A Comparative Study of the Internationalization of Higher Education Policy in Australia and China (2008-2015)

Abstract

In an era of globalization, internationalization of higher education (IHE) has been constructed as an almost inevitable trend and has become a common pursuit of many nations in their higher education (HE) policies. This study focuses on two nations, China and Australia, in terms of this trend. The broadest aim of this research was to find out the interactive relationships between global and national pressures in policy development by comparing the international HE policies in China and Australia, for the period 2008-2015.There are two justifications for this timeframe: one relates to political leadership across the period; the other to significant policy developments in both nations in this period. This comparison will facilitate better understanding of how globalization has affected and been responded to in IHE policies, and enable better understanding of their path dependent mediation through a focus on two specific sets of national policies.The research questions framing this study are: What were the policies of IHE in China and in Australia from 2008 to 2015, and what were the purposes of these policies (i.e., what were they seeking to achieve?); What were the similarities and differences in relation to the policies on IHE in the two countries? How were these policies linked to the contexts of contemporary globalization and the politics and policy making approaches in each country?; What were the differences in relation to the IHE in the two countries, and what do these differences tell us about the impact of globalization on HE policy, and about path dependence in HE politics and policy making in each country?Drawing upon theoretical resources within the research fields of educational policy convergence and divergence, path dependence and soft power, I combine two comparative education study methods, namely Bereday's (1964) model and Phillips and Schweisfurth's (2014) work. As such, I have designed a comparative analysis method and framework for this study based on a synthesis of that work, mainly using document analysis as the data base for the research. A large number of pertinent government policies, reports and data from government websites and international organizations were collected and analysed using inductive and deductive approaches.There are three data analysis chapters (4, 5 and 6), the first (Chapter 4) deals with the relevant polices in China, the second (Chapter 5) with those in Australia, and finally a comparison of the two sets of policies is provided (Chapter 6), to offer answers to the research questions. In each section of the analysis chapters, the three categories, ii overarching meta-policies at the macro level (nation), institution focused polices at the meso level (universities), and people focused policies at the micro level (individuals) are documented and analysed. Similarities and differences are identified in the comparison chapter. Similarities include promoting and deepening IHE as one important agenda in national policies at the macro level in the two nations, promoting tran...

Determining Service Quality Indicators to Recruit and Retain International Students in Malaysia Higher Education Institutions: Global Issues and Local Challenges

“…Through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Figure 2 and Table 3 below show that the model for continuous quality service in Malaysian public universities met all the fit indices that were used to measure and assess the structural equation model (SEM), as [55,56] recommend. The absolute fit aimed at measuring the acceptability of the overall model was met, as RMR was 0.040, RMSEA was 0.041, GFI was 0.918, and AGFI was 0.900, which are all above the recommended criteria.…”