Key Characteristics5) Gain vital knowledge about major
competitors and, at the same time,
redefine the institution's mission, role,
relevancy, and scope

1) Obtain knowledge of basic research,innovation, and emerging technologies
through shared social networks and/or
citation networks
2) Establish recognition of quality andvalidation through the reputation ofindividual and/or institutional
partnerships
3) Communicate new knowledge byelectronic means via virtual classrooms,
blogging spaces, emails, etc
4) Seek knowledge for institutional
survival and viability
Hruby (1973)

Astin and Lee (1972)

Lincoln (1992); Delong (2006)

Whitley (1981); National Academy of
Sciences (1969); Kurzman and Owens(2002)

Crane (1972); Lievrouw (1990); Tuire &Erno (2001); Zuccala (2004)

Related Research

Variations of invisible
collegesbdenman@une.edu.au

Brian Denman
Hiroshima University (Visiting Professor)
University of New England

Invisible Colleges andInternational Consortia in Higher
Education      transferability andportability ofacademic degrees

transparency andaccreditation of
offshore education
providersmetric testing on
student outcomes
and research

STANDARDISATION

academic social
networking andfunding opportunities

preservation or
maintenance of
language; culture

trade liberalisation

REGIONALISATION

pedagogicalapproaches

diplomatic ties
between countries;
culturesstudent and staff
mobilty

ACCULTURATION

Examples of globalising
influences• Working together’, but oftentimes contains the inflexion that
all have the right to work equally, jointly and with common
purposeCo-operation• Ranges from offering a single academic degree or many,
one which is committed solely to teaching, to both teaching
and research, or solely to research

University• Ranges from a digitalised borderless world connected
through technological means to the socio-political-economic
polity between nation-states

International

Deconstruction of international
university co-operation













Source: http://invisiblecollege.clientlisttruestory.com/. Retrieved 12 August 2010.

The invisible college of new2) to cooperate to compete for economic
diversification, gain, recognition, and sustainability.

1) to cooperate and/or collaborate with three or more
institutions to enhance, enrich, and diversify theacademic programs, initiatives, and resources tostudents and staff; andInternational consortia have been strategicallydesigned in part:

The emergence ofinternational consortia      Virtual Universities

Branch Campuses (int'l)

Open Universities

Corporate Programs

International Consortia

Branch Campuses (domestic)

International Alliances

Distance Education Universities

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Distribution of formalisedinternational university
organisations

Source: http://sometimesidonothing.com/invisible_college/. Retrieved 12 August 2010.

The invisible college of old













Domestic
education

Socio-politicalconsiderations

Productivity

Economic GrowthInternational
Consortia

International consortia and theglobalisation of education

Socio-politicalconsiderations

Productivity

Economic GrowthInternational consortia and theglobalisation of education      Socio-politicalconsiderations

Productivity

Economic Growth

Contacts/alumni &trade

Increased cultural
understanding

International
Consortia

Improved quality

Transfer of new ideas

International consortia and theglobalisation of education

Socio-politicalconsiderations

Productivity

Modified version of APEC and International Education 08, The key ideas (1.1).
Report for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace, Centre forInternational Economics, Canberra and Sydney

Domestic
education

Domestic
education

Economic GrowthInternational consortia and theglobalisation of education









  





Federation

Management by Contract

y Standardisationy The Western-value, ‘Education as investment’y Increased international associations and networks

y Cultural appreciation, sensitivityy ‘Quality’y Technology transfer

Educational benefits orburdens

Source: Modified version of (Lang 2002: 158) and Grant Harman's (1989)
earlier version

Merger with RCB

Program
ClosureContinuum of InterInstitutional Co-operation       0.04
0.13

Collaboration
Citation

27.8

12.0

24.6

1

0

9

11

Source: Tuire and Erno 2001: 502

0.12

%

%
Information

Centralisation

Density

The whole
network

70

89

43

1-10

15

4

47

11-20

Centrality

10

--

13

20<

7.6

3.9

12.2

Centrality
mean

Individual professors (n=104)

Information exchange, collaboration,and citations between professorsInvisible Colleges and International Consortia in Higher Education
Brian Denman
Hiroshima University (Visiting Professor)
University of New England, Australia
bdenman@une.edu.au
Abstract:
There are various dimensions of international university co-operation, specificallyinternational consortia in higher education. Although opinions vary as to why they
were developed, the majority of international consortia began positioning
themselves after World War II have increased greatly since then. Regardless of
their mission or purpose, international consortia have arguably supplemented
higher educational institutions as 'invisible colleges', so characterised because thephysical infrastructure of institutions has been complemented by cooperative
relationships established in order to provide adequate quality and variety
instruction, to monitor worldwide educational trends, and to further promote thedissemination and advancement of knowledge. The specific study encompasses
500 + such international university organisations worldwide, with particular survey
data directed toward international consortia. Analysis of the data collected details
the role they play in the internationalisation of higher education and their possible
applications and benefits to participatory institutions.
Invisible Colleges - Conceptual Umbrella of Consortia
Variations on the theme of invisible colleges can be helpful in understanding theconcept. Several definitions are worth noting. In her 1972 publication, Invisible
Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Diana Crane makes
reference to invisible colleges as social networks that were created among groups ofacademic albeit scientific collaborators. In another reference, Tuire and Erno
contend that invisible colleges were established as far back as the 1640s when"...there were about ten young men, not professional scientists but well-educated insome field, who used to have informal meetings in London taverns" which later
evolved into the Royal Society (2001: 497; See also Lievrouw 1990; Zuccala online).
There is also Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (1957), in which an intellectual
community of a select few were chosen to collectively live and work together inorder to further develop their own independent, rationalised, and 'objective'
thoughts, reasons, and moralities. However, unlike Rand's thesis, many invisible
colleges were also founded for altruistic purposes to generate new knowledge rather
than to simply collaborate for personal if not mutual gain. Rothblatt referred tosuch groups as 'doers of science', but that "...there were no finely drawn
communities in control of scientific knowledge and information" (1997: 422).

In certain instances, social capital may be considered synonymous with invisible
colleges, particularly in relation to building informal bonds of trust and social
connectedness, but patterns of evidence found in the literature seems to indicatethat a divide exists between social capital's relationship with local communities andcivil society viz à vis invisible colleges representing the research and teachinginterests of a select group of academic scholars. As Fukuyama states:
Social capital can be defined simply as an instantiated set of informal values
or norms shared among members of a group that permits them to cooperatewith one another...The fact that social capital can on occasion be used for
destructive purposes or can become obsolete does not negate the widely
shared presumption that it is generally a good thing for a society to have.
(Fukuyama 2000: 99; 100)
In another reference, Zuccala offers her definition of an invisible college:
An invisible college is a set of interacting scholars or scientists who sharesimilar research interests concerning a subject specialty, who often produce
publications relevant to this subject and who communicate both formally andinformally with one another to work towards important goals in the subject,even though they belong to geographically distant research affiliates.
(Zuccala: online)
Invisible colleges are thus often hidden from the public eye, are often considered as
informal gatherings of scholars and, in many cases, have evolved to become moreformalised networks (Tuire & Erno 2001: 497). This has often led to a highdependence on validation, based upon the acceptance of contributions as
academically significant and competent (Whitley 1981), the further development ofcitation networks (Tuire & Erno 2001; Zuccala 2004), and the close association
between advanced scholars and distinguished mentors (National Academy of
Sciences 1969). As Jarvis points out:
In a sense, then, part of the research into social capital has taken us back to
the ideas of the community and the community spirit, phenomena that haveapparently declined tremendously as a result of the division of labour,
although the same concern about the decline existed nearly a century ago.
(Jarvis 2007: 120)
Lincoln's 1992 publication, Virtual Community and Invisible Colleges: Alterations
in faculty and scholarly networks and professional self-image, identifies invisible
colleges as connoting communication via technical means in order to maintainregular contact with scientific communities, particularly with those academics who
do not live and work in close proximity.
Delong's 2006 article, The Invisible
College, is similar in vein, contending that the use of new online technology(specifically blogging) has enhanced the role and elevation of stature of theacademic staff member, particularly as one who can influence both students andcolleagues alike through the seamless invisibility of networks on the web. Bothsuggest that 'invisible colleges' are innovative ways communication enhance newknowledge generation through online networks.
A more limited definition of invisible colleges is found in a book published in 1972
with the same title by Astin and Lee. However, instead of referring to collaborator
networks, Astin and Lee concerned themselves only with lesser known private,higher educational institutions in the United States which were less concerned
about their perceived status and selection process than they were about
institutional viability and survival (Astin & Lee 1972). Immediately following
Astin and Lee's publication came Hruby's A Survival Kit for Invisible Colleges(1973; 1980), which investigated the difficult circumstances Aquinas College hadfound itself in as a private, nonselective, and poorly endowed college during the1970s. This was during a time period when there was growing pessimism about
the future of higher education in general and the questionable fulfilment of needs
an institution provided to it's community-at-large. In this description, invisible
colleges were considered institutions that found themselves in crisis mode. Either
they failed to measure up, had lost their relevance or sense of purpose, or came into
disrepute.
Clearly, literature reviews reveal various characteristics of invisible colleges.
Table 1 displays such characteristics put forward in the definition of these entities.
Table 1: Characteristics in the Definition of Invisible Colleges based on Literature
Review
Key Characteristics
1) Obtain knowledge of basic research, innovation,and emerging technologies through shared social
networks and/or citation networks
2) Establish recognition of quality and validation
through the reputation of individual and/or
institutional partnerships
3) Communicate new knowledge by electronic means
via virtual classrooms, blogging spaces, emails, etc
4) Seek knowledge for institutional survival andviability5) Gain vital knowledge about major competitors and,at the same time, redefine the institution's mission,role, relevancy, and scope

Related Research
Crane (1972); Lievrouw (1990); Tuire& Erno (2001); Zuccala (2004)
Whitley (1981); National Academy of
Sciences (1969); Kurzman andOwens (2002)
Lincoln (1992); Delong (2006)
Astin and Lee (1972)
Hruby (1973)

The changing characteristics of invisible colleges help to define a range ofapplications and specific orientations as to when and how new knowledge has been
and is generated at tertiary levels. This helps to support Clark's historicalunderstanding of key structural aspects of the origins of the university, including
the establishment of the convictorium in medieval times, the professorial table, andprivate collegia (Clark 2006). The convictorium typically housed university
students who were generally poor but which differed from that of a typicalresidential college in that it "...possessed no endowment legally and had nocorporate existence at law" (Clark 2006: 149). The professorial table, otherwise
known as Professoren Tisch, was also an informal but important practice whereby"...many German professors took in boarders, other than their lodgers, on asemester-subscription basis" (Ibid: 151), and the private collegia which involved
private (user-pays) classes between instructor and student.
While Clark identified informal workings of academia from its origins and which
ultimately led to the establishment of medieval European universities, it is clearthat in the present-day context, the structures and symbolism of old can becompared to that of new, including both invisible colleges and international
consortia in higher education. The only differences identified between invisible
colleges and international consortia are their degree of informality in terms oflegality and structure and their modis operandi. In many cases, international
consortia have developed as a means to consolidate and streamline administrative
procedures and processes and, as such, do more for less.
Invisible Colleges aka International Consortia
International consortia are new versions of invisible colleges---organisations thatserve to support, expand, diversify, and perhaps more precisely, supplement interinstitutional cooperation on an international level. Although the Latin terms
consortium (singular) and consortia (plural) have historically been used in higher
education to identify clusters of local post-secondary institutions that shareresources, curriculum, and administrative support. Significantly, international
consortia serve a wider community by expanding across national borders. It canalso be argued that international consortia are different from their local
counterparts in the sense that they have been developed for different purposes.
Many have been conceived to supplement existing institutional programs andinitiatives in an effort to expand their market share, to broaden their course
offerings, and to offer additional foreign study and research options to students andstaff. As a result, many international consortial organisations have provided muchneeded relief in the form of additional operational support and resources tosuccessfully execute and deliver international educational exchanges and programs.
A further distinguishing element characterising international consortia is theiractive engagement in cultivating partnerships from various geographical sectors
which aim to serve their expanded community. This activity has fueled the
incentive for consortial members to seek other avenues of funding, generally in theform of corporate, government, and foundation support as a means to help diversify

institutional finances.
In some instances, the development of international
consortia has strengthened ties between many institutions, thus affording theopportunity for participating institutions to jointly pursue outside funding
opportunities for their own mutual benefit. As van Ginkel (1998: 40) comments:
Linking universities' competence to the needs of society not only means that
we have to co-operate more with other universities and participate in
networks with external partners. It also means that networks work withexternal partners. It also means that we have to change our internalorganisational structure to be able to work together with partners fromdifferent cultures: universities in other countries, governments (local,
regional, national) and their semi-autonomous agencies, and the private
sector.
International Consortia:

A working definition

International consortia are participatory organisations or inter-institutional
partnerships of higher educational institutions with a primary mission ofdisseminating and advancing knowledge on an international level.
Thisdissemination and advancement of knowledge may include two or more of thefollowing: collaborative projects and programs that are international in scope;faculty and student exchanges, curriculum-sharing; resource sharing;developmental assistance; and faculty training.
International consortia have been strategically designed in part:1) to cooperate and/or collaborate with three or more institutions to enhance,
enrich, and diversify the academic programs, initiatives, and resources tostudents and staff; and2) to cooperate to compete for economic diversification, gain, recognition, andsustainability.
In addition to the above criteria, the organisations that fit within the above
parameters appropriately include:
•
•
•
•
•

a governing body;a manager;a mission;an active commitment by member institutions; anda funding source.

Why did international consortia develop?
International consortia as a form of invisible colleges are recognised as formidable
forces in the internationalisation of higher education may be explained by its
evolving nature throughout history. If one were to relax the definitions of "international" and "university" as we know them at present, the origins of international
university cooperation---at the least on an informal basis---can be traced back tomedieval universities in the 15th century when Europe was designated as "acommunity bounded geographically" (Neave, 1997). Known at that time as astudium generale, medieval universities offered a uniform language of study (Latin),a uniform programme of study and exams for students with a common religious
credence, and a particular focus designed to attract students from other parts ofEurope (Neave 1997: 3).
However, to state that they were indeed interinstitutional partnerships is somewhat misleading and untrue.
The interconnectedness between institutions were directly related to academic staff who, forwhatever reason, would move from place to place to set up their business to teach,with the hope of being taken care of both in terms of finances and of security.
Colonialism offered the next known wave of international university cooperation
with the formation of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) in the
United Kingdom in 1913. Although the inter-institutional relationships formed asa result of the ACU were mostly unilateral, the formation of such partnerships was
typically designed in an effort to further develop the colonised area as a politicalentity or ally. It was only after World War II that international consortia, as
defined in this study, began to take form. Perhaps the first of its kind in thedeveloping world, The Colombo Plan was founded in 1951 to provide developmental
assistance in the form of international educational exchange to financiallydisadvantaged countries. Institutions in the United States began experimenting ininternational consortia with the formation of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest(ACM), founded in 1958 which incorporated an international dimension with thepartnership of universities in four countries.
A study of consortia which will be discussed at length in a later section of this paper
documented their development as displayed in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Development of International University Organisations, including
Consortia

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Note: Data displayed in Figure 2 includes 53 of the 61 international consortia
which participated in the study.
Source: Denman 2005: 402.
Considering the majority of international consortia of late, the economic benefits tobe reaped have arguably taken precedence over the good-will nature of cooperativeinter-institutional relationships, and although institutions may legitimise theircollective involvement for furthering international co-operation---particularly in thename of internationalisation---it is the economic gains, the consolidation of costs,
staff, and resources, and international recognition and visibility that determine theextent of their active participation. To a lesser extent, there are visionary leaders
who see beyond the financial benefits, and although they may actively seek
mutually exclusive, working relationships for purposes of a common---usuallyinternational---cause, they are under increasing pressure to be financiallyaccountable.
Ownership, or more precisely, stakeholdership, thus becomestantamount in terms of invested interest from the visionary leader, from the corpus
of its members, and from other stakeholders who are financially accountable.
International consortia then in their pure, ideological form, require an equilibrium
and validation of stakeholdership, a sharing of strategic and tactical responsibilities,
and perhaps most importantly, joint outcome accountability. Lang references theirdevelopment in the context of Astin and Lee's argument for institutional survival.
He states:Cooperation may be a means, perhaps the only means, of institutional
survival. Survival is a necessity. Like any species in an ecosystem,
colleges and universities will seek to survive, and will choose change over the
status quo in order to do so. The complexity of ecosystems, perhaps likesystems of post-secondary education, can, on the hand, reflect the essential
role that specialization and diversity play in maintaining the health of thesystem. Seen from this perspective, any system of higher education contains
a plethora of unique niches that are constantly changing. (Lang 2002: 162)
The role international consortia play in the over-all development of international
university co-operation may be perceived differently around the world. The datasuggest that international consortia are generally structured to meet the needs ofthe community and culture to which they subscribe and that their potential role inhigher education may further initiate new opportunities well beyond the realm ofwhatever services they currently have to offer. In this sense, they are correctly
regarded as invisible colleges, whereby the physical infrastructure of institutions
has given way to the formalised networks established.
These types ofinternational university organisations help higher education provide adequate
quality and variety of instruction, monitor and remain current on worldwide trends,
and further promote---or broker---a universal dissemination and advancement of
new knowledge.
Studying International Consortia as part of University Cooperation
An ongoing study on international university cooperation has been conducted toclassify international university organisations, notably consortia, by purpose(function) and administrative patterns (structure). Between 1996-2008, surveys
were sent to over 700 international university organisations worldwide and survey
respondents were asked to classify their own organisation. The surveys were
designed in part to identify organisational patterns between three types ofinternational university organisations, specifically international consortia (i.e.
inter-institutional partnerships), international alliances (i.e. groups, unions,
councils, or associations), and international agencies (i.e. centers, institutes, orthink tanks). While the characteristics among organisational types were purposely
generalised to invite specific definitions by survey participants, the only
stipulations were that each organisation must consist of at least three or morehigher education institutions or the equivalent and that, as a collective whole, theymust pursue a common international purpose for mutual benefit.
Organisations were identified utilising numerous sources and cited for theircommon purpose or primary mission. These included world-focused universities,
satellite or extension (offshore) campuses, bridging and twinning programs,
entrepreneurial profit-making groups (e.g. information and advising centers,
overseas education brokers, credit evaluators, study/travel operators), inter-governmental and non-governmental educational agencies, and those entities basedon bilateral and multilateral memoranda of understanding, mutual compliance, or
exclusivity of membership.
Figure 3:

Distribution of Formalised International University Organisations  
  ȋ Ȍ


 ȋ̵Ȍ
Ͳ

ͳͲͲ

ʹͲͲ

͵ͲͲ

ͶͲͲ

ͷͲͲ

Sources used to collect information on these and other forms of international
university co-operation included the following directories and reference materials:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

NAFSA: Association of International Educators
European Association of International Educators (EAIE)
Institute of International Education (IIE)
American Council on Education (ACE)
UNESCO's International Association of Universities (IAU)
Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC)The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education
Meetings with key people in their respective regions

Although in Figure 3 above, the distribution does not attempt to reflect levels ofactivity by percentage in terms of cross-border higher education worldwide, it does
help to substantiate how differentiated cross-border higher education is, including
distance education, and what types of organisations this study investigates. If one
were to accept Verbik and Lasanowski’s estimates that the total number of mobile
tertiary education students worldwide has reached more than 2.7 million in 2005,1
then conservatively speaking---with 30 students to a program---there would be close
to 90,000 international university organisations worldwide. Satellite (offshore)
campuses, including those which are mobilised academic programs as well as ‘bricks
1 (Verbik & Lasanowski 2007: 1)

and mortar’, are steadily increasing with more than 843 in 2007 2 while study
abroad offerings continue to offer the vast majority of programs and exchanges
worldwide. Bridging and twinning programs originating in Australia in 2003 alone
included some 442 programs with an additional 253 estimated and identified as
distance education-oriented.3 Indeed, based on the data collected in this study, itis thought there may be some 517 international consortial alliances and separateentity agencies.
Organisational Characteristics
Among those organisations that classified themselves as international consortia, it
was found that there are at least two types, namely economic-oriented and sharingoriented international consortia, both of which share a common administrative
characteristic. They each have a tendency to form at the institutional level, and as
a result, can be further classified as faculty-initiated partnerships, institutioninitiated partnerships, cluster-type inter-institutional partnerships, or marketdriven partnerships.
Faculty-initiated partnerships- formed between faculty members of different institutions who are interested
in conducting joint or collaborative international research. Most are likely
to be project-based. Examples may include a specific field of study, aconcentrated area of scholarly focus such as language study, regional studies,cultural studies, or development studies.
Institution-initiated partnerships- types of partnerships that are either project- or program-based. The
project- or program-based function tends to be directed to an individual
department, school, or faculty and may be dependent on external funding
controls such as foundation or governmental support ‘soft monies’, short-term
institutional funds, or donor wishes. They may also be considered selfsupporting inter-institutional partnerships in which membership fees, tuition
fees, program fees, and the sale of publications are used to help defray
program-based costs.
Quality control measures and maintenance ofstandards may also be imposed to ensure academic integrity. Examples may
include projects that are research-oriented or program-based initiatives
aimed at promoting and developing the internationalisation efforts ofpartners.

2 These figures are a conservative estimate of the numbers identified from the American Council on
Education (2007: 10) and the Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee’s (Offshore Programs ofAustralian Universities 2003).

3 Please refer to Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee’s (Offshore Programs of Australian

Universities 2003).

Cluster-type inter-institutional partnerships- represent a consolidation of resources as a means to reduce administrative
costs, minimize duplication, and build on inter-institutional relationships
through student and faculty exchanges, joint research, and the sharing of
knowledge. They may also incorporate an exclusive membership in the formof a ‘club’, which shifts the focus of partnerships based on voluntary
participation to privileged invitation.
Market-driven partnerships- economic-oriented international consortia.
Observations
As noted in the foregoing text and study, clear trends have emerged in higher
education collaboration. Some scholars conclude that there is a shift in attitude
from altruism to institutional survival. Lang identifies a continuum of interinstitutional co-operation, suggesting that international consortia sit well between
the extremes, program closures and mergers. This middle-ground position may
infer institutional stability, expansion, and performance, but for international
consortia to sustain their activities, they require ownership, direction, and strategic
purpose for all partner institutions.
Figure 4: Continuum of Inter-Institutional Co-operation

Program
ClosureManagement by
Contract

Merger with RCB

Federation

Source: Modified version of (Lang 2002: 158) and Grant Harman's (1989) earlier
version.

Neo-populism asserts the notion that like-minded intellectuals [leaders] respond tosimilar situations and issues, suggesting that they validate one another's work,sometimes even to the detriment of progress. Thus, when scholars attempt tocollectively work together, either in economic or educational terms, there is anincreasing need to look at other like-minded models to identify the roles theselinkages play, regardless of formality (structure and function), and anticipate thechallenges that may lie ahead. There continues to be a need for caution inpreserving identities and not overstepping one's bounds to commodify education for
one's personal benefit. Table 5, drawn from a recent study, confirms that
individual professors tend to prefer to collaborate with groups of 1-10, yet are more
willing to share information with the whole network and cite references from thegroup rather than collaborate regularly with the whole.
Table 5:

Information Exchange, Collaboration and Citations between Professors
The whole network
Density
Centralisation

Information
Collaboration
Citation

Source:

%
0.12
0.04
0.13

%
24.6
12.0
27.8

0
1
11
9

Individual professors (n=104)
Centrality
Centrality
mean
1-10
11-20
20<
43
47
13
12.2
89
4
-3.9
70
15
10
7.6

Tuire and Erno 2001: 502.

These kinds of academic relationships seem to suggest that all types ofinternational university co-operation may be considered 'invisible colleges'. Of
course, only the more formalised programs are visible. It also suggests thatinvisible colleges are here to stay, particularly international consortia, and thatthey will continue to grow. Not only do international consortia offer voice andvalidation of research and teaching within a discipline or set of disciplines, they also
help to promote and advance new knowledge in terms of specialisations. Whilethey may do so out of economic imperatives more than anything else, what appears
promising is that international consortia help to broaden not only the reputations of
those scholars who represent the group but also the institutions to which they are
related. Generally, the ongoing challenges for international consortia to prosper
are institutional and individual support, ownership of research direction and/or
program purpose, and ongoing financial support.
A reasonable assumption can be made that the trend toward collaboration began inEurope. Shared consciousness or "collective wisdom" in education as Teichler
prefers to use, has a longstanding history in Europe. Neave dates it back to thelate 1700s during the Austro-Hungarian empire. He states,The Austrian reforms, curtailed though they were, provide a useful exemplarof the general process which, first applied to government, moved
progressively back into the university and from there infiltrated steadily
downwards by dint of educational provision generally. From being auniversal community of belief and faith, territorial unity became equatedwith the particularism of dynastic loyalty. (Neave, 1997; 8)Thus, the idea of a knowledge society of the late 1700s suggests that it was initiallyperceived as a form of national identity, or more precisely in medieval times, empire
citizenry. This seems to indicate that invisible colleges do have a symbiotic
relationship with that of history, as it was the nation-state and not economic
institutions that shaped social structures. On the other hand, North America, as
taking on a more individualised form of consciousness, has been historically lessnationalistic and more competitive in focus. It therefore is likely that in otherenvironments that espouse economic free trade, cooperation will not function
without competition. Further research should be undertaken to differentiate
patterns in invisible college formation based on educational systems.
On a positive note, it is more than likely that new programs, projects, andinitiatives will emerge as a result of co-operation. By reactions to free trade
agreements, mounting global issues, and demographic shifts, higher education isincreasingly seen as crucial to the well-being of a nation-state and region. It
therefore appears likely that other forms of education will emerge to offset the costs
associated with higher education. This should not be seen as a threat, but a moreeven distribution to offer all opportunities for an education. The hope is that thedevelopments of other cross-border higher education will not end up as ahomogenisation of educational opportunity. To quote Feyerabend, who in turnquotes Jacob,
In humans, natural diversity is...strengthened by cultural diversity,
which allows mankind to better adapt of a variety of life conditions andto better use the resources of the world. In this area, however, we are
now threatened with monotony and dullness. The extraordinary
variety which humans have put into their beliefs, their customs andtheir institutions is dwindling every day. Whether people die out
physically or become transformed under the influence of the model
provided by industrial civilization, many cultures are disappearing. If
we do not want to live in a world covered with a single technological,
pidgin-speaking, uniform way of life---this is, in a very boring world--we have to be careful. We have to use our imagination better 4(Jacob in Feyerabend, 1987; 5).

4

67.

Feyerabend quotes from François Jacob's The Possible and the Actual, Seattle and London 1982;



The over-riding challenge concerns that of a Global-North paradigm, which imposes
specific norms, expectations, and measures. It is based on the premise that
education is valued as an investment in economic terms which, in turn, may define
and re-define social standards and various levels of social stratification. It is hopedthat invisible colleges could help minimise disparity in terms of educational access,equity, and co-operation, but educational provision in whatever form should be theproduct of a series of strategic inter-institutional decisions acted upon in a timely
manner and addressing both need and contingency.
References
Astin, Alexander W. and Calvin B.T. Lee (1972). The Invisible Colleges: A Profile of Small,
Private Colleges with Limited Resources. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Brunn, S.D., and S. R. O'Lear (1999). "Research and Communication in the 'Invisible College'of the Human Dimensions of Global Change". In: Global Environmental Change, Vol 9, No
4 (December 1999), pp. 285-301. Accessed 24 April 2010, doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(99)000230.
Clark William (2006). Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Crane, Diana (1972). Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Delong, J.B., (2006). "The Invisible College". In: The Chronicle of Higher Education (28July 2006). Accessed 24 April 2010, http://chronicle.com/article/The-Invisible-College/28939/.
Denman, Brian D., (2005). “World Universities and Cross-Border Higher Education”. Paper
presented at the UNESCO sponsored conference, Committing Universities to Sustainable
Development, (20-23 April 2005), Graz, Austria, pp. 401-411.
Feyerabend, Paul, (1987). Farewell to Reason. Verso Publishers, London.
Fukuyama, Francis (2000). "Social Capital". In: Culture Matters. How Values Shape
Human Progress. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, eds. Basic Books,
New York, pp. 98-111.
Hruby, Norbert J., (1980). A Survival Kit for Invisible Colleges. Second edition. National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems, Boulder.
Jarvis, Peter (2007). Globalisation, Lifelong Learning and the Learning Society. Sociological
Perspectives. Vol 2, Routledge, Oxon.
Knight, J., and de Wit, H., 1995, "Strategies for internationalisation of higher education:
historical and conceptual perspectives". In: Strategies for Internationalisation of higher
education. A comparative Study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA. European
Association for International Education (EAIE), Amsterdam.
Kurzman, Charles and Lynn Owens (2002). "The Sociology of Intellectuals". In: Annual
Reviews Sociology, Vol 28, pp. 63-90. Accessed 24 April 2010, doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140745.
Lang, Daniel W., (2002). "A lexicon of inter-institutional cooperation." In: Higher Education,
Vol 44. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp. 153-183.
Lievrouw, L.A., and K. Carley (1990). "Changing patterns of communication amongs scientists
in an era of 'telescience'". In: Technology in Society, Vol 12, pp. 457-477.

Lincoln, Yvonna S., (1992). Virtual Community and Invisible Colleges: Alterations in Faculty
Scholarly Networks and Professional Self-Image. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper (1 Nov
1002), Minneapolis.
National Academy of Sciences (1969). The Invisible University. Postdoctoral Education in
the United States. Report of a study conducted under the auspices of the National ResearchCouncil. Washington, D.C.
Neave, G. (1991). The University of the Peoples of Europe: A Feasibility Study. In The
Open Door: Pan-European Academic Cooperation. UNESCO European Centre for Higher
Education, Bucharest, pp. 83-150.
Neave, Guy, (1997). The European Dimension in Higher Education. Background document to
the Netherlands seminar on "Higher Education and the Nation State" Center for Higher
Education Policy Studies. Twente, The Netherlands (April 1997).
Patterson, G. (1997). The University from Ancient Greece to the 20th Century. The Dunmore
Press Ltd., Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Rosenbaum, H., (1996). Managers in and Information in Organizations: Towards a
structurational concept of the information use environment of managers. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse.
Rothblatt, S. (1997). The Modern University and its Discontents. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Schriewer, Jürgen (2004). "Multiple Internationalities: The Emergence of a World-Level
Ideology and the Persistence of Idiosyncratic World-Views". In: Transnational Intellectual
Networks. Jürgen Schriewer, ed. Campus, Verlag, Frankfurt, pp. 473-533.
Tuire, P. and P Erno. (2001). "Exploring Invisible Scientific Communities: Studying
networking relations within an educational research community. A Finnish case". In:
Higher Education, Vol 42, pp. 493-513.
van Ginkel, Hans (1998). "Networking Alliances and Consortia of Universities: Focusing andstrengthening international cooperation". In: International Workshop on Academic
Consortia (19-21 November 1998). David C. Lam Institute for East-West Studies (LEWI),
Hong Kong, pp. 35-47.
Whitley, Richard (1981). "The Organisation and Establishment of the Professionalised
Sciences". Unpublished paper, Manchester Business School, Manchester.
Zuccala, Alesia (2004). Revisiting the Invisible College: A case study of the intellectual
structure and social process of Singularity Theory research in mathematics. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Zuccala, Alesia (nd). "Modeling the Invisible College". Accessed 24 April 2010,
http://individual.utoronto.ca/azuccala_web/InvisibleCollege.pdf.

