Inter- and intra-regional dynamics on the idea of universities in East Asia: perspectives from Japan

How do US universities want to be perceived? Factors affecting the (inter)national identity claims in mission statements

“…Universities are under the pressure of isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983), but there is also considerable agency to be different (Fumasoli and Huisman 2013). What we add to this is, first, that the notion of hybridity (Marginson and Rhoades 2002;Tran et al 2017;Yonezawa et al 2017) helps explaining the homogeneity of R1 identity claims regarding being both national and international. Hybrid institutions avoid conflict between different expectations by addressing both elements in their missions.…”

“…Specifically, the internationally-oriented perspective argues that universities are, given their commitment to advancing universal knowledge, by default international institutions and that an international focus will improve the quality and relevance of education, and lead to necessary path-breaking innovations as well as the creation of 'global human resources' which drive economic growth and foster competitiveness (and as such can also contribute to national goals) (e.g., Buckner 2019). On the other hand, forces stressing the importance of a universities' domestic market are pressing (Yonezawa et al 2017). Adherents of this perspective call on universities for more engagement with their local and regional communities, and encourage universities to become more responsive to the social and economic needs of the local, regional and national constituents (Comunian and Ooi 2016).…”

World class universities and international student mobility: Repositioning strategies in the Asian Tigers

“…With the rise of global reputational leagues, university performance in the Four Tiger economies (as much as the continued growth of GDP and improvement of quality of life) also urged local populations to rethink their choices in global mobility (Lo and Chan, 2020; Mok, 2012a; Mok and Yu, 2013). The enhanced capacities of local universities led to attraction and retention of academic talent from abroad, and subsequently urged a re-imagination of collaborative and competitive flows in East Asia (Chan, 2012; Kim, 2015; Oleksiyenko et al, 2013; Yonezawa et al, 2017). This re-imagination corresponded well with similar trends in greater Asia, as papers in the Special Issue by Phan and Fry (2021) indicate (see Hanada and Horie, 2021; Kheir, 2021; Kumpoh et al, 2021; Lipura, 2021).…”

Social Reproduction as Language Policy: The Neoliberal Co-option of English in Global Japan

“…To obtain funding, institutions must place highly in domestic university rankings, which, as noted by Yudkevich et al (2015), requires "many years of consistently high-quality, specialized training and often the fielding of large, multimember teams, the development of unique strategies, and the reliance on high-cost equipment or facilities-being smart and rich helps" (p. 413). Predictably, MEXT (2014) prioritizes TGUP support towards those "worldclass and innovative universities" that drive Japan's academic reputation and human capital development which, as noted by Yonezawa et al (2017) adhere to similar trends set by neighboring China (the 211 and 985 projects) and Korea (Brain Korea 21). Following this logic, TGUP provides funding to thirty-seven national and private HEIs that either lead the global transmission of Japanese education or demonstrate the "potential to be ranked in the top 100 in world university rankings" (MEXT, 2014) by engaging in internationally-recognized education and research.…”