Role of Regional Organizations in East Asian Regional Cooperation andIntegration in the Field of Higher Education
Nguyen Thuy Anh - PhD Candidate
Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University
maichithuyanh@yahoo.com(7,355 words)
Introduction
Since the last three decades, globalization has become an irreversible and the mostinfluential process in which time and space has been compressed, the geographicalborders between nations have been breaking down, not only for trade, capital andinformation but also for ideas, norms, cultures and values (UNDP, 1999).
Globalization can open up both opportunities and/or challenges for each country,
depending on the nation‟s specific circumstances (Knight, 2006). Nowadays,
globalization takes place in almost all fields of the human life including politics,
economics as well as the environmental, cultural, social issues and undoubtedly
education is also one of these impacted sectors.
While globalization is seen as an objective and unalterable process (Altbach andKnight, 2006), internationalization is considered to be a response of countries andhigher educational institutions all over the world to cope with or exploit globalization(Altbach, 2004). Internationalization of higher education can be either an aim itself
whereas an international, intercultural, or global dimension is incorporated into the
purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education, like being defined by
Knight (2003). On the other hand, internationalization is also seen as a means toachieve wider goals, or in other words, it is “an important resource in the developmentof higher education towards, first of all, a system in line with international standards;
secondly, one open and responsive to its global environment” (Qiang, 2003).

1

Together with internationalization, regional cooperation and integration in higher
education has become an emerging trend in many parts of the world. Regional
cooperation and integration can also be considered as a response towards
globalization. Under the impacts of globalization such as the massification,commercialization, decentralization and marketization of higher education, countries
in many regions of the world nowadays, especially developing countries are facingwith the same issues of access, equity, broadened participation and quality in higher
education (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008) that go beyond the border of one
individual nation or institution and need the concerted efforts of the whole region toeffectively tackle. Moreover, the need to enhance the economic and educational
competitiveness of one region as a whole and member nations and institutions inparticular is also a strong motivation to enhance regional cooperation and integrationin different parts of the world today. This process is also advocated by nations andinstitutions that are seeking to expand the education markets and attract an increasing
number of international students into the domestic education systems. From thepolitical and cultural and social point of view, higher education regional cooperationand integration is considered to be one of the important ways for peace building andmutual understanding within one region.
It can be stated that both internationalization and regional integration of higher
education are responses to globalization. However, internationalization of higher
education concerns with individual nations and institutions independently, whereas
regional cooperation and integration requires efforts of not only these two actors
separately but needs nations and institutions in the same region to come together in aconcerted endeavor to reach the same targets. Moreover, nations and institutions are
the main subjects of internationalization of higher education, whereas in the process2

of regional cooperation and integration, not only these two actors are the key tiers, but
regional organizations also need to act their important role in promoting and leading
this process. These organizations can play as a platform and/or set up initiatives,
programs, activities and networks that bring together regional countries, institutions
and individuals in a consensus effort of harmonization and integration in the field of
higher education.
The past ten years have witnessed increasing interdependence among East Asian
countries (ASEAN + 3), especially in the field of economic integration and policy
collaboration. However, in the field of higher education, compared to other regions in
the world, East Asia is still lagged behind in creating and promoting the basic level ofregional integration and policy harmonization to achieve common objectives andinterests (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008). The paper will focus on analyzing the roleof existing regional organizations dealing with higher education in promoting
cooperation and integration in higher education in East Asia. More specifically, thepaper will try to find out whether there are differences in the approaches that theseorganizations are taking in comparison with other regions and further discuss on thefindings withdrawn. Questions to be asked are: What and how these organizations areplaying their role in promoting East Asian cooperation and integration in higher
education? What are the strong and weak points in their approaches? What need to bedone more to accelerate East Asian cooperation and integration in higher education?
The paper will firstly present the ongoing processes that are taking place in other partsof the world. It will then discuss the context of East Asia, in which regional
cooperation and integration in higher education needs to be promoted. The main partof the paper will focus on the activities, programs and strategies being implemented
by three regional organizations namely the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific3(UMAP), the ASEAN University Network (AUN) and the SEAMEO Regional Centre
for Higher Education and Development (RIHED). Following parts of the paper will
discuss the findings and then propose some solutions for these regional organizations
to accelerate East Asian higher education cooperation and integration.
Higher Education Cooperation and Integration in Other Parts of the World
The process of regional cooperation and integration in higher education is now being
implemented in different parts of the world at different paces and with various types.
In Europe
So far, the effort of European countries to promote higher education policy
harmonization and integration is the most comprehensive and systematic one. At thecore of this endeavor is the Bologna Process, a voluntary-based undertaking withclear objectives and timeline for implementation initiated by the first twenty nine
signatory European countries. The Bologna Process aims to create the “European
Higher Education Area” (EHEA) by 2010 along side with the Lisbon Strategy which
focuses on the link between education, jobs market and economic growth in Europe(Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008). By harmonizing or increasing compatibility,
comparability and flexibility of the education systems in the region, the Bologna
Process will help accommodate and accelerate free flows of student/staff mobility,
education services, and research collaboration. This process will also contribute to theestablishment of the so-called “Europe of Knowledge” capable of giving its citizens
the necessary competences to face with challenges of the new millennium, together
with an awareness of shared values and belonging to a common social and cultural
space (Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), 2008 - Revised Draft).
The Bologna Process also aims to enhance the global competitiveness of European
higher education institutions.

4Since 2003, the Bologna Process has been joined by 40 European countries andgradually added with key action lines through several meetings. The priority areas
now include the following key aspects:
1) A system of easily readable and comparable degrees, using the Diploma
Supplement
2) A three-cycle degree system (Undergraduate of at least three years full-time;
Masters (1-2 years); and Doctoral)
3) A system of credits (based on the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation
System (ECTS)
4) Promotion of mobility of students and staff (through removal of obstacles)
5) Promotion of cooperation in quality assurance
6) Promotion of the European dimension in higher education (through curriculum
development, institutional cooperation and integrated programs of study andresearch)
7) Promotion lifelong learning8) Inclusion of higher institutions and students
9) Promotion of the attractiveness of the EHEA
10) Focus on Doctoral studies and the synergy between EHEA and the European
Research Area (ERA)
Besides the Bologna Process which encompasses the majority of 40 out of 45
European countries, there are several other higher education collaboration initiatives
within the European Union consisting of 27 nations. These schemes originallyfocused on the mobility of students and, more recently, paid greater attention to the„Europeanization‟ of courses and their content (de Prado Yepes, 2006). The firstcomprehensive action focusing on promoting inter-university linkages for student and5staff mobility is the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of
University Students (Erasmus) which was established in 1987. Socrates is anotherbroader program which continued and extended the Erasmus action in higher
education. Socrates has also promoted a thorough comparative analysis of education
systems and policies, the exchange of information, experience and good practices
among EU to help formulate and implement educational policies across the region (dePrado Yepes, 2006). Besides these programs, there are several other initiatives which
focus on different issues in educational cooperation in EU such as Lingua (language
learning) and Minerva (open and distance learning and the use of infocommunications technologies).
In Latin America
This region is also promoting regional integration in higher education through anumber of initiatives. Some of them are being implemented with the support of
UNESCO, for instance, the Instituto International para la Educacion Superior en
America Latina y El Caribe, (IESALC), or the Organizacio´n de Estados
Iberoamericanos para la Educacio´n, la Ciencia y la Cultura (OEI). The precursors ofthese organizations can be traced back to earlier networks such as the Unio´n deUniversidades de Ame´rical Latina established in 1949, or subregional bodies,
especially the Convenio Andre´s Bello which was created in 1970 to promote cultural,
educational and scientific collaboration among the Andean Countries, as well as theassociation of autonomous public universities, Grupo Montevideo in Mercosur,
founded in 1991 (de Prado Yepes, 2006).
Besides these initiatives, one notable action taken by Latin America and the
Caribbean countries is that they have promoted the inter-regional integration in higher
education with the European Union. In June 1999, a decision was reached that a6common space of higher education should be created for Europe, Latin America andthe Caribbean nations by 2015 (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008). The steeringcommittee now consists of five countries namely Spain, France, Brazil, Mexico and
St. Kitts. These countries have met periodically during the past years and havedecided upon these key areas of cooperation between the EU and Latin America andthe Caribbean:
1) Dissemination of academic collaboration and experience2) Comparability of study programs
3) Mobility of students and staff
4) Join degrees5) Identification of financing sources and mechanisms6) Quality Assurance
Besides the endeavour to establish a common space in higher education, Latin
American countries are also expediting area-based and discipline-based regional
cooperation and integration. Quality assurance (QA) is one of the areas which are
gaining good progress in this region. QA systems have been established andstrengthened in many countries and a regional network of QA, the Central American
Council on Accreditation (CCA) was established and came into play in 2004 as aregional second-level accreditation organization. As for the discipline-based
cooperation, regional accreditation agencies are available in engineering (REDICA),
agriculture and resource management (ACEAS) and in medicine (ACAFEMRECAEM) (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008).
In Africa
The Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), created in 1992 to advanceeconomics, politics and social issues signed in 1997 a Protocol on Education and7

Training with the purpose to promote regional cooperation and integration in the
education sector including higher education and research and development which isrefereed to in articles 7 and 8.
Another important initiative proposed by the Association of African Universities(AAU) is the creation of the “African Higher Education Area” (AHEA), which is now
under discussion at both inter-governmental and institutional level. The key objectivesof the AHEA proposed by the AAU are to promote the following areas:
1) An African quality culture2) Curricular reforms that address the priorities of both national and regional
labour markets
3) Academic mobility to improve circulation in the region4) Harmonization of regulatory framework and higher education policies
5) Collective response and strategies towards GATS and other elements ofglobalization
6) Pool of resources for graduate studies and research on African studies andin Africa
7) The attractiveness and competitiveness of African higher education
institutions for migratory African students(Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008)
Besides these initiatives, with the effort to promote regional integration in higher
education, the African Development Fund (ADF) has proposed and conducted a study
project which focuses on identifying the whole structural problems of higher
education systems in countries of the West African Economic and Monetary Union(WAEMU). This will help to implement reforms to improve higher education systems

8

in these countries as well as to promote regional integration in this field. Priority areas
identified by the governments of WAEMU include:
1) The increase of students and staff mobility between WAEMU member
countries2) The system of mutual recognition of degree titles
3) The revised curricula in common field of specialisation among universities
in member countries
Countries and institutions around the world have increasingly recognized the benefits
and rationales for promoting regional cooperation and integration in higher educationand have had various initiatives to realize these efforts. So far, the Bologna Process
and other programs implemented by the European countries are the mostcomprehensive and systematic ones. This process in Europe is said to play as a modelfor other regions to follow. The following part of the paper will try to explore how
regional organizations in East Asia are doing to promote regional cooperation andintegration in higher education and what approaches they are taking to realize thisprocess in the specific context of East Asia.
Role of regional organizations in promoting higher education regional
cooperation and integration in East Asia
The context of higher education in East Asia
East Asia is a vast and diverse region in terms of ethnicity, culture, language,
religions, political regimes, socioeconomic development and topography. In the fieldof higher education, varieties between East Asian countries are also remarkable.
These higher educational systems have different historical backgrounds, possess
different characteristics and are now standing at different stages of development. The
diversity in higher education quality level exists between countries and among9

institutions in the region as well as within one nation. However, despite thesediversities and varieties, higher educational systems in East Asia, especially indeveloping countries, are also facing with similar problems and challenges such as the
explosion demands, budget constrains, quality assurance or the internationalization ofhigher education. Therefore, it is meaningful to build up closer constructive andeffective cooperation within the region in order for these countries to develop mutual
understanding, share lessons of experience as well as to support countries in need tosolve persistent problems and overcome obstacles to develop their higher education
systems (UNESCO, 2006). The recent years have witnessed remarkable growth ofstudent mobility among East Asian countries and increasing number of interuniversity linkages within the region. Many regional countries have become emerging
destinations for overseas study and are having national and institutional plans andstrategies to attract more and more international students into the domestic higher
education systems. According to statistics from the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (MEXT), in 2005, international students inJapan reached the number of 94,521, among which 91.8 percent are from Asian
countries. Korea is experiencing the same situation where in 2006, 89.6 percent ofnearly 30,000 international students are Asian ones (Korea MEHRD, 2006). This
number is also growing rapidly in other East Asian countries like China, Malaysia,
Singapore and Thailand. Japan. Japan is now implementing its second plan to recruit
300,000 international students by 2020, most of who are from East Asia. Malaysia
and Singapore are declaring themselves to be educational hubs and are competingwith each other to appeal Asian and international students into joint educational
programs and offshore campuses of prestigious universities all over the world who are
now operating within these two countries. Most of the countries in East Asia are now

10

in the process of internationalization of higher education with the increasing presenceof international dimensions in their development programs, strategies, the growing
number of international cooperation activities with foreign countries and institutions
and greater mobility of staff and students. The thirteen nations of East Asia are now
aiming to establish an East Asian Community in which social/culture, including
higher education is one of the three pillars of cooperation. The Kuala Lumpur
Declaration on the East Asia Summit emphasizes the role of integration in higher
education for peace and mutual understanding, promoting interaction between
students, researchers and academicians among East Asian countries. Other initiatives
and efforts have been made by countries and regional organizations to promote
cooperation, integration and harmonization in higher education in East Asia. However,compared to other regions, East Asia is still much lagged behind in promoting evenbasic level of policy harmonization to achieve common objectives and interests in thearea of higher education (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008).
In order to accelerate this process, apart from the necessity to have the commitment
and involvement of individual nations and institutions, it is also very important forregional organizations to actively play their role in promoting regional integration inhigher education. Currently, there are a number of regional organizations dealing withhigher education in the region of East Asia such as Association of Southeast Asian
Institutions of Higher Learning (ASAIHL), the Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for
Education which belongs to UNESCO Bangkok, the Southeast Asia Ministers of
Education Organisation (SEAMEO), the Regional Institute of Higher Education andDevelopment (RIHED), the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) andthe ASEAN University Network (AUN). This part of the paper will focus on the caseof three regional organizations which are having much effort in promoting higher

11education regional cooperation and integration in the region, namely UMAP, AUN
and RIHED.
The University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP)
During the 1990s, East Asian countries linked to America and Europe to explore
further liberalization ((de Prado Yepes, 2006). The University Mobility in Asia andthe Pacific (UMAP) was proposed in 1991 by Australia. It was then conceived in
1993 to be a voluntary association of government and non-government representativesof the higher education sector in the region. By 2008, UMAP has consisted of 34
eligible countries and territories with more than 356 participating universities. The
general aim of UMAP is to enhance international understanding among countries andterritories of the Asia and Pacific region in terms of the cultural, economic and social
issues through cooperation between higher education institutions and increased
mobility of students and staff. In order to achieve this broad goal, UMAP sets up a
number of specific objectives as to identify and overcome impediments to student
mobility, to move beyond bilateral to multilateral arrangements as well as to develop
and maintain a system for granting and recognizing academic credits earned byexchanged students. In order to provide a greater number of students an opportunity to
study abroad, UMAP concentrates on short term exchange programs in which
participating students spend a minimum of one semester or a maximum of twosemesters in a host foreign university. The credits for study undertaken while on
exchange by students are to be transferred to and accepted by the home university.
Given the fact that different institutions in the region have different types of credit
systems and different ways of evaluating the study performance of students, UMAP
has developed and put into use the so-called UMAP Credit Transfer Scheme (UCTS).
This credit transfer system is expected to help increase student mobility by

12overcoming impediments to credit transfers and ensuring that the study achievementof exchanged students is recognized by sending universities by providing a common
scale to converse credit points and grades.
Although UMAP has been established for fifteen years and has been promoted in 34
countries, the popularity of UMAP among universities and students in the region isstill very low and its credit transfer scheme has not been utilized by a majority of
institutions to facilitate students/staff mobility. According to the “Report of UMAP
survey on student exchanges in Japan” (2005), from 2000 to 2005, the numbers ofincoming and outgoing students in Japan who take exchanged programs with credit
transfer were 7,336 and 8,573, respectively. However, only 6 percent of the 171
responded Japanese institutions are participating in UMAP and another 8 percent (13institutions) know UMAP well. Meanwhile, 12 percent (21 institutions) did not know
about UMAP at all. The remained 74 percent (126 institutions) indicated a limited
amount of their familiarity with UMAP. As for the importance of the credit transfer
scheme UCTS, according to this survey, 42 percent (71 of 168 responded institutions)recognize

its necessity in promoting student exchanges, while 53 percent (89institutions) do not perceive UCTS to be necessary and another 5 percent evenexpress their opinions against the use of credit transfer schemes. In fact, only a few
number as of 19 among 171 responded institutions are actually using UCTS in theirstudent exchanges. The biggest reason for not using UCTS identified by informant
universities is that these institutions have their own scheme to transfer foreign credits
into their credit systems. Another two reasons pointed out by responded institutions
which are considered by UMAP to be problematic to its activities are the lack ofknowledge in implementing UCTS and the complicatedness in using this scheme.

13

In its strategic plan for the period 2006-2010, UMAP identifies its vision to berecognized as the quality leader in higher education mobility within Asia and thePacific. UMAP has the potentials to realize its targets since it has wide regional
networks in Asia-Pacific countries, both under APEC umbrella and beyond. The
diverse cultures of the UMAP members are also an attractive point where students
and faculty will have opportunities to enrich learning and intercultural experiences aswell. However, UMAP has to deal with the issue of identity in which it needs todifferentiate itself and the strengths of its programs and scheme from other exchange
activities and arrangements that universities could undertake and implement bythemselves. Besides, one of the impediments in promoting student/staff mobility
within UMAP framework is the lack of sufficient financial supports to offer a goodnumber of scholarships to students. Currently UMAP does not have funds to assist
individual exchanges and funding arrangements for exchanges are agreed between thehome and host universities. The host institutions are expected to waive tuition fees for
UMAP students on exchange and assist them to obtain accommodation at reasonable
cost. However, students and staff have to pay for other living expenses using theirown budgets. This is really a big matter for many students and staff especially when
they are from developing countries and it hinders them from participating in theexchange programs. The lack of effective communication tools to provide data andinformation to member countries, institutions, students/staff and interested individuals
is also another challenge for UMAP. This may be doubled with the low commitment
and inactiveness of the participating universities and the contact persons in charge ofdisseminating information related to UMAP‟s activities and the organization itself.
Besides, the fact that government policies in each member country do not responsive
to UMAP exchanges and differences and diversity in education systems among14

members is also identified as hampering factors to UMAP‟s activities. UMAP is now
paying much effort in promoting student/staff mobility within the region throughexchanging programs and the utilization of UCTS credit transfer scheme. However, inorder for this process to be accelerated, it is vital to increase the commitment andactive involvement of member countries and institutions in realizing these mutual
objectives.
The ASEAN University Network (AUN)
As mentioned above, East Asia in general and ASEAN in particular is a diverse
region in many aspects. In the field of higher education, varieties between countries
are also remarkable. Diversity in higher education quality and institutional
development exists not only between institutions of different countries but also among
universities one country. This situation makes it difficult to promote cooperation andintegration among all universities in the whole region, given the fact that they havedifferent ability and capacity to follow common plans and activities, they may also
have different targets to reach and not the same priority areas of development, letalone the trend that good universities usually prefer to collaborate with similar or
higher quality level institutions. Therefore, it is meaningful for the ASEAN subregion to promote cooperation and integration among leading universities first andthen creating an impetus and basis to extent the network and integrate otheruniversities in the region to the process. One of the approaches that ASEAN is now
taking to promote regional integration in higher education is the “elite approach”
which is most clearly manifested in the ASEAN University Network (AUN).
At the Fourth ASEAN Summit in 1992, the ASEAN leaders decided that cooperationin the field of higher education and human resource development should be
strengthened and promoted. Particularly, ASEAN should consider ways to further

15

develop the existing network of the leading regional higher education institutions. The
idea was eventually realized with the establishment of the ASEAN University
Network (AUN) in 1995 when the heads of 11 countries signed the organization‟sCharters and representatives from participating universities signed the related
Agreements. The main objective of the AUN is to strengthen the existing network of
co-operation among leading universities in ASEAN, by promoting co-operation andsolidarity among ASEAN scholars and academicians, developing academic andprofessional human resource, and promoting information dissemination among
ASEAN academic community. As of June 2007, the AUN has become a network 21
members of which are one to maximum three key universities in each of the 10
ASEAN countries. Currently, the AUN undertakes a variety of more than 20
collaborative projects within ASEAN and with its dialogue partners such as China,
the European Union, Japan and Korea. These activities can be divided into three maingroups. The first group of activity includes programs that aim to foster the sense of
ASEANness, raise the profile of ASEAN among the region‟s next generation ofleaders, to deepen and develop knowledge and understanding of diverse educational,social, cultural and geo-political environment among ASEAN youth and students inparticular and ASEAN people in general. These activities consist of the AUN
Educational Forum and Young Speakers Contest, the AUN Educational Forum andYoung Speakers Contest, the AUN Youth Cultural Forum and the ASEAN YouthSummit. It can be seen that the “elite approach” is also applied to these activities inthe sense that they are open to only a few number of bright representatives from eachmember university who are expected to become the leading people playing importantrole at institutional, national and inter-governmental level in the near future and will16

contribute extensively and intensively to the promotion of regional cooperation andintegration.
Another main group of activity includes those that focus on promoting student andstaff mobility among member universities, enhancing collaboration in academic
research and sharing of information. These programs are the ASEAN Studies Program,the Student and Faculty Exchange Program, the AUN Distinguished Scholars
Program, the Collaborative Research, the Information Networking, the ASEAN
Graduate Business and Economics Program (AGBEP) Network, the AUN-Southeast
Asia Engineering Education Development Network (AUN/SEED-Net) and the AUNIntellectual Property (AUNIP) Network. These programs include both disciplinebased or functional and general collaborative initiatives.
With an aim to enhance the overall academic standards of member universities andconsequently lead to mutual recognition in the ASEAN region, the AUN has
developed the AUN-Quality Assurance network which is the first of its kind in trying
to establish a sub-regional networking on QA in ASEAN (Supachai and Nopraenue,2008). The AUN Secretariat has published the first manual for the implementation ofinternal quality assurance, not only for its member universities but also open to otheruniversities in ASEAN if they are interested in using this guidelines and applying for
the AUN-QA Label. The Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) is a project with thecore objective to narrow the gap between the original 6-ASEAN founding members
and the newly joining CLMV countries. This initiative focuses on assisting the
CLMV countries in four strategic sectors namely, infrastructure, human resource
development, information and communication technology and infrastructuredevelopment.

17

On a broader scope, the AUN has extended its collaborative activities with dialogue
partners helping to enhance cooperation and integration in the field of higher
education throughout the whole East Asia. The establishment of the ASEAN-China
Academic Exchange Programme helps to further more people-to-people contacts andexchanges between ASEAN and China in higher education. The AUN/SEED-Net
mentioned above is an autonomous sub-network of the AUN which composed of 19
engineering higher education institutions from 10 ASEAN countries receiving supportof 11 leading Japanese Supporting Universities. The Republic of Korea is also a close
partner of the AUN, developing cooperation through a number of programs: theASEAN-Korea Academic Exchange Programme (KASEAS), the International
College Student Exchange Programme, the Promotion of ASEAN and Korean Studies
and the AUN-GIST Scholarship on Science and Technology.
With the variety of activities and endeavours, the AUN has actively contributed to thebuild-up of a robust and renowned ASEAN community in higher education. The
AUN is expected to play a major role in broadening the integration of the ten member
countries into one cohesive ASEAN Community and narrowing the development gap
among them.
SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development (RIHED)The Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development (RIHED) was jointly
conceived in 1959 by UNESCO and the International Association of Universities(IAU) in collaboration with the Ford Foundation. It was then officially founded in
Singapore in July with 7 Member States, namely Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos,
Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. In 1992, after a period of being inactive,
RIHED was reconstituted under the umbrella of the Southeast Asian Ministers of
Education Organization (SEAMEO) and hosted by the Thai Government. Unlike the18

AUN which deals with higher education cooperation at institutional level, SEAMEORIHED works with member states at ministerial level. The main objectives of theorganization are to “assist the Member States in fostering efficiency and effectivenessof their higher education, with a focus on policy and planning processes,
administrative and management systems”. RIHED also aims at serving as “theregional centre and clearing-house for higher education information anddocumentation, promoting the exchange and dissemination of information andresearch findings on higher education planning and management, both within andoutside the region”. By promoting collaboration among Member States its goal is toestablish institutional linkages, and assist these countries in the strengthening ofinstitution building and development. The Second Five-Year Development Plan of
SEAMEO RIHED has identified the following seven priority areas on which its
programs and activities will focus on:
1) Management and Administration2) Quality Assurance and Benchmarking
3) Applications of Information and Communication Technology
4) Effective Learning-Teaching Methodology5) Building up Research Capabilities
6) Promoting Collaboration with Private Sector and Industry
7) Involvement in Regional Groupings
During the recent years, SEAMEO RIHED has been very active in promoting
regional cooperation and integration in the field of higher education with an especial
focus on the policy harmonization among member countries. Recently in February,
2008, RIHED issued the first lecture series, titled “Harmonisation of Higher
Education: Lessons Learned from the Bologna Process”. This publication can be seen19

as a guideline and framework for closer harmonization in higher education in Asia.
The book identified that “Given that inherent constraints of regional diversity anddisparity in higher education systems, the safest line in promoting regional higher
education integration and harmonization might be through small mechanisms, such as
the QA and comparable and readable degree systems. These lines of actions might bechosen as an alternative to the overarching regional framework, which usually invites
doubts and a suspicion among Asian countries” (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008).
This perspective presents the “step-by-step” approach that is being used by thisregional organization in particular and East Asian countries in general. At the firstplace, it is necessary to develop concrete mechanisms in certain aspects of higher
education activities which are interrelated, such as mobility, recognition, credit
transfer system and quality assurance. These activities will gradually familiarize
countries and institutions in the region with regional cooperation and integration,
raising the awareness among them of the necessity and significance of this process
and helping to overcome the perception that regional diversity is an obstacle to theharmonization process (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008). The region will thenconsider the possibility of having a more comprehensive and systematic framework
for regional integration in higher education as to be discussed in the coming“International Conference Series on Raising Awareness: Exploring the Ideas ofCreating Higher Education Common Space in Southeast Asia” held by RIHED in
November, 2008.
As proposed by RIHED, the priority areas for closer harmonization in higher
education in the region should be a System of Quality Assurance and a System of
Readable and Comparable Degrees. Regarding the harmonization in quality assurance,
RIHED strongly advocates the promotion of a common understanding of QA systems

20

in the region and especially the establishment of internal QA and external QA subnetworks in order to increase the sharing of information and best practices among theregional countries and institutions.
Together with the reliable and accountable QA system, a readable and comparable
degree is also an important area to be promoted in the region in order to encourage
collaboration among higher education institutions in the region, increase theattractiveness of regional higher education and accommodate freer flows and moresustainable mobility among students/researchers and graduates. This system ofreadable and comparable degrees can be promoted through the development of aregional credit transfer system (UCTS), regional and national qualification framework
and a degree supplement mechanism.
Another approach to promote regional integration and harmonization in East Asia
being recruited by RIHED is the “pilot-project approach”. As identified in the
publication, the level of disparity of higher education institutions and QA
development in the region is significantly high. While a number of East Asian
countries like Japan, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines have established national
QA mechanisms, others is still on the way to develop quality assurance infrastructure.
Singapore is an exceptional case where the government utilizes the external QA
systems from developed countries (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008). Facing thevarious stages of QA system development in the region, RIHED has initiated toundertake a pilot study project in which it picks up only 5 out of 10 ASEAN countries
namely Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam to come together
to deal with QA issues in the region. The organization disseminates questionnaires toall stakeholders related to higher education in these countries such as ministries of
education, universities, civil service sector, industry sector and foreign affair

21

departments to collect their opinions and perspectives on regional harmonization inthis area. RIHED also successively holds the ASEAN Quality Assurance Agencies
Roundtable workshops in each participating country in order for the five countries toshare experiences, good practices by showing “who is doing what” in QA and express
their desire to have QA harmonization in the region. The organization is now also
aiming at setting up a Human Network of QA Agencies People to further strengthen
the regional collaboration and coordination in this field.
Conclusion and suggestions for promoting East Asian cooperation andintegration in higher education
Regional organizations have been actively playing their role in promoting higher
education regional cooperation and integration in East Asia through a variety of
programs, projects, activities and initiatives. Policy harmonization, particularly incertain aspects like mobility, recognition, credit transfer system and quality assurance,
is considered as a crucial means to build up and prepare the “infrastructure” forfurther regional cooperation and integration in higher education and is one of the main
targets of these organizations. Despite significant endeavours taken by theseorganizations, results achieved so far are not as satisfactory as expected as East Asia
is still lagged behind other regions in promoting the basic level of regional integrationand policy harmonization in higher education to achieve common objectives andinterests (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008). Among the impediments to this process are
the diversity and disparity of countries and higher education systems in the region, thevariety of languages, the differences in credit, curriculum and grading systems, thedisparity in education quality and recognition of higher education institutions in theregion, the lack of sufficient financial resources, the capacity and ability of regionalorganizations, national bodies and higher education institutions in promoting

22

cooperation and integration and the lack of commitment at both national andinstitutional level in many regional countries.
Given the specific context of countries in East Asia and its higher education
institutions, regional organizations have taken a number of various approaches topromote regional integration and harmonization in higher education. The region has a
network of leading universities gathering to achieve mutual goals with an expectation
to spread the effect and play as a basis to gradually integrate other universities theregion into the process. At the same time the region has an organization dealing withhigher education at the national or ministerial level and includes the majority ofuniversities in the region which belong to their national ministries of education. Thesearrangements may better tackle the problem of disparity among universities in theregion and help speed up the integration process. However, one question raised
concerning this “Elite approach” is that whether there will actually be an effective
spill over effect in the future? This means whether “the AUN could play a major rolein broadening the integration of the ten member countries into one cohesive ASEAN
Community and narrowing the development gap among them” as stated in its
objectives. Another issue is how to increase the awareness of ASEANness andachieve mutual understanding not only among the bright representatives participatingin these activities but also among the wider scope of the whole ASEAN community.
There should be mechanisms for these participants to play their role in realizing thespill over effect in their community upon returning from these events. Definitely, theactivities and initiatives to increase the awareness among the “already-aware” is notenough to promote further regional integration.
Regional organizations also have activities and programs that target various groups ofcountries at certain points of time, as in the case of the “pilot-project approach” and23the Initiative for ASEAN Integration that focuses on the CLMV analyzed previously.
As for the “pilot-project approach”, the problem is in the end of the day whether othercontemporarily excluded countries and institutions will be able or eager to join after aperiod of time in order to have a consensus effort and mechanism for the whole region.
The step-by-step approach is another significant point in the approaches taken by East
Asian regional organizations. This can play as an alternative to an overarchingregional framework which usually invites doubts and a suspicion among Asian
countries (Supachai and Nopraenue, 2008). However, the problem in of this approachis how to raise consensus efforts among countries and institutions without a long-term
overall strategy for the whole region that sets up specific targets, concrete scheduleand timelines to implement? Moreover, it is significant to have an overarchingregional framework so that countries and institutions can take into account andintegrate these regional plans and settings into their own development strategies andreforms.
In order to promote regional cooperation and integration in higher education, it isimportant for regional organizations to have continuous campaigns and activities toraise the awareness on the significance of this process among countries andinstitutions in the region. These key actors should fully recognize and understand therationales and benefits they can gain from further regional higher education
integration so that the commitment and involvement will be effectively increased atboth national and institutional level. Although regional organizations play very
important role in promoting higher education regional integration, it is the nations,institutions and individuals who are the deciding actors of the success of this process.

Reference24

Asian Development Bank. 2008. Emerging Asian Regionalism: A Partnership for
Shared Prosperity. Manila: ADB.
Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). 2008 - Revised Draft.
Harnessing Educational Cooperation in the EAS for Regional Competitivenessand Community Building.
Altbach, P.G. 1988. Academic Freedom in Asia. Far Eastern Economic Review. 16
June, 24-25.
__________, ed. 1999. Higher Education in the 21st Century: Global Challenge andNational Response. IIE.
__________, ed. 2004. Asian Universities: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary
Challenges. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Altbach, P.G. 2004. Globalization and the University: Myths and Realities in an
Unequal World. Tertiary Education and Management. No. 1.
__________. & Jane Knight. 2006. The Internationalization of Higher Education:
Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol.
11 No. 3/4, Fall/Winter.
__________. 2007. Academic Freedom in a Global Context: 21st Century Challenges.
The NEA 2007 Almanac of Higher Education.
de Prado Yepes, César. 2006. World Regionalization of Higher Education: Policy
Proposals for International Organizations. Higher Education Policy 19, 111–
128.
International Institute of Education. 2005. Higher Education in Vietnam - Update2004. Hanoi: IIE.
Knight, J. 2002. Trade in Higher Education Services: The Implications of GATS. The
Observatory on borderless higher education.
________. 2003. “Updating the Definition of Internationalization.” International
Higher Education 33 (Fall): 2-3.
________. 2004. Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, andRationales. Journal of Studies in International Education. 8, 5.
________. 2006. Higher education crossing borders: A guide to the Implications of
GATS for Cross-border Education. Paris: UNESCO. Commonwealth of
Learning.
________. 2006. Internationalization of higher education: New directions, newchallenges. The 2005 IAU global survey report. Paris: International
Association of Universities.
Mai, T. N. 2007. The Harmonization of Higher Education in ASEAN toward Mutual
Recognition of Qualification. Paper presented in ASEAN Education Forum
2007.
McLaughlin, D. 1995. Teaching Overseas Students and Learning from Them: A
Professional and Moral Dimension. Education Research and Perspectives.
22(1):103-113.
Mittelman, J.H, ed. 1996. Globalisation: Critical Reflections. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

25

MOET. 2005a. Vietnam Higher Education Renovation Agenda: Period 2006-2010.
Hanoi: MOET.
______ . 2005b. Report on Total of Students Abroad. Hanoi: MOET.
______. 2005c. Statistical Data of Vietnamese Students Abroad. Hanoi: MOET.
______. 2006. Higher Education Renovation Agenda 2006-2020. Hanoi: MOET.
______. 2007. 322 Project Report Period 2001-2006. Hanoi: MOET.
______. 2007b. Report of Conference Proceedings. ASEAN Education Forum, 22-23
November. Hanoi.
Morsy & Philip Altbach. 1993. Higher Education in International Perspective:
Toward the 21st Century. New York: UNESCO.
Murphy, M. 2007. Experiences in the internationalization of education: Strategies topromote equality of opportunity at Monterrey Tech. Higher Education. 53:
167-208.
National Institute for Education Development (NIED). 2000. The Project Study on
Solutions of Abroad Training Technical and Scientific Cadres from 1999 to2005. Hanoi: NIED.
Nelson, The Hon B. 2002. Higher Education at the Crossroads: An Overview Paper.
Canberra: AusInfo.
Nguyen, M. H. 2005. Vietnamese Higher Education Reforms in the New
Internationalized World. International Forum on Vietnam Education “Higher
Education Reform and International Integration”. Hanoi: Educational
Publishing House.
Ninnes, Peter & Meeri Hellstén, eds. 2005. Internationalizing Higher Education:
Critical Explorations of Pedagogy and Policy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Qiang, Zha. 2003 “Internationalization of Higher Education: Towards a Conceptual
Framework” Policy Futures in Education Vol. 1 No 2.
Robertson, S. 2007. Regionalism, „Europe/Asia‟ and Higher Education. Higher
Education, January.
Singh, P. 2004. Globalization and Education. Educational Theory. 54 (1): 103-115.
Supachai & Nopraenue S. Dhirathiti. 2008. Harmonisation of Higher Education:
Lessons learned from the Bologna Process. Bangkok: Seameo Rihed.
Tran, Q. T. 2005. Higher Education Reform in Vietnam. International Forum on
Vietnam Education “Higher Education Reform and International Integration”.
Hanoi: Educational Publishing House.
Tran, V. N, 2000. Final Report of the Project B99-52-42
UNESCO. 2006. Higher Education in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO.
________. 2003. Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific: 1988-2003. Paris:
UNESCO.
Vietnam National Council on Education. 2005. International Forum on Vietnam
Education “Higher Education Reform and International Integration”. Hanoi:
Educational Publishing House.

26

VNU. Annual Reports of the College of Social Sciences and Humanity_____. 2007a. Annual Report of the College of Sciences_____. 2007b. Annual Report of the College of Social Sciences and Humanity_____. 2008. Vietnam National University, Hanoi 2008 Brochure
Yang, R. & Welch, A. 2001. Internationalizing Chinese Universities: A Study ofGuangzhou. World Studies in Education. 2(1): 21-51.

27