2008-E-19‘Experiences of Asian Higher Education Frameworks
and their Implications for the Future’ (Draft)
Professor Dr. Supachai Yavaprabhas
Director
SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development(RIHED)
January 2009

Preface

Asian Regional Integration and Education

Set against the backdrop of increasing economic interdependence in the Asia region,
the idea of ‘regional integration’ is most often articulated as a policy instrument andpolitical ideal. Arguably, this objective is being pursued to further promote regional
competitiveness in the world economy and to bring about a new stable political order.
Nevertheless, any move in this direction has been repeatedly challenged fromperspectives that emphasize socio-cultural diversity in the region and shared histories. It
is in this context that Waseda University received the Global COE research grant from
the Ministry of Education of Japan. Waseda University was tasked with establishing the
Graduate Institute for Asian Regional Integration (GIARI) to investigate problems andprospects relating to Asian regional integration. Issues of education are central to any
dialogue that seeks to further integrate political, social, and economic systems in theregion. Taking European integration as a precursor, it is clear that education plays acritical role in the integration process. It is certainly, therefore, within the purview andmoreover, a responsibility of Waseda’s Global COE—sponsored research to examine
the role education will continue to play in a more comprehensive integration of the Asia
region.
There is not a single nexus of research where the study of Asian regional integrationand education meet; rather, there exist a diversity of approaches that form a matrix ofresearch. A first feature of regional integration studies is the empirical study of ‘defacto’ integration of the region’s education systems. From this approach, we conclude
that education systems, economic systems and societal values are already intertwined
and integrated to a certain degree. This first approach endeavors to take stock of theextent of actual integration. A second approach emphasizes the purpose(s) andgoverning principles which inform the integration process. It may then be possible toderive ordered conceptual frameworks that reveal future pathways of regional
cooperation and integration. This approach asks why we need to integrate and theanswers come mainly from historical and philosophical investigations of policy
arguments. The third type of regional integration studies attempt to analyze existing
frameworks and institutions for regional cooperation and integration of education
systems. It is a political analysis that reveals practical and organizational implications
for future regional cooperation and integration processes. The fourth approach focuseson the study of the actors involved in the regional integration process. Countries andgovernments are probably the most important actors in these processes, but educational
institutions are also important. The fifth approach is best described as the comparative
study of regional integration drawing on experiences from different regions; education
regionalization in Europe, for example.
In doing these researches, we must share a vision concerning Asian regional
integration and education that can foster mutual trust and a concept of people’s Asia,and strengthening the competitiveness of Asian human resources in the world. By
comprehensively discussing and internalizing diverse views, rather than relying on asingle model or ideal, it will be possible to build a regional framework for education in
Asia that can be expected to contribute greatly to the formation of an Asian Community,
and thus, to peace and prosperity in the region.
Kazuo KURODA, Ph.D.
Leader, Education and Asian Regional
Integration Research Group, GIARI

1

1.

Globalisation and Higher Education

In the contemporary liberal economic environment, higher education has
been perceived by many developed countries not as a ‘public good’ but as one of the
key tradable ‘economic resources’. This is partly because of two important factors: thetransformation of the globalised world from the ‘information-based’ to the so-called‘knowledge-based’ society and the response to the institutionalised trade and services
agreements or GATS. These two predominant factors have been the major drivers
responsible for quickening the process of education liberalisation and quantitative
massification, which naturally intensifies the demand for accountability of professional
standards of higher education institutions (HEIs). HEIs around the world are therefore
actively adjusting to the shift in global education dynamics and the trends towards open
access for public scrutiny, especially with respect to their quality, efficiency andeffectiveness in delivering ‘higher education products.’ On the one hand, HEIs in many
parts of the world face a set of common problems; for example, ensuring quality in thecourses offered, maintaining a proper academic environment, as well as the sustainablepromotion of academic mobility between HEIs through the development of suchmechanisms as credit transfer system, the system of common degree cycles or theregional qualification frameworks. On the other hand, individual national governments
are also faced with the challenges of globalisation, whereby greater regional efforts are
required to promote policy integration in higher education. To increase the competitiveedge and leverage the higher education sector, a concerted effort to create a‘harmonised’, if not a single higher education system in the region, is perceived bymany as the tool to cope with the global trends of education liberalisation andtransnationalisation.
In order to stay relevant in the fierce competition characteristic of the
global higher education sector, national governments and HEIs are forced to introduce
restructuring programmes in the area of governance, curricula development, quality
assurance, as well as establishing a closer link between graduates and the market.1 Also,
another trend, adopted by both developed and developing countries alike in an attempt
to thrive in the competitive higher education environment, is to introduce regional
harmonisation processes in the area of higher education by national governments. Whileregional economic integration in the areas of trade, finance, investment and so on,
progress in most parts of the world, regional integration in the area of higher educationis still in the embryonic stage; a notable exeption can be found in the European Bologna
Process. To provide a better grasp on the future trends and possible framework ofhigher education development, which require a regional effort in promoting the higher
education sector, the following section will contrast the development of regional
integration in higher education in Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and West
Africa to regional integration in the Asia Pacific. This paper further suggests future
prospects for a framework for cooperation in higher education in the Asia Pacific,
insofar as it can serve as the key instrument in this region to react to the force of
globalisation and the demand for accountability in higher education.
2.

Current Frameworks of Higher Education Harmonisation and Integration:
Europe, Latin and Central America, and Africa

1More details about the research on higher education and economic sector link in Asian Development
Outlook 2007.

2

Harmonisation and integration of higher education in Europe, throughthe Bologna Process, is aimed at reforming and modernising the structure of theEuropean higher education system to accommodate the rapid social and economictransformation caused by the increasing interactions of HEIs and multifaceted higher
education activities. The ultimate goal of this process is to prepare HEIs and national
governments in the European Union for the launch of the European Higher Education
Area (EHEA) by 2010. Originated in 1998, the four biggest countries in the European
Union joined together to sign the Sorbonne Joint Declaration on Harmonisation of theArchitecture of the European Higher Education System. 2 The following year, 29
signatory countries signed the Bologna Declaration. The action lines prioritised from theonset of the Bologna Process included:(a) A system of easily readable and comparable degrees;(b) A degree system based on two main cycles (Bachelor and Masters);(c) A system of European Credit Transfer (ECTS);(d) Promotion of mobility;(e) A system of Quality Assurance;(f) Promotion of a European dimension in higher education;
As an inter-governmental effort, the ministers from participating
countries carry out the legal basis and institutional arrangements at biennial summits.
These summits are the most important forum in the decision-making process, which
provides ‘supranational harmonisation’ in legislation3, policy direction and action lines
pertaining to the structural reforms. Following the signing of the Bologna Declaration in
1999, the subsequent biennial summits, including the ones in Prague (2001) and in
Berlin (2003), added four more action lines to the Bologna Process, which are:(g) Lifelong learning in higher education(h) The inclusion of higher education institutions and students;(i) Promotion of the Attractiveness of the EHEA; and(j) The establishment of the link between EHEA and European Research Area
(ERA) and the inclusion of doctoral studies as the third cycle of theEuropean degree system
The Bologna Process is a significant step towards regional integration
because it is an attempt that involves many actors in the European higher education
sector. At least 3 inter-related tiers of actors have been engaged in the process ofEuropean higher education reforms. At the nation-state level, high officials responsible
for higher education of the signatory countries are members of the Bologna Follow-Up
Group, tasked with producing official working programmes and helping accommodate
signatory countries to follow up with recommendations made at the ministerial summits.
National governments also take part in overseeing the overall national reforms andlegislations that help expedite the process of policy harmonisation and integration ofpriority issues. In many priority areas, such as the ECTS or QA systems, the paralleldevelopment of the so-called ‘European frameworks’ along with ‘national frameworks’
are the key to sustaining the process of harmonisation and integration by acknowledging
2

The big four countries, including Germany, France, Italy and the UK, signed the Sorbonne Declarationin 1998.
3
Zgaga (2005, p. 4)

3

diversity, while promoting a common higher education architecture which European
countries and HEIs can use as reference.
The Bologna Process is also special in more ways than one. It is aprocess that put a lot of emphasis on the institutional level. That is, HEIs are put at thecentre of the effort, unlike many other regional attempts usually undertaken by national
governments alone. At the initial stage, the lack of ‘genuine’ enthusiasm in HEIs in
many countries, such as the UK, Spain, Greece or Portugal, raised much concern at thenational level. 4 However, the majority of HEIs in Europe saw the Bologna Process astimely in introducing reforms amongst their own institutions. The European HEIs thatonce treated the Bologna Process as peripheral to the development of HEIs, opting for
selective action lines rather than over-arching principles on European higher education,
have now become the prime movers in deepening the reforms. Germany, Nordic
countries, France and the Baltic countries are among those in the frontline in promoting
the reforms. This is partly due to the fact that the Bologna Process has contributed to atransition in several aspects of European integration, especially in the economic andsocial dimensions. It is not a process which focuses only on the higher education sector.
The impact of the Bologna Process and the proposed reforms clearly serve the overall
objective of creating a European knowledge-based society. In other words, because of
the close connection between higher education and the economic sector, the Bologna
Process is seen as a crucial mechanism to prepare graduates for the European market.
Interlaced through the ten Bologna priorities, European HEIs have become the key
actors in undertaking reforms, that is, instruction, research and services. The
transformation of HEIs in these areas will be discussed in the subsequent sections.
Successful harmonisation and integration of higher education in Europe
is also predicated on another significant factor: it includes the involvement of students
and external parties in the process of reform. From the beginning, the active
involvement of non-governmental and autonomous promoters has been integral to the
Bologna Process. For example, at the European Level, the European University
Association (EUA), the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education(EURASHE), the National Union of Students in Europe (ESIB) or the European
Employer Association, among others, have taken the leading role, sometimes as key
resource persons, in drafting important guidelines and frameworks pertaining to theattainment of the priority areas. The involvement of students in the reform process could
be seen, on the one hand, through pro-active participation in university governance.
This is particularly the case in the area of quality assurance, where students, throughstudent unions, could take part in presenting their cases to the key decision-makers at
the departmental and university levels. In addition, national governments and HEIs also
place more emphasis on ‘student-centred’ higher education. In the areas of instruction,
research, and services, the objectives are to focus on addressing students’ needs,
advancing students’ experiences and careers and placing them in suitable sectors of theEuropean market. These issues will be discussed in detail through the examination ofactivities advanced under the Bologna Process.
European Integration in the Area of Higher Education
The Bologna Process was launched in 1999 to create the ‘European
Higher Education Area’ (EHEA) by 2010. Given the diversity and variety of cultures
4

Berndtson (2003a, p. 3). The UK institutions were quite satisfied with their existing systems while someother smaller countries, especially in Eastern Europe, believe that there is still much work to be done, interms of their own higher education structures.

4

among 45 states in Europe, the ideas behind the initiative are to increase compatibility,
comparability and flexibility of the education systems in Europe without harmonisingthem. This inter-governmental process involves several layers of participation, from theEuropean national governments through the Ministry of Education. Other key players
include representatives of the European University Association (EUA); the European
Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE); the European Student
Union (ESIB); the European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA); the ENICNARIC Network; and UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education (UNESCOCEPES). At the supranational level, the Council of Europe and the European
Commission act as consultative bodies which do not have direct involvement indecision-making matters of the Bologna Process.
From 1999-present, key actions to be accomplished by 2010, in order toprepare European countries to enter into the EHEA, have been gradually added. The
first three areas that were prioritised in the early stage of the Bologna Process are theestablishment of an easily readable and comparable degree system across Europe, asystem of two-cycle undergraduate and post-graduate levels and a system of European
QA. In later years, through several meetings in Prague, Berlin, Bergen and London, thepriority areas have been added to, and now include the followings action lines:a) Establishment of a system of credits (ECTS);b) Promotion of mobility;c) Promotion of the European dimension in higher education;d) Focus on lifelong learning;e) Inclusion of higher education institutions and students;f) Promotion of the attractiveness of the EHEA; andg) Focus on Doctoral studies and the synergy between EHEA and the European
Research Area (ERA)
The Bologna Process is, on the one hand, the mechanism specificallycreated to cope with the trend of globalisation. It is also the immediate response to theimpact of increasing numbers of HEIs as a result of Eastern European integration into
the European Union. It is an excellent example of how positive regional integration is
set to achieve the common interests among the members of the European Community.
As clearly indicated in the original aims, the Bologna Process was launched to develop
a coherent higher education space, as well as to foster employability and mobility inEurope. In a way, this could be seen as an attempt to accommodate the free flow ofstudent/staff mobility, education services and investment for developing human capitalto serve the future European market. The process of regional integration in higher
education through the Bologna Process in Europe has set a standard platform that otherregions could utilise as a model.
Regional Integration in Higher Education in Latin America and the
Caribbean
In Latin America and the Caribbean, the same initiative to promote theregional integration of higher education has also developed. However, to expedite theprocess, Latin American and Caribbean countries have cooperated with the European
Union in creating a cross-border regional integration for higher education on both sidesof the continents. Immediately after the signing of the Bologna Process, the decision5was reached in Rio de Janeiro in June 1999 that a common space of higher education
should be created for Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean nations by 2015. A
steering committee was established, responsible for coordinating with the rest of theirrespective regions, participation in the activities leading to the establishment of thecommon educational space. Those countries consisted of Spain, France, Brazil, Mexicoand St. Kitts. These countries have met periodically throughout these past years toconsolidate the ideas and concepts pertaining to the establishment of a common higher
education space (Cetina, 2005). The key areas touched upon during several Meetings of
Ministers of Education by the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean
countries include, for example:a) Dissemination of academic collaboration and experience;b) Comparability of study programmes;c) Mobility of students and staff;d) Joint degrees;e) Identification of financing sources and mechanisms; andf) Quality assurance, etc.
Although these priority areas are very similar to the key actions
mentioned in the Bologna Process, some objectives and characteristics of the European,
Latin America and Caribbean common space for higher education are more generalised
and not as technical, as has been the case with the Bologna Process. For example, thiscommon space will focus on the development of mechanisms and networks forcooperation between institutions and academic bodies, the promotion of students andstaff mobility as well as the establishment of joint studies and centres. As rightly put by
Cetina, the initiative could be seen as a strategic element for providing a solid
framework for the development of higher education in which further bilateral andmultilateral ties between states across the two regions could be effectively cemented.
Regional Integration in Higher Education in West Africa
Another key example of how governments in many regions are copingwith their internal educational problems and the impact of globalisation through thepromotion of regional integration, can be found in West Africa. In this geographicalarea, the most important problem of the higher education sector is that the quality of
HEIs was so low that it could no longer contribute to the development of economic andsocial sectors. This was partly the result of the growing number of students and the lackof quality in providing necessary knowledge and innovation by the HEIs in West
African countries. Like in many other countries, due to the growing demand for higher
education more and more HEIs were established as one immediate response. However,
the massification of HEIs, especially private ones, did not necessary mean better quality
in higher education sectors in West African countries. Economic and social sectors,
especially the labour markets in these countries, had suffered terribly from the low-level
quality of graduates. These students simply failed to create new knowledge that
addressed the contemporary challenges both inside and outside their countries. These
shortages and management failures in the higher education sector, coupled with thetrend of globalisation which forces countries to act in response to the market’s demands,
compelled West African countries to develop strategies for the development of higher
education through internal reforms and the promotion of regional integration.

6

The initiative to promote regional integration of higher education in
Africa was proposed by the African Development Fund (ADF) to sort out a myriad ofstructural problems. The Bank has conducted a study project to improve higher
education systems and to promote regional integration in higher education within theWest African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). In terms of strengthening
higher education systems, the governments of the WAEMU and the WAEMU itself,
comprised of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Togo
and Senegal, are encouraged by the ADF to coordinate and implement the reforms to
improve higher education systems, especially in the area of internal performance, higher
education training, and the management of human and financial resources. With regard
to the promotion of regional integration, key priority areas identified by thegovernments of WAEMU include:a) The increase of student and staff mobility between WAEMU member
countries;b) A system of mutual recognition of degree titles; andc) A revised curricula in common fields of specialisation among universities inmember countries
According to the Appraisal Report of the project on Multinational
Support for Higher Education in WAEMU Countries, the initiative to promote theregional integration in higher education is consistent with the regional economic
programme of the WAEMU. The integration process is perceived by the ADF and thegovernments of WAEMU as the indispensable framework through which further
development of higher education in terms of human resource development, investmentof light education infrastructure, and academic management and an information network,
could be built up.
3.

Future Trends of Regional Higher Education Framework in Asia Pacific

Although the Asia Pacific consists of both developed and developing
countries, who share many similar features in higher education as other regions, itwould seem that the Asia Pacific has lagged behind in their attempt to promote regional
harmonisation and integration in the area of higher education. While the cooperation at
the level of higher education institutions in promoting research collaboration andstaff/student mobility is evident, a framework that promotes closer and more
harmonised policy interaction between national governments is inexistent. TakeASEAN, for example, it is not to say that the idea to establish the so-called ‘ASEAN
Integration’ does not exist. Much on the contrary, ASEAN has floated the notion ofcooperation well beyond AFTA in the area of trade and services. In other areas,
especially in higher education, however, the concrete move towards regional integrationis still lacklustre. As a matter of fact, the ASEAN leaders have agreed to launch an
Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) in 2000, with the core objective being to narrow
the gap between the original six founding ASEAN members and the newly admitted
CLMV countries. Another key objective was to combine efforts among member
countries to promote dynamic and sustained growth in the region. The IAI focused
mainly on such issues as:a) Economic integration;b) Human resource development;
7c) Information and communication technology; andd) Infrastructure development
The Work Plan consisted of at least 100 projects, to be implemented
between 2000-2006, and was funded by dialogue partners and development agencies,
such as the governments of Japan, Korea, Australia, JICA and UNIDO and so on.
However, it is interesting to note that of all the programmes and projects funded topromote the above four mentioned criteria, only one project under the human resource
development area was designed to promote higher education development in the region,that is, the project on Higher Education Management in CLMV sponsored by thegovernment of Brunei Darussalam and the ASEAN Foundation.
In view of the straining force of globalisation which requires HEIs in theregion to adapt themselves to accommodate the free flow of student/staff mobility,
adaption to the increasing transnational nature of educational services as a result of
GATS, and the common education provisions allowing the systems of comparable
degrees and accreditation, the framework under which common guidelines androadmaps for higher education policy in Asia-Pacific develop has never been more
important or relevant.. At the moment, many developed countries in the region are
taking an active role in establishing specific frameworks, such as in quality assurance,and HEIs are also very active in research collaboration and establishing mobility
programmes. However, inter-governmental cooperation at the level of higher education
policy and closer interaction between national governments in this region to promote
policy harmonisation is still not well developed. At the current stage, intergovernmental efforts in the Asia Pacific can be summarized as follows:a) ASEAN: In the context of ASEAN, higher education in the region has
been mentioned in many official declarations as one of the important keys to enhancing
human resource development in the region. In recent years, after the consensus among
ASEAN countries to establish the ASEAN community, education has been treated as
the core action line in promoting the ASEAN-Socio Cultural Community.
b) SEAMEO: As for the promotion of higher education in SEAMEO,
both the SEAMEO Conference and the ASED Meetings have also focused along thesame line as ASEAN, in promoting ASEAN identity and the diverse aspects of theASEAN community. In parallel, functional cooperation to promote quality in generaland higher education have been emphasised through the strengthening of language
education, vocational and technical education and school leadership.
c) Australia: In an attempt to emulate the Bologna Process in the Asia
Pacific, the Brisbane Communiqué, emitted in 2006, was aimed at promoting thecollaboration on a QA framework, as well as recognition and common competencybased standards for teachers. An overall framework that thoroughly addresses most of
the aspects of higher education activities is non-existent. Other Asia Pacific countries,
such as New Zealand and China, are also interested in cementing their educational ties
with Europe by taking steps parallel with the Bologna Process. China, in particular,
already secured observer status in the 2007 ministerial meeting in London.
d) Others: Initiatives ventured upon by exclusive university networks
such as the ASEAN University Network (AUN), Association of Pacific Rim
Universities (APRU), an independent network of quality assurance agencies (APQN –Asia Pacific Quality Network) as well as a few SEAMEO Centres could be found,especially with regard to internal frameworks for QA, and in specific disciplines such as

8

open and distant learning (currently developed by SEAMEO SEAMOLEC) and in
agriculture (SEAMEO SEARCA).
4.

Possible Framework for Closer Harmonisation in Higher Educationin the Asia Pacific

It is important to note that the process towards greater policy
harmonisation in higher education, wherever it is, will be a voluntary effort. It would
still take time for national governments in Asia Pacific countries to mutually agree on
the fact that the region would have much to gain in these concerted efforts. Overcoming
the perception of regional diversity as an obstacle to the harmonisation process is indeed
necessary. In this regard, continuous campaigns to raise awareness of the significance ofa coordinated policy process in higher education are constantly promoted by SEAMEORIHED. This would be the most conventional way to approach this issue, which
SEAMEO RIHED is pursuing through the development of a framework proposal
submitted to the SEAMEO High Official Meeting and the Director General/Secretary
General/Commissioner Meeting.
On the other hand, there is still a serious need for the development of
concrete mechanisms that promote certain aspects of higher education activities, which
are usually interrelated, such as mobility, recognition, credit transfer system and quality
assurance, all of which must be pursued by national governments, HEIs or independent
networks and organisations. This line of promoting regional higher education
integration and harmonisation through small mechanisms might be an alternative to themere focus on establishing an overarching regional framework that invites doubts andsuspicion among Asia Pacific countries.
4.1

A system of Quality Assurance

As a result of the massive expansion of higher education, resulting fromthe liberal economic regime and the force of globalisation, the issue of quality andquality assurance have become major concerns, both among HEIs and national
governments around the world. The continuous efforts of each individual government inthis region, although not as far-fetched as those in Europe, are somewhat impressive.
Australia and Thailand, for example, have launched ambitious initiatives to establish
systems of quality assurance. Australia has established the Australian Universities
Quality Agency (AUQA) to be responsible for academic audits of both universities andthose state agencies responsible for accreditation of private providers. The same kind of
external QA agencies have also been established in Thailand in 1999, following therevised National Education Act. The Office for National Education Standards andQuality Assessment(ONESQA) was established as an autonomous body and tasked toassess universities, both public and private, every five years. In other Asia-Pacificcountries, the number of QA agencies has been on the rise since the first half of the
1990s. As of 2004, 14 countries in the region were reported to have at least 1 national
QA agency. There are, however, several types of QA systems depending on theagencies responsibility for the operation of the system. Four predominant modes oforganisation include centralised governmental, quasi-governmental, non-governmental
and parallel governmental and non-governmental agencies. Australia and China are two
major countries that state ministers of education, and they are responsible for overseeing
national QA bodies. National QA bodies that are sponsored by national governments,
but are allowed certain degrees of autonomy to manage their QA activities, can be seen9

in Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia. The third type of QA agency in the
Asia-Pacific, the non-governmental type, is rarely seen in the region except in thePhilippines. The final type of QA system, a combination of governmental and nongovernmental bodies sponsored by the profession association or the universities
themselves, as seen in Canada or the Netherlands, can be found in New Zealand.
Regarding the state of regional QA networks in the region, the key
network is the APQN, which is a part of the IQAAHE international network. In the past,
the only QA network in which countries in the Asia-Pacific were members was the
INQAAHE. However, many countries in this region perceive the INQAAHE as ‘toobig’, as the number of country members has swelled from 20 in 1991 to 60 in 2003. Inorder to create a more close-knit network that represents the geographical QA problem
and characteristics, the Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN) was created to work in
informal collaboration with the INQAHEE in 2003. The key objectives of this gathering
are to promote good practices and provide advice and expertise to assist the overallrunning of QA systems in member countries. Secondly, the APQN network is to assist
members in the development of credit transfer systembs, and improve mobility andstandards of cross-border education activities.
AUN-QA is another network at the sub-regional level. Members belong
to one to three key universities in each country in ASEAN. At the geographical level,
AUN-QA is the first of its kind in trying to establish sub-regional networking for QA in
ASEAN. Their QA objective, which has been embraced by the member universities
since its inauguration in 1997, is to ‘harmonise’ and ‘create a general guideline’ of IQA
for its member universities. Recently, the AUN Secretariat published the first manual
for the implementation of quality assurance to support other universities in ASEAN, if
they are interested in using AUN-labelled QA guidelines.
Key Initiative: the Brisbane Communiqué (2006)
The Brisbane Communiqué is the key initiative launched during theinaugural Asia-Pacific Education Minister’s Meeting in 2006. Although the initiative ismeant to help strengthen the overall education structure in the region, and not higher
education per se, it could be said that the initiative has established a kind of structural
engagement and development of QA among Asia-Pacific countries. Its main objectives
are to facilitate the mobility of students and faculties as well as to collaborate indeveloping a QA framework that is on a par with international standards. Unlike theideas behind the European’s initiative as evidenced by the Bologna Process, which aims
at establishing a compatibility and comparability of QA systems, the Brisbane
Communiqué focuses on promoting greater transferability in education cooperation. In
order to establish greater transferability in the region, ensuring transparency and mutual
trust between countries is essential. However, this can only be accomplished if the QA
systems in the region are better developed.
As for the key players involved in the implementation process, theministries responsible for education in 27 signatory countries are expected to be theprime movers. The primary objectives of these initiatives are to create a QA frameworkthat could be used to better assess courses available on-line, to develop competency
standards for teachers, to create a system of recognition of education and professional
qualifications and technical skills. In the meantime, Australia has been responsible forestablishing a taskforce and a secretariat of the Senior’s Officials’ Working Group. The
taskforce’s major task is to ensure that there would be no duplication of QA attempts
undertaken earlier by other regional networks.
10

QA in the Sub-Regional Context: Southeast Asia
It could be said that the current stage of QA development in Asia is moreor less similar to those in other developing countries; in a sense that most of the QA
systems have been originated by or operated as formal national mechanisms. Half of thecountries in the region, including Brunei Darussalam (BDNAC), Cambodia (ACC),
Indonesia (BAN-PT), Malaysia (MQA), Philippines (AACCUP, PAASCU, etc.),
Thailand (ONESQA) and Vietnam (GDETA) are reported to have national external QA
agencies operating either under the umbrella of the MOEs or the national government or
are partly funded by the government. In Japan, the quality assurance system prior to2000 had been rather fragmented, involving several actors and activities such as
supervision from the MEXT, accreditation by the Japan University Accreditation
Association (JUAA), self-monitoring and evaluation by HEIs and accreditation byvarious professional organisations, such as JABEE. Unlike other regions where culturaland geographical diversities are not much a problem to QA system development, in the
Asia Pacific there are a number of structural impediments.
Firstly, the level of disparity between HEIs and QA development in thisregion is extremely high. Although many countries in this region have alreadyestablished national QA mechanisms such as Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, ,the Philippines, , Thailand, and Viet Nam,the rest are still at the stage of developing quality assurance infrastructure; except forSingapore where the government makes use of external QA systems from developed
countries and the QA system in education is incorporated within the framework of the
Ministry of Trade. Such disparities have contributed to the inefficiency in developing
formal or common QA cooperation within the area, let alone a general QA guideline orframework.
Secondly, unlike Europe and some other developed countries, in the Asia
Pacific, where ‘third-party or external evaluation’ systems and agencies (such as inJapan via the restructuring of the National Institution for Academic Degrees andUniversities Evaluation (NIAD-UE)) are well-developed and have played a key role indeveloping national QA systems, the status of EQA agencies in the rest of the region isstill uncertain. In fact, most EQA agencies in Southeast Asia are said to be operating
outside the parameters and the mandates of the MOEs. They were mostly established by
the governments and are actually state-funded agencies, except for the Philippines
where there are non-governmental independent EQA agencies. The status of
independent and autonomous EQA agencies is important to the overall development of
national QA systems, because of the need for unbiased inputs from external agencies.
The lack of variety in EQA agencies also creates a condition in which these countries
must rely solely on IQA run only by each HEI.
Having laid out some of the structural problems, it does not mean that
nothing could be done with regards to the development of QA systems in these subregions. Apart from the favourable fact that many funding agencies such as UNESCO
and the World Bank are interested in assisting the region to develop QA infrastructure,
the Southeast Asian region also has a strong institutional link with SEAMEO RIHED
and the AUN, where QA has been one of the major missions of these organisations andwhere coordination in the specific area of QA is possible. Several initiatives could be
implemented through, for example, the promotion of a common understanding of
quality assurance systems in the region and the establishment of IQA and EQA subnetworks.
11

The promotion of thought sharing and system comparison processes
among Asia Pacific countries with regard to the national QA system is deemednecessary. There is a serious need for a common understanding of key quality assurance
terminologies and systems adopted in the region, so that the best practice in each system
can be effectively benchmarked. For instance, the former British colonies in Asia
usually adopt the European style of quality assessment, while other countries, such as
the Philippines, have been strongly influenced by the US system of accreditation, that isby professional organisations or university associations. In Japan, recent reform since2000 has suggested the country’s interests lie in moving towards quality assessment
rather than accreditation through the changing role of the JUAA and the new structureand function of the National Institution for Academic Degrees and Universities
Evaluation (NIAD-UE). The extent to which the future direction of regional QA
systems could be pursued or harmonised therefore depends on this initial step towards(re)defining the common understanding and the sharing of systems of practice on QA
among Asian countries.
Another initiative, as proposed by SEAMEO RIHED in the previous
HOM and DG Meeting as well as in many academic meetings is the establishment of
sub-regional IQA and EQA Networks, such as in the GMS or in SEA sub-region. On
the other hand, this proposal includes actions to establish a subject or discipline-based
QA system, which could be further developed into a regional pool of reviewers ofprogram-based QA for HEIs in the region, thereafter extended to other countries in the
Asia Pacific. Furthermore, SEAMEO RIHED will further explore the possibility ofsetting up priority areas, as suggested in the Bologna Process, such as in the areas ofdegree comparability and the development of a Regional and National Qualification
Framework as well as EQA and IQA Networks. The latter activities are specificallyemphasised by the SEAMEO RIHED, as the lack of a sub-regional IQA and EQA
networks are the major factor preventing the process of sharing information and bestpractices among the countries in developing areas. This sub-region QA network would
consist of countries with considerable QA experience that can help advise neighbouring
countries, as well as benefit from participation in capacity building opportunities
themselves.
4.2

A System of Readable and Comparable Degrees

Apart from reliable and accountable quality assurance systems thatencourage greater mobility, along with better research and teaching collaboration among
HEIs in the region, a readable and comparable degree is also to be promoted through thedevelopment of a comparable qualification framework, in the form of a degreesupplement. Given the diversity of degrees awarded in HEIs within the region,effectiveness and flexibiliy cannot be enhanced, if the degrees and contents of thequalifications obtained by graduates are not easily readable and recognised by otherinstitutions in different countries. The following mechanisms are, to some extent, put
forth to accommodate a freer flow and a more sustainable mobility among students, whowant to pursue their future education outside their own countries or to seek employment
elsewhere. In other words, it does not aim at promoting mobility on a short-term basis as
most existing exchange programmes often do. On the contrary, it addresses the
structural connection between HEIs within the region, as well as between education andthe market sector, by creating a tool that enables both HEIs and employers to recruit
students more effectively. These tools include:

12

A Regional Credit Transfer System
The credit transfer system is considered one of the most importantcomponents in facilitating a greater degree of mobility among students of the Asia
Pacific region. At the moment, the key actor undertaking the task of developing andimplementing a credit transfer system is the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific(UMAP). Founded in 1994, UMAP is currently developing a trial programme topromote student mobility in the Asia Pacific region. Participating universities are now
voluntarily taking part in the trial process of implementing the UMAP Credit Transfer
Scheme (UCTS). Similar to other endeavours in many parts of the world, the credit
transfer system aims at creating a more sustainable mobility programme that enables
students to earn credits during their studies in other universities. According to the
UMAP, host and home universities are required to complete a credit transfer agreementin advance of the enrolments, both at graduate and post-graduate levels.
The UCTS developed by UMAP consists of 3 key components: theUMAP Study Plan, the UCTS Credit Points Scale and the UCTS Grading Scale. The
UMAP Study Plan represents the courses and credits agreed upon by both home andhost universities. The UCTS has adopted a 60-credit point scale, which is capable ofoperating under a 3-term and a 2-semester academic year system. The 60-credit point
scale usually represents a full-time student’s workload for a full academic year. The
workload includes the activities required for completion of a full academic
year/semester/term such as lectures, tutorials/seminars, fieldwork, private studies, andexamination and so on.5 The grading scale of the UCTS shares the same characteristics
of other credit transfer systems. It consists of seven grades from A to F, with E meaning
the lowest passing grade. The scale is aimed at establishing a norm-referenced grading
scale and a guideline for member universities, enabling them to make the conversion.
A Regional and National Qualification Framework
According to the OECD, a National Qualification Framework is ‘a wayof showing relationships between qualifications in a country or education or
occupational sector. It is an instrument for the development and classification ofqualifications according to a set of criteria for levels of learning achieved […]’. 6 In
essence, the development of a national, and possibly the future regional qualification
framework, is in fact directly connected to the issue of quality assurance. As for national
qualification frameworks, they will increase the confidence of the general public,
employers, HEIs in other countries, and other stakeholders, in students’ and graduates’
academic standards and achievements. On the one hand, the framework enables a closer
and easier link between ‘education’ and ‘economic/society’ sectors, both at the nationaland regional level. It makes it easier for employers to understand the attributes of thequalifications attained by students, while at the same time creating more opportunities
for graduates to obtain transnational employment. On the other hand, a greater
flexibility in student mobility among graduates in the region could only be pursued
through the development of a better understanding of the body of knowledge andacademic disciplines in each individual country. The framework will also assist HEIs in
the region in determining the direction of mobility programmes, in relation to other5
6

UMAP, p. 10 Further information can be found in UMAP Credit Transfer Scheme: Users’ Guide
Based on the OECD definition in ‘The role of qualifications systems in promoting lifelong learning.’

13

HEIs’ programmes and will assist students and learners to identify potential
programmes available throughout the region.
The Regional Qualification Framework (RQF), on the contrary, is anumbrella structure that enables an easy and readable translation of different qualification
systems in the region. According to the European QF Consultation Process, the role of
EQF is to act as a benchmark for the any level of learning recognised in a qualification
or defined in the NQF. Inter-governmental processes, in pushing forward thedevelopment programme of a RQF, may involve the defining of agreed components,
such as:7a)
The number of levels: to be determined by reference tointernational studies and generalised stages in learning acrossall contexts and across all countries;b)
The types of competencies: relevant to regional learning
settings;c)
Qualification descriptors: which exemplify the outcomes ofthe main qualification at each level and demonstrate the natureof change between levels will provide clear points of referenceat each level of the existing qualifications.
Discussion and interest in developing NQFs in the Asia Pacific region,
has already been ventured upon by such countries as Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines,
Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. Other countries, such as Australia and
New Zealand have already established such systems. Therefore, the first and more
immediate stage in creating a system of readable and comparable degrees among HEIs
in the Asia-Pacific region is perhaps to firstly align the classification of qualifications indifferent systems to be more easily understood via the development of NQFs. This way,
flexibility in mobility and the assessment of quality can be achieved. In the near future
we may look to inter-governmental processes in the development of a regional QF to
improve quality, accessibility and public-private linkages.
A Degree Supplement
Among higher education activities, student mobility seems to be the mostcommon activity promoted by both national governments and HEIs. To accommodate
and facilitate the process of student mobility, a system of ‘readable and comparable
degrees’ is promoted through the development of the so-called ‘diploma supplement.’
A degree or diploma supplement is a short document attached to a higher
education qualification. It is a tool that adds transparency and ensures that higher
education qualifications issued by each HEI are easily understood, especially outside thecountry where the students graduated. In other words, it is the concrete measure to movealong the process of creating a system of readable and comparable degrees, which inturn, will enable the process of student mobility to be easier and more flexible,
especially for continuing education.
The Council of Europe, the European Commission, and
UNESCO/CEPES have developed a degree or diploma supplement issued in Europe.
The template is designed to provide a description of nature, level, context, content andstatus of the studies pursued by students. The template developed by the above parties
7

The European Qualifications Framework: Consultation to Recommendation Conference, Budapest,
February 200614

has been adopted widely, although not in uniform fashion. However, it largely includes
the information listed in the table below.
Diploma Supplement Template
Items
1. Holder of the Qualification
2. Qualification












3. Level of Qualification

4. Contents and Results Gained

6. Additional Information








7. Certification

5. Function of the Qualification

Information included
Personal information
Name of Qualification, title
conferred
Main Field(s) of studies
Institution warding andadministering studies
Language andInstruction/Examination
Level
Official length of programme
Access Requirements
Modes of Study
Programme
Requirements/Qualification Profileof the graduate
Programme Details
Grading Scheme
Overall Classification
Access to further study
Professional Status
Additional and Further Information
SourceDate/Institution

Benefits of a Degree Supplement:
The advantage and benefits of developing the degree supplement are
multi-faceted. At the level of HEIs, the degree supplement promotes internationalisationof higher education around the globe. It increases confidence and facilitates theincreasing number of student exchange and mobility programmes among HEIs. It also
lowers barriers to the recognition of studies, as the degree supplement provides a basis
for assessment, and useful information on the qualification secured by students. The
degree supplement promotes employability and flexibility at the student level. As it isdesigned to give employers more details about students’ qualifications, it could be usedin addition to the curriculum vitae. It also makes further study in other countries which
consider the submission of the degree supplement, a lot easier; especially in Europe andthe Oceania as it explains the nature, level, context and content of the study pursued by
graduates.
Finally, at the market level, this may seem to be less relevant in thecontext of the Asia Pacific region, as employers might not be aware of its purpose nor
how to interpret the document. In addition, the level of cross-border employment is notas high as it is in Europe. However, a new educated workforce seeking employment15

outside their homeland can be expected in the years to come, given the globalised
environment which encourages the free flow of people. In the future, additional
information contained in the document such as the degree supplement, will help
employers understand more about students’ academic achievements, and will allow aneasier transition to further employment across the region.
5. Conclusion
This paper largely emphasises the role of globalisation as a major force
in transforming the higher education sector around the world. It clearly shows that many
HEIs and national governments, in many parts of the world, have already ventured on to
tackle the force of globalisation by reforming their institutional structures, as well as
consolidating regional effort to establish a common framework for higher education.
Europe seems to be the most advanced region in coping with the globalisation
phenomenon by attempting to harmonise its member states’ higher education policy andpractices. The Bologna Process is the model that has been widely observed and adopted
by other regions, both by developed countries in the Asia Pacific and in other parts of
the world.
In the Asia Pacific, national governments and HEIs, must focus on an
increase of of academic excellence and accessibility, as well as assuring the level ofquality in higher learning institutions. The most important thing is to take on a more farsighted approach and explore the possibility of promoting higher education cooperationin both the HEIs and between national governments. While the existing cooperation at
the level of HEIs is the foundation for mutual higher education development in theregion, the next step to be contemplated by national governments is the increase ofhigher education policy interactions among the governments in the Asia Pacific as wellas the establishment of an inter-governmental process which will stimulate theharmonisation of higher education policy. Key actors and networks in the region havebeen instrumental in advancing two key areas: quality assurance and the promotion ofmobility. In this respect, SEAMEO RIHED will continue to be the key actor in raisingawareness among policy makers and other stakeholders in the region of the importanceof a concerted regional effort that will contribute to the sustainable direction of higher
education in the future.

16

References
Asian Development Bank (2007). ‘Education and Structural Change in Four AsianCountries’, Asian Development Outlook 2007, pp. 317-340
Berndtson, E. (2003, June 13-14). The European Higher Education Area: To Changeor Not to Change?. Paper presented at the epsNet General Conference, Paris.
Commission of the European Community (2000). Towards a European Research Area.
COM (2000) 6 of 18.1.2000. Retrieved 24 September 2007, fromhttp://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/C001190EN.pdf
Commission of the European Community (2003a). Investing Efficiently in Education
and Training: an Imperative for Europe. COM (2002) 779 final of 10.01.2003.
Retrieved 24 September 2007, from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2002/com2002_0779en01.pdf
Commission of the European Community (2003b). The Role of the Universities in theEurope of Knowledge. COM (2003) 58 final of 05.02.2003. Retrieved 15
September 2007, fromftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/documents_r5/natdir0000038/s_1940005_2003031
7_144432_GERC031941en.pdf
Commission of the European Community (2004). Delivering Lisbon: Reforms for the
Enlarged Union. COM (2004) 29 final/2 of 20.02.2004. Retrieved 15
September 2007, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/growthandjobs/pdf/COM2004_029_en.pdf
Commission of the European Community (2006). Delivering on the Modernisation
Agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation. COM (2006)
208 final of 10.05.2006. Retrieved 15 September 2007, fromhttp://www.madrimasd.org/proyectoseuropeos/documentos/doc/education_resea
rch_and_innovation.pdf
European Commission (2007). From Bergen to London: The Contribution of theEuropean Commission to the Bologna Process. Retrieved 15 September 2007,
from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/report06.pdf
UNESCO (2003). Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific 1998-2003: Regional
Report on Progress in Implementing Recommendations of the 1998 World
Conference on Higher Education. Retrieved 2 January 2008,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001303/130338e.pdf
Zgaga, P. (2005, April 7-9). Four Dimensions of the Bologna Process: Many
Challenges of the European Higher Education Area. Paper presented at the
Symposium on Constructing the European Higher Education Area, University of
Wisconsin, Madison.

17

GIARI Working Paper Vol. 2008-E-19,
January 31 2009
Published by Waseda University Global COE Program
Global Institute for Asian Regional Integration (GIARI),
Waseda University, Nishiwaseda Bldg. 5F#507 1-21-1
Nishi-waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-0051 Japan
E-mail: affairs@waseda-giari.jp
Webpage: http://www.waseda-giari.jp
Printed in Japan by International Academic Printing Co.Ltd

18