza-tion of higher education: A call to action. http://www.iau-aiu.net/sites/all/files/Affirming_Academic_Values_in_Internationalization_of_Higher_Education.pdf.

Jones, B.F., S. Wuchty, and B. Uzzi. 2008. Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact,geography, and stratification in science. Science 322: 1259–62.

Kelly, P.F. 1999. The geographies and politics of globalization. Progress in Human Geography23, no. 3: 379–400.

King, R. 2010. Policy internationalization, national variety and governance: Global models andnetwork power in higher education states. Higher Education 60: 583–94.

Kinser, K., and M.F. Green. 2009. The power of partnerships: A transatlantic dialogue.Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Knight, J. 2004. Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journalof Studies in International Education 8: 5–31.

Knight, J. 2007. Internationalization: concepts, complexities and challenges. In International hand-book of higher education, ed. J.J.F. Forest and P.G. Altbach, 207–27. Dordrecht: Springer.

Larner, W., and R. Le Heron. 2002a. The spaces and subjects of a globalising economy: A situ-ated exploration of method. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20: 753–74.

Larner, W., and R. Le Heron. 2002b. From economic globalisation to globalising economic pro-cesses: Towards post-structural political economies. Geoforum 33: 415–19.

Larner, W., and R. Le Heron. 2005. Neo-liberalizing spaces and subjectivities: Reinventing NewZealand universities. Organization 12, no. 6: 843–62.

Le Heron, R. 2009. ‘Rooms and moments’ in neoliberalising policy trajectories of metropolitanAuckland, New Zealand: Towards constituting progressive spaces through post-structuralpolitical economy. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 50, no. 2: 135–53.

Lebeau, Y., and E. Sall. 2011. Global institutions, higher education and development. InHandbook on globalization and higher education, ed. R. King, S. Marginson and R.Naidoo, 129–47. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Lewis, J.M., S. Ross, and T. Holden. 2012. The how and why of academic collaboration:Disciplinary differences and policy implications. Higher Education 64: 693–708.

Lewis, N. 2011. Political projects and micro-practices of globalising education: Building aninternational education industry in New Zealand. Globalisation, Societies and Education9, no. 2: 225–46.

Mannion, G., G. Biesta, M. Priestley, and H. Ross. 2011. The global dimension in education andeducation for global citizenship: Genealogy and critique. Globalisation, Societies andEducation 9, nos. 3–4: 443–546.

Marginson, S. 2008. Global field and global imagining: Bourdieu and worldwide higher edu-cation. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29, no. 3: 303–15.

Marginson, S. 2010. Higher education in the global knowledge society. Procedia Social andBehavioral Sciences 2: 6962–80.

Marginson, S. 2011. Global perspectives and strategies of Asia-Pacific research universities. InPaths to a world-class university: Lessons from practices and experiences, ed. N.C. Liu, Q.Wang and Y. Cheng, 3–27. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Marginson, S., and G. Rhoades. 2002. Beyond national states, markets, and systems of highereducation: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education 43: 281–309.

Marginson, S., and M. van der Wende. 2007. To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rank-ings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education 11, nos. 3–4: 306–29.

Mok, K.H. 2007. Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: Critical reflections.Journal of Studies in International Education 11, nos. 3–4: 433–54.

Mok, K.H. 2010. Emerging regulatory regionalism in university governance: A comparativestudy of China and Taiwan. Globalisation, Societies and Education 8, no. 1: 87–103.

Moutsios, S. 2010. Power, politics and transnational policy-making in education. Globalisation,Societies and Education 8, no. 1: 121–41.

386 M. Tadaki and C. Tremewan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013

Ng, S.W. 2012. Rethinking the mission of internationalization of higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. Compare 42, no. 3: 439–59.

Norrie, J. 2012. Universities to explain benefit of research to ‘end users’. The Conversation, 5June. http://theconversation.edu.au/universities-to-explain-benefit-of-research-to-end-users-7478

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), ed. 2009.Higher educationto 2030 (Volume 2): Globalisation, 355. Paris: OECD Publications.

Olds, K. 2012. International consortia of universities and the mission/activities question. GlobalHigher Ed, 17 May. http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/international-consortia-of-universities/

Rafols, I., L. Leydesdorff, A. O’Hare, P. Nightingale, and A. Stirling. 2012. How journal rank-ings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies andBusiness & Management. Research Policy 41: 1262–82.

Robertson, S., R. Dale, S. Moutsios, G. Nielsen, C. Shore, and S. Wright. 2012. Globalisationand regionalisation in higher education: Toward a new conceptual framework. In ed.Department of Education, University of Aarhus. http://edu.au.dk/fileadmin/www.dpu.dk/forskning/forskningsprogrammer/epoke/workingpapers/WP_20_-_final.pdf

Robertson, S.L. 2005. Re‐imagining and rescripting the future of education: Global knowledgeeconomy discourses and the challenge to education systems. Comparative Education 41, no.2: 151–70.

Santos, B.d.S. 2006. Globalizations. Theory, Culture & Society 23, nos. 2–3: 393–99.Scott, P. 1998. The globalization of higher education, 134. Buckingham: Society for Research

into Higher Education & Open University Press.Shore, C. 2010. Beyond the multiversity: Neoliberalism and the rise of the schizophrenic uni-

versity. Social Anthropology 18, no. 1: 15–29.Shore, C., and M. Taitz. 2012. Who ‘owns’ the university? Institutional autonomy and aca-

demic freedom in an age of knowledge capitalism. Globalisation, Societies andEducation 10, no. 2: 201–19.

Sidhu, R.K., and G. Dall’Alba. 2012. International education and (dis)embodied cosmopolitanisms.Educational Philosophy and Theory 44, no. 4: 413–31.

Stier, J. 2004. Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher education:Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism. Globalisation, Societies and Education 2,no. 1: 83–97.

Stier, J. 2010. International education: trends, ideologies and alternative pedagogicalapproaches. Globalisation, Societies and Education 8, no. 3: 339–49.

Stockley, D., and H. de Wit. 2011. The increasing relevance of institutional networks. In Trends,issues and challenges in internationalisation of higher education, ed. H. de Wit, 45–58.Amsterdam: Centre for Applied Research on Economics & Management, Hogeschoolvan Amsterdam.

Teather, D. 2004. Consortia: international networking alliances of universities. Melbourne:Melbourne University Press.

Tsing, A. 2000. The global situation. Cultural Anthropology 15, no. 3: 327–60.Vaira, M. 2004. Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for

analysis. Higher Education 48: 483–510.Van der Wende, M. 2011. Global institutions: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development. In Handbook on globalization and higher education, ed. R. King, S.Marginson and R. Naidoo, 95–113. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Vincent-Lancrin, S. 2009. Cross-border higher education: trends and perspectives. In Highereducation to 2030 (Volume 2): Globalisation, ed. Organization for EconomicCooperation Development, 63–88. Paris: OECD Pubications.

Whatmore, S., and N. Clark. 2006. Good food: Ethical consumption and global change. In Aworld in the making, ed. N. Clark, D. Massey and P. Sarre, 363–416. Milton Keynes:Open University.

Williams, R., G. de Rassenfosse, P. Jensen, and S. Marginson. 2012. U21 rankings of nationalhigher education systems 2012. University of Melbourne. http://www.universitas21.com/RelatedFile/Download/279.

Yang, R. 2002. University internationalisation: Its meanings, rationales and implications.Intercultural Education 13, no. 1: 81–95.

Studies in Higher Education 387

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

Del

Ros

ario

] at

09:

12 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

013