Formulating International Higher Education Framework for Regional Cooperation and Integration in Asia
(Parallel Discussion 2)
January 17, 2008

Session IV : Future Prospects of Education and Action(Concluding Session)
Format & Editing: David Passarelli
Transcription: Kyoko Moriya/Opening Statement/Professor Kazuo KURODA/Waseda University
Welcome everyone to the concluding session.
By all means, I don’t have any intention to summarize all points discussed during today’s
sessions. I would like to welcome Professor Cheng Kai-Ming, who just arrived from HongKong. He will be giving a keynote speech during tomorrow’s parallel sessions, but will join
our discussion this afternoon. He is a very famous comparative educationalist and I am glad
to have him here with us today.
It is my hope you that you will be able to share your ideas about a future research agenda
for the formulation of an international higher education framework for regional integrationin Asia.
Our Global COE program just started, this is the first of five years. We would like to repeat
this event on a yearly basis, giving us an opportunity to take stock of developments andfuture trajectories.
Of course, today you have all made significant contributions to this area of research. For
example, with regards to the study of de-facto integration in regional higher education, I
was impressed by how many of you have already tried to prove this de-facto integration in
Asia. But, as I am sure many of you realized, the UNESCO statistics lack the data forinternational students from China. It’s very inconvenient discussing these issues without
Chinese statistics. The statistics provided only take Macao and Hong-Kong into account. So,
I’ve tried to look at international university agreements in my research and others also
looked at professional exchange as an indicator of internationalization. But, we seem to beconvinced that there is de-facto integration in Asia. This depends on how we define Asia, ofcourse.
In another part of my presentation, entitled the search for a conceptual framework forregional integration of higher education, I also explained several different policy
perspectives and historical perspectives. And many of you touched upon similar ideas withregards to policy objectives of Asian integration and cooperation in higher education. There
are a variety of rationales that have been indentified, peace and mutual understanding,economic integration and regional market considerations. Then, Professor Pinti, Professor
Supachai and others, provided robust analyses of existing frameworks. Professor Prado
offered a very detailed explanation of the global, picture of existing frameworks for regional
higher education. Later, we looked at the individual actors in the process of regional
integration, countries, universities, etc. Malaysia seems to be a really popular country formany researchers. Other countries that are often discussed at length included, Singapore,
Taiwan, China and Japan, of course.
I just summarized what we have already heard today. But, in my opinion, we will need more
empirical evidence upon which to base our propositions in the future.

What can we do to accomplish this? That is what I want to know. I think this is what wewould like to collaborate on in the future.
So, if you have any thoughts to share with us, we would be glad to hear them. For example,
Professor Sonoda may like to explain our decision to create a data set based on student
surveys in different countries.
I hope all the participants in the room will be able to contribute to this discussion.
Thank you.

/Comment # 1/Professor César de Prado Yepes/Universidad de Salamanca

Thank you, Professor Kuroda.
You mentioned the need of empirical data. I just wanted to point out that the Asia-Europe
Foundation in Singapore launched a database a few months ago for Asian and European
countries. It doesn’t have too much data for the purposes of the researchers gathered here,
but it is a good source of data, nevertheless. In fact, this database could be used as a model
for future databases in Asia or between Asia and Europe. This could perhaps be proposed at
the education ministerial in Berlin, within the UNESCO databases or similar global andregional endeavors.
Thank you.

/Comment # 2/Professor Shigeto SONODA/Waseda University

Professor Kuroda introduced our student survey, because as Professor Kuroda mentioned,
we tried to make every effort to have a very good start of this program. And decided toallocate a sum of money to collect the data from students of so-called ‘top universities’ inKorea, China, Thailand, Singapore, Philippines and Vietnam.
We put several questions together about how students perceive the necessity of working
together for regional cooperation. A part of the questions deal with the motivations ofstudents going out of their home countries to pursue studies abroad. So, it would be very
flattering if some of the participants here would try to use this data to try to explain eachcountries’ approach to integration and draw some comparisons to their own country.
By using this data you might be able to better inform a future agenda based on collaborationin the area of higher education; not only in terms of research, but also in terms ofeducational systems.
In my case, I have been conducting a lot of research with other partner universities, like
Korea University and Fudan University. By sharing data, we try to encourage the creationof symposiums and encourage students to use data to make academic presentations.
Through this exchange of ideas, we hope to highlight and discover commonalities anddifferences among countries and among individuals. It is really fascinating to have this kindof opportunity. Thank you.

/Comment # 3/Associate Professor Miki SUGIMURA/Sophia University

Thank you very much.
With regard to the way forward over the next four years of this Global COE Program, I haveone proposal. Discussing today’s theme, we use the terms cooperation and integration. WhenI participated in Waseda University’s previous project, aimed at creating an Asian
Community, I was deeply impressed by the view that such an Asian integrated community,
once created, could be a multi-layered society. As I listened to the presentations today, there
seemed to be a lot of diversity in the observations and solutions offered. Maybe the answer is
not Asia per se; rather, Asianess should be emphasized so that we can take advantage of thisdiversity, which is deeply rooted in Asia.
What I would like to look at is whether internationalization of higher education can create
Asianess or not. The internationalization of many universities is already underway, in
conjunction with efforts being put forth by other organizations. So, I think we don’t have torepeat the same programs they have been running. Rather, through Waseda’s program, inorder to promote Asian integration, we should aim for the development of human resources
as a core goal of the program.
For that reason, we would need to clearly define the goal of the program. But it doesn’t haveto be one sole objective. As already mentioned, depending on the situation and condition ofdifferent economies, political situations, and cultural diversities, there could be more than
one variation. We should not forget this when trying to conceptualize a goal.
The important point is how we should treat international students as subjects for humanresource development. When I listen to the discussions on international student mobility
recently, what seems very risky to me is that international students are treated as acommodity and the amount of earning, by amassing large numbers of international
students, is measured in the name of internationalization.
The students, on their part, simply calculate the cost and measure the cost effectiveness ofgetting degrees. This is a very regrettable phenomenon. As opposed to hearing how many
international students are expected to attract as an economic matter, I think that goals andvisions of human resource development should be considered first and international
students should take major roles through their cross-border mobility. As an educationalist, I
would like to emphasize this point.
So what kind of human resources will we have to develop if we are to be considered leadersin the coming century? I think this reflection should be the major engine of theinternationalization process. In that vein, I would like to highlight SEAMEO and AUN’s
efforts aimed at gathering a diverse group of students together to foster a sense of oneness.
If such a oneness should exist or be brought about, I think it would be significant for theregion.
Thank you.

/Comment # 4/Professor Anthony R. Welch/University of Sydney

My comment may build on Professor Sugimura comments.
What I think we have identified in today’s presentations is what we know, but also what we
don’t know. And it seems to me, one of the interesting things that could be done – andperhaps Waseda could play a role in brokering such an approach - would be to find out more
about what we don’t know. Using frameworks, of the kind we have heard about today,
whether it is GATS - which is only one kind of framework, but at least useful analytically or whether we use the kind of multi-level approach that was talked about today - Global,
regional, national, and so on – to perhaps develop a more complete understanding oflinkages in higher education across the Asian region.
There are many issues associated with that: what counts as ‘Asia’; what are the other subregional groupings.
What we have seen today, is where we could go and what more we could learn. And I thinkthat would be an interesting thing to do.
Thank you.

/Comment # 5/Professor Tereso S. Tullao, Jr.
/De La Salle University

We did mention several modes of relationship and cooperation towards regional integrationin higher education. My research topic that I think is relevant and can be explored further
is: which one really contributes to the narrowing of the gap between the developed countries
and the developing countries in the region given the diversity in education, politics andeconomics.
We are actively promoting a lot of student exchanges, but is that more contributory tonarrowing the gap, than research collaboration, which will elevate two or three research
universities in every economy. Developed countries, like Korea, Japan and probably China,
can assist countries such as Malaysia, the Philippines, Cambodia and other less developed
countries. So, we need to reconsider policies being promoted in terms of the effectiveness ofthe modes of cooperation towards real integration.

/Comment # 6/Mr. Andrey Uroda/University of Hong Kong
Whatever we suggest, I think that nothing is very specific, common or universal. In fact, I
wanted to give an example from my research, which I’m currently undertaking as a PhD
student at the University of Hong Kong. It has led me to the conclusion that there arecertain excellent books with good theories written on the use of a universal paradigm, but
the conclusion is that a sort of ‘uncolonalization’ of English language mediation and the‘North-South’ approach, are not the only way that actors do their work, especially within
Asian region.
Taking the example from my research, based on a case study of two dual-degree programs in
two countries. Geographically, they are fully in Asia, but politically, only 50% in Asia. Thereis dual-degree mobility and integration of all students in this program. There is almost no
governmental support, though in one country there is some limited support, but not in theother. In the other country there is no support to this program, relying on almost fully on
innovative institutional initiatives.
There is some dependence on current market situations and cross-border exchanges between
these two nations. The achievements in this program and the success in marketing thegraduates are correlated, with employment getting better and better since these exchanges
have been taking place.
The case is based on institutions in Russia and China, where they meet in the Northeast.
But the most interesting thing is that there is no English spoken there. Some professors
have suggested that I should challenge this so-called ‘universal theory.’ But, there is anotherchallenge that is emerging. That is, whatever paradigm we have is extremely context
specific. We find that these explanatory paradigms are highly sensitive to national
educational models and are culturally sensitive, as well.
So, my conclusion is that the more case studies we have, the more we will be able to improveon a theoretical elaboration.
Thank you.

/Comment # 7/Professor Shoko YAMADA/Nagoya University

Hello, my name is Shoko Yamada from Nagoya University.
Since I am not a specialist of internationalization of higher education, my comment may be
off the point. I got the impression throughout the session that there is confusion between the
two terms: internationalization and regionalization.
I think these two aspire to different goals. When we talk about internalization, you may be
more interested in raising the university’s ranking in the global ranking system or you may
be thinking of introducing English as a language of instruction. But when we talk about
regionalization, the issue would center more on the notion of ‘Asianess’ or mutual
understanding, or other such issues.
So, I would like to suggest that we should separate these two issues. Even though they aremutually related issues, we should consider regionalization as a distinct issue.
Thank you.

/Comment # 8/Mr. Zainal Abidin Sanusi, PhD/University Sains Malaysia

I would like to highlight that these ideas are getting more specific in terms of areas forresearch. I sense that there is an attempt to integrate the RIHE, research institutes onhigher education. I would like to suggest a similar approach as the one adopted by RIHE.
First, I would like to suggest building a network of scholars focused on the research of
integration of higher education. Secondly, with regard to databases, we are currently
working on signing MOUs with several universities to share information on the development
of benchmarking systems.
This is what we are currently involved in developing.
Thank you.

/Comment # 9/Professor Kazuo KURODA/Waseda University
I also wanted to comment on Professor Sugimura’s comments, as to what kind of people wewould like to nurture through this discussion of integration and international cooperation.
In the afternoon, when we talked about regional frameworks, we were excited to talk about
Asian identity. ‘Diversity’ became the key word, a very positively perceived key word when
we discussed identity, specifically Asian identity. Can it be the foundation of identity?
Diversity has traditionally been portrayed as being contrary to identity. The notion ofidentity emphasizes something that is homogeneous or something in common. I consider akey part of Waseda University’s identity in the contemporary world, to be based on its
diversity; not only international diversity, but also a diversity of the people and student
body. I think that diversity can be a part of identity, especially within ASEAN and Asia.
So, let’s consider for a moment the kind of people we are trying to nurture for the future. Not
any one unique personality or characteristic, of course, but when we think about Asianinterests - the kind that a national university would try to foster amongst its student body,for example – something may be said about the many commonalities we share. I am quite
sure that this kind of discussion has already taken place within the ASEAN framework.
Maybe there are ‘ASEAN interests,’ and even ‘Asian interests.’
Given that there is room for people espousing dual-identities, this would not be an
exclusionary way of thinking. For example, I consider myself both Japanese and Asian andfind that there is no real contradiction between these two perceptions. Perhaps the way
forward then, is to consider institutions that instill future generations with a sensibility to‘Asian interests.’
So, how can we go about setting up these institutions? One university, alone, cannot
accomplish this. The European experience is very helpful. They created both the College ofEurope and the European University Institute to nurture a sense of European regionalism
within individuals. But, is this enough?
Perhaps collaborative curriculum development amongst universities and crossing different
fields, can also nurture individuals with similar sensibilities.
Professor Kai-Ming, would you care to share your thoughts on these issues?

/Comment # 10
/Professor Cheng KAI-MING/University of Hong Kong

I must apologize, as I’ve missed a good part of the meeting. So, if anything I say proves to beoutside of our track of conversation or a repetition of what people said, I apologize.
Because I haven’t gone through the presentations, I have to admit I am a little confused
about the themes of integration, internationalization and human resources. This three seemto refer to a very cluster of issues, and I’m not sure how they come together.
Let me begin by saying that I only ask questions – it is safer. I want to present my views by
asking one umbrella question which I have been contemplating. I’m not asking the question
as if have any value judgments. But, my central question in order to provoke a discussion is:
do we need a separate Asian ranking of universities?
Now, I’m asking this question not because I want to express my like or dislike of rankings,
but rather because rankings are now overwhelming education systems throughout theworld. Just in the past few months I’ve heard news from Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia
and Thailand, signaling that they’ve all produced blueprints for their education systems
based on one indicator. That one indicator is based on rankings and has been expressed intheir desire to build as many ‘elite universities,’ ‘APEC universities’ and ‘world-classuniversities,’ as possible. Thailand, for example, is trying to get as many universities as
possible in the to 50 worldwide, top 50 in Asia and so forth. Pakistan is the most dramatic:
they want to build 11 elite universities and 8 of them are to be engineering universities.
After some discussion, they reduced the latter figure to six. The expenditures in the
proposed budget for each university are greater than the budget for the entire higher
education system. We also hear stories of vice-chancellors and presidents who are demoted
because of the drop in their university’s ranking and so forth.
Recently, I had the opportunity to participate in a meeting of rankers. They have held three
world conferences already, the last one being in Shanghai. They estimate that there exists
approximately 34 rankings; three are international and the rest are national. More andmore national rankings are appearing. Each ranking is stirring people’s emotions, arousing
ill feelings. Nobody seems to be happy.
Top universities, suddenly become ranked third or fourth and they are very agitated. Others
rise to the top and begin worrying about their standings in future rankings. Resources are
put into the ‘catching up’ in a ranking, looking to climb up the ranking hierarchy. But the
ranking represents a certain ideology of higher education. So my question is, do we need aseparate Asian ranking to protect ourselves?
It’s very pragmatic question. The question could be considered in the following ways. First ofall, I would say that universities, as we know them now, are fundamentally a western idea;
almost like a philharmonic orchestra, you can play Chinese music, you can play Japanesemusic and nonetheless they are western influences. So, my first question is: are there
elements that are common to all universities? I presume there are: methodologies to runninga university, technology, etc. We need to outline what they are.
Second, apart from these base line commonalities, is there anything in higher education thatis Asian; that is, different from Latin America, Anglo-Saxon universities and African
universities? Is there such an element? In my mind, I can think of a few, but does this countas body of knowledge and a comprehensive framework.

Third, if there is such a thing called ‘Asian higher education,’ how would that contribute to
the world community of higher education? Education is not one-way traffic. For example,
most Asian universities seem to pay a lot of attention to student development; that is,alternative learning apart from a formal curriculum. Which, if we are not careful, will
disappear if we abide by the current ideology of rankings. But if you look at the work place,people are talking about tacit knowledge, ethics issues, values issues and so forth.
All these elements are related. Western universities are trying to integrate all theseelements, which used to be attributable only to the church and families. Elite universities
however, have always had this element to them. What element of ‘Asianess’ can contributeto the international community?
Finally, I would like to ask how many ‘Asias’ do we have? Do we have just one ‘Asia,’ what I
call chopstick Asia? But there are many Asians that don’t use chopsticks. I can think ofpeople from South Asia and Islamic communities, as well. Apparently they have a very
different concept of higher education.
Of course there is also the question of university collaboration in Asia. When Asianuniversities collaborate or integrate, what are there general motivations? There are lots ofmotivations for Asian universities to partner with prestigious Western universities. Many
motivations also exist which encourage Asian universities to partner with weakeruniversities. This occurs almost as a kind of transaction, if not an invasion. So, why
integrate? The motive for integration in the European Community seems to be more obvious.
But in Asia, perhaps it’s yet to take shape.
I have many other questions, but I’m just asking questions - I have no answers.
Thank you.

/Comment # 11
/Professor Takashi ONISHI/United Nations University

Hello, my name is Takashi Onishi and I’m from the United Nations University.
I’d like to make some comments about China. In Asia, I think the country that is receiving
the most international students is China, not Japan. This new trend began several years ago
and Japan was overtaken. I think there are about 150,000 international students in China.
When it comes to sending students abroad, China is the most important country. In otherwords, the country that we should be looking to for new initiatives is still a developing
country. I think this is a very important point. And in terms of the size as well, China is an
overwhelming entity. When you consider these points, I think you will find that the situationis very different from that which led to European integration.
Now, how should we look at China? Are we going to co-exist or are we going to compete with
it; are we going to embrace it? Unless we talk about it, I don’t think we can move ahead withthis discussion. In other words, without China, Asian integration would be an impossible
endeavor. It is true that we should be talking about higher education. But, at the end of theday, we have to talk about political economy and environment. No matter what the topic ofdiscussion, I think we can see the same structure.
Also, on this particular topic, what are China’s views; what are China’s thoughts? This has
to be discussed it and looked into, otherwise effective Asian integration may not move
forward. Thank you.

/Session Moderator/Professor Kazuo KURODA/Waseda University

Thank you very much Professor Onishi.
In concluding this session, I would ask Professor Kim, Professor Piniti, Professor Supachai
and Professor Morshidi to make some final comments.
Thank you.

/Final Remarks/Professor Ki-Seok KIM/Seoul National University

I would like to build on Professor Welch’s comments regarding “what we didn’t know.”
What I don’t know is, what I am. We are talking about various ways of considering Asian
identity, but I’m not quite sure we know the issue well enough to discuss the integration ofhigher education systems and regionalization. We should spend some time and some energy
searching for a multi-level Asian identity.
Then, we will need to come up with a more substantial definition; not one which simply
takes note of commonalities.
Thank you.

/Final Remarks/Professor Piniti Ratananukuk/Director, ASEAN University Network

I think, in some ways, I agree with Professor Kuroda: diversity can be a part of identity.
But, if you consider this more carefully, when you look in Asia you find that we all eat rice;
we share rice-based cultures. This can be a part of the Asian identity.
But I would like to propose some ideas based on my many years working for the AUN. When
we talk about education and cooperation in Asia, I think the many difficulty we face in Asia
is our different academic calendars. If you ask when your first semester starts in Asian
countries, you will receive a lot of different answers. So when we compare student or staff
mobility in Asia, the figures are low compared with European countries. In Europe, I’m surethey enjoy a single academic calendar. They all start at nearly the same time.
The situation is quite different in Asia. For instance, even the structure of the education
system is different. To obtain a bachelor degree, some universities require three years ofstudy and others four years. We do not have the same system. This is another burden we
carry when we try to promote student and staff mobility, even just within Asia.
In addition, there is a language barrier. Of course, in Asia we are accustomed to using
different languages. Even under the ASEAN charter, we agreed that the official working
language should be English. But, from my point of view, if we look into the communication
between 10 ASEAN countries, we still have problems. Apart from Singapore, Malaysia,
Brunei and the Philippines, who all recognize English as an official language, othercountries in ASEAN don’t have an official second language policy. This can be a big burden
when we talk about student mobility.
Finally, I find there is a lack of student support systems. For example, when students fromASEAN want to come to Japan, they have to apply for a visa. I don’t think obtaining a visa
to come to Japan is easy for ASEAN students. Also they have to pay for visa fees. How do weovercome this problem and lend our students more support?
These are the reasons why I believe the figures for student mobility with ASEAN are so low.
Thank you.

/Final Remarks/Professor Supachai Yavaprabhas/Director, SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education andDevelopment

I would like to end by saying that I think we are getting better, in the ASEAN region, when
we work together. I think we have done quite a lot in terms of sharing information, sharing
best and worst practices, enabling us to learn a lot from each other. So, in terms of
harmonization, we don’t all need to strive to be the same. Perhaps it can be structured more
like the EU, where the identity of each locality is preserved. These difference will encourage
students to be mobile, discovering and rediscovering their neighboring cultures.
At the policy level, we need to continue working together. We need to speak to a multitude of
stakeholders, especially those who are directly impacted by increased mobility: employers,
students and other stakeholders in the community.
Another thing that I would like to touch upon is the issue of ranking. Professor Kim
mentioned the difficulties related to the ranking system in Korea. Personally, I think it isnecessary for us to consider that every faculty has its own mission and this is very
important. I think that by linking different kinds of universities in different categories, we
can make progress. I think there is room for sharing information on best practices across
East Asia and Southeast Asia.

/Final Remarks/Professor Morshidi Sirat/Director, National Higher Education Research InstituteLet me begin by responding to Professor Kai-Ming with regards to ranking.
We are not excited, but the politicians are. This is one way the politicians are keeping tabs
on the academics. They say “we gave you a lot of money and where are you now?”

I’ve written a couple of articles in newspapers regarding our heightened interest in
rankings. My conclusion is that it is a convenient way for politicians to get back at us. We
need to become part of the system in order to defend ourselves.
Finally, I would like to ask: can we have integration, Asian integration that is, without
economic integration? This seems to be the biggest issue to me. In Europe, you haveeconomic integration, followed by other sorts of integration. But in Asia, we have different
systems. Economic integration is still a long way off. And yet, we are talking about Asian
integration in other fields. Which one comes first? I believe, from what I’ve read, you need tohave economic integration before any other form of integration.
Thank you.

/Closing Remarks/Professor Kazuo KURODA/Waseda University

Thank you very much.
At the outset of this session, I said “by all means I don’t have any intention to summarize
everything we said today”; but I feel we have done precisely this.
I really believe that gathering together with ASEAN representatives and colleagues in thefield, is very beneficial. Such collaborations have lasting and meaningful impacts on the
future development of higher education.
We have highlighted a great many things that will require further study and attention. We
hope to collect all your papers shortly to be included in the final publication, which we will
be putting out later this year. I truly look forward to sustaining a lasting conversation on the
integration of higher education systems in Asia, with all of you.
Finally, I would like to take a moment to thank Dr. Kamikubo for his assistance in planning
this conference and all the administrators and students who also were involved in the
preparation and facilitation of this session.
Thank you all very much.