Background

As early as 1918 Thorstein Veblen bemoaned the fact that the American university had been
taken over by businessmen. No longer was a college a place of higher learning, but a specialized
jobs-training workshop to prepare people for ready-made careers. Such specialization, argues
Veblen, widens “the candidate’s field of ignorance while it intensifies his effectiveness within
his specialty.”1 Veblen would not be astonished to see today’s university, which is run for a most
part, like a corporation. He expected nothing less.

For our purposes, the phrase “corporatization of the university” means that the university is
taking on forms and structures that hitherto had been in the realm of for-profit organizations.
American universities have always worked hand in hand with wealthy supporters. Often
successful businessmen were sought after and appointed to the board of trustees. Walking
through any campus one is bound to encounter the equivalent of Cornell University’s Sage
Chapel and McGraw Tower—not named for notable faculty but for notable funders. Up for grabs
these days are auditoriums, stadiums, and individual programs. Another dimension of what is
loosely defined as corporatization is that presidents of universities profitably sit on boards of
directors of corporations.2

Globalization

One feature of the 21st-century corporation is its often transnational nature. Universities are
traditional brick-and-mortar institutions with typically one location. Land-grant universities
frequently maintain some kind out outreach activity that supports their core mission, but it is not
typical for these outposts to offer degree programs. This kind of university presence is different
from the satellite campus—miles away from the alma mater, such as University of Michigan-
Dearborn or UM-Flint. In sparsely populated areas, the community college is increasingly
becoming the home of the four-year degree. The community college itself does not issue the
diploma, but one of their partner schools. A student in Petoskey, Michigan can earn a bachelor’s
degree in information technology from Southfield-based Lawrence Technological University
without leaving town.

Another feature of the modern university is its international reach. According to the Chronicle of
Higher Education, 671,616 international students, both graduate and undergraduate, were
enrolled in American institutions for the 2008-09 school year. US institutions desire international
students because they will pay full tuition and not require/be eligible for financial aid. As a
bonus, the home school has no obligation to provide job placement. The understanding is that the
students will go back home upon completion of their coursework and their job prospects are
someone else’s problem.

Universities are reaching outside of the US, with mixed results. Michigan State had to close its
campus in Dubai in the summer of 2010. Originally, the plan was to enroll 100-200 students into
each graduating class. Cornell has more success with its outpost of the Weill Cornell Medical
Center in Qatar. In 2001, President Hunter Rawlings announced that Cornell would establish the
Weill Cornell Medical Center in Qatar. Cornell has made many partnerships with colleges in
China. Former Cornell president, Jeffrey Lehman, is chancellor and founding dean of an
American-style law program at Peking University.

There is a quieter debate than in the past regarding should an American university pursue and
agenda in another country. Some try to say that the homegrown academic offerings will be
diluted. Others see opportunity and more tuition dollars—through both credit and non-credit
certificate programs

——————————————————–
1
Tellingly, the title of Veblem’s work is The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum On
the Conduct of Universities By Business Men, 1918.
2
Goldschmidt, Nancy P. and James H. Finkelstein. “Academics on Board: University Presidents
as Corporate Directors.” Academe. 2001. URL:

Corporatization of the University: Seeking

Conceptual Clarity
1. Henry Steck

Abstract
The notion of corporatization is the most ominous buzzword in contemporary academic circles.
A significant literature on the subject deals with the transformation of the American university.
There has been substantial change—perhaps fundamental—in the direction of a university that
displays the culture, practices, policies, and workforce strategies more appropriate to
corporations. The article seeks to show what corporatization is and is not and to suggest some
historical and contextual factors producing the change. The article seeks to deconstruct the term
“corporatization” or “entepreneurial” to demonstrate the wide variety of meanings that the term
covers. To the extent that a corporatized university is no university or corporate values are not
academic values, the article concludes, it is the burden for faculty to address the issue of
protecting traditional academic values.

WILLIAM BRIGGS

Agnes Larson is a long-time university insider. This article is Part III of a three-part series.
Read Part I, Part II.

Prevalence of Differential Wage

Corporations are frequently under fire for introducing or adhering to a differential wage that
splits the workforce. The famous example is Henry Ford’s “$5 a day”, but if a worker happened
to be a minority, the high wage did not apply. Universities are well-know for fragmenting their
teaching workforce by relying on graduate students and adjunct faculty to carry the heavy load of
teaching. The dependence on graduate students fits in nicely with the Babbage principle of never
paying more for skill or force needed to do the job. Diverting precious time from a high-wage,
productive researcher into the classroom is not cost effective.

Often at universities there is a wage differential, but since we are gentlemen and gentlewomen, it
is not discussed. There are faculty, of various ranks and experience, some who carry extra
administrative duties, and some who don’t. There are lecturers and instructors. There are grad
students who have a TA or RA stipend. There are staff, again, various ranks and years in service.
Largely, universities are not unionized, but sometimes faculty are, and sometimes staff are.
Universities have different views of equipment, such as computers, and what fund pays the bills.
All faculty members are not created equal, and some seem to attract many more resources than
others.

The Entrepreneurial Spirit

In corporations, entrepreneurship is code for having workers fend for themselves. For instance,
the reliance on temporary or contract workers is a suitable illustration of the entrepreneurial
workforce. Some minor faculty members without a tenured appointment need to cover not only
their own salary, but that of their staff, are classic entrepreneurs. The university only acts as their
banker, as a place where the checks can be routed, tax-free. But in reality, it is the employee who
is covering the entire cost of his wages, his health insurance and other benefits.

The Profit-Driven Enterprise

Corporations have customers. Universities have students, who are regarded by administrators as
consumers, instead of willing vessels to be filled with knowledge. The consumer model changes
the dynamic in the classroom. One professor told me that it used to be that students were afraid
of not doing the work and disappointing the professor, and perhaps, even failing the class.
Today, this professor is afraid not to pass his student-consumers, regardless of knowledge
attained or material mastered. Another feature that the university shares with its corporate
counterpart is the encouragement of its student-consumers to take on debt in order to buy their
product.

Taylorism

Another earmark of the corporation is the adoption of Taylorism, that is, the insistence of the
separation of the “brain from the hand.”1 At first blush, it seemed that Taylor’s principles would
not find a home in an academic environment. With e-learning, management can easily take what
is “under the cap of the worker into the hands of management.”2 And often, the “taking” is done
with the worker’s full knowledge and cooperation.

One e-learning enterprise approached a number of faculty with the idea that they would develop
on-line courses based on their teaching material. In step with Taylor’s First Principle, faculty,
flattered, turn over their material. The worker-knowledge that management used to have to
deliberately observe, collect, and root out of workers is freely given by academics. Taylor’s
Second Principle is that all “brain work should be removed from the shop and centered in the
planning or laying out department…”3 This is also quick work, with the material safely in the
hands of e-learning development team. Taylor’s Third Principle has to do with the monopoly of
management knowledge and management’s control over each step of the labor process. Once the
course materials have been developed into an interactive web-based learning tool, management
plans when the classes are. Management hires instructors, who are not the faculty members who
developed the material. Faculty may make recommendations of who should teach the courses
based on his material, but the decision to hire freelance instructors is with the e-learning
enterprise. What used to be the faculty’s skill and trade—teaching—has been effectively
debased, and to a degree, outsourced. The web courses are delivered on the student’s own time,
on the student’s schedule, but there are occasional allowances made for groups to log on at the
same time and discuss the material. While the student seems to make some choices, the e-
learning organization is in control of the entire learning process.

Crossroads

The university as an entity as at a crossroads. The introduction and improvement of the online
technology brings with it fundamental questions. What is learning? What is education? What is
the role of the university? What is the role of faculty? If a student can cruise through 120 credits
online, is the residential institution a necessity? Will the big schools become more like the for-
profits? Many colleges have the ability to offer or accept some online credits. The wall, for
undergraduate education, has been breached.

The implications for graduate education is heavier, as the mentoring relationship between faculty
and student serves as some kind of quality control. Will universities be graduating Ph.D.
candidates who have never had a face-to-face encounter with their professor? Will new
professors be necessary if the old guard has already prepared canned presentations of the sum of
human knowledge? Will knowledge acquisition slow down?

These are very serious questions, and the trouble is that they can be dealt with in a frivolous
manner, or in an attempt to maximize the bottom line, that can cause harm to us all.

Update All those who are incensed that Agnes’s lament did not include concrete solutions are
welcome to submit guest posts of their own outlining their own ideas of How To Fix Higher
Education. matt@wmbriggs.com

————————————————-
1
Class notes.
2
Ibid.
3
Braverman, Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capital. Monthly Review Press, 1998.

• Jump to main content

• Jump to navigation
Login

• Admin Login
• My account
• E-alert sign up

• Institutional Registration
• Personal Registration
• Subscribe

• Site Map
• Subject Areas

Go
Search Advanced search

Journal home > Archive > Articles > Full text

Article
Higher Education Policy (2002) 15, 291–311. doi:10.1016/S0952-8733(02)00019-3
The Asia–Pacific region
Richard Braddock

Asian Higher Education Research Centre, Graduate School of Management, 2109 Sydney,
Australia

Correspondence: R. Braddock, Tel.: +61-2-98-50-99-29; fax: +61-2-98-52-99-26. E-mail

addresses: richardbraddock@mq.edu.au, aphern@mq.edu.au.

Top of page

1. Introduction

This study looks at university research across the Asia–Pacific region acknowledging its great
diversity and richness of cultures and environments both social and economic. It concentrates on
a selection of economies that provide a cross-section of the status, changes, challenges, needs,
and achievements within the region.

To this end representative countries and universities within the region (and elements of current
practice which come from the widest range within those economies and the region) displaying
different levels have been selected, i.e.

Industrialised countries, where research is carried out in a range of institutions, including

universities, but also in industry, e.g. Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea.

Middle development economies where this trend is beginning to be evident, e.g. Malaysia,
Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia.

Least developed countries which will have virtually no "top science research" but will need
research capacity related to economic development, e.g. PNG, Fiji and the South Pacific.

The study focuses on the broad pattern of changes in the region's higher education institutions as
they affect research orientation and capacities, but addresses mainly the problems of countries
"caught in the middle"—aware of the new contexts for knowledge creation but still dependent on
limited university institutional capacity with inadequate government research funding or priority
recognition as highlighted in Michael Gibbons study "Higher Education Relevance in the 21st
Century" (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999).

It was found that whilst research is conducted in many universities within the region's
developing countries these institutions are under pressure to focus on development-based
investigation whilst giving a higher priority to teaching. The overall result is a widening gap in
access to top R&D research, hence denying their economies of the greater contribution which
higher level research knowledge and capacity could provide for their longer term development,
economically and socially, and thereby exacerbating the wealth/poverty gap.
Top of page

2. Research and current trends in knowledge production

The old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times!" could aptly describe the condition
from the latter part of the 20th century in which university presidents and their staff, both
scholars and administrators, have been obliged to adapt and rethink modes of operation in an
institutional framework which has over centuries been a bastion of stability and conservatism
whilst a generator of ideas and revolutionary innovation in all aspects, cultural, economic, and
scientific, of our environment. The post-Keynesian era, from the 1960s to the 1970s, brought
with it the seeds of economic rationalism with its emphasis on efficiency and accountability
within relatively short-time horizons. Subsequent waves of technological innovation and the shift
to the information economy coupled with inherently inter-linked new forces of globalisation built
on this foundation to convert international pressure to adopt the new managerialism, with its
accountability and efficiency strictures.

Universities, especially public universities, the great bastions of contemplative thought and
analysis in long-run contexts, found they were being required to show outputs and value for
money on short-term horizons. Performance indicators and other efficiency criteria were
imposed as conditions of funding. At the same time universities ceased to be the sole legitimate
source of knowledge as private and public research institutions committed to specific sectors
emerged and competed for funding (Cripps et al., 1999; Gibbons, 1998). This had a profound
impact in developed economies as dependence shifted towards contract-based funding with
defined output criteria and applied research under new partnerships with industry (Cripps et al.,
1999; Gibbons, 1998). which had short-term horizons, rather than those based on more stable
long-term funding.

In the Asia–Pacific the wave of new economic imperatives and "managerialism" is still to run its
full course. Institutions, and even university systems, are at considerably different stages of
development and differ significantly in terms of government and community expectations. In
Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong, this process has completed its first stage of enforcing
managerial accountability.

Whereas across the OECD (OECD, 1998) economies, University research is about 15–35% of
the overall R&D effort (Cripps et al., 1999) with an essential function as the principal providers
of basic research—60% or more, university research, especially in East Asia, has remained quite
modest due to lack of financial support, over-regulation by governments, shifts to private
teaching universities, and heavy teaching burdens. However, this is changing rapidly, as some
countries, especially Japan (Kagami, Humphery, & Piore, 1998) and more recently Korea,
Taiwan, and Australia, are boosting research funding (Cripps et al., 1999). About 27% of all
Australian R&D, and nearly all basic research is carried out in universities (Hayes, 1997, p. 5).
In Korea the percentage share of universities research rose slightly in 1999 from 11.2% in the
previous year to 12.0%. In Taiwan, there has been a steady growth in research funding which is
seen as a priority. Japan has also recently boosted research funding, whereas in Australia there
has been a significant recent restoration in research funding. Nevertheless, there are degrees of
stagnation and decline in many cases, especially in the South Pacific (Prasad, 2001), with a
decrease in government finance for R&D in both relative and sometimes absolute terms
(Angeles, 1999; Brogan & Hills ; Chung Ang University, 2001; Commonwealth of Australia,
1998; DETYA, 2001). Overall the growth rate of R&D in the higher education sector has
declined in most countries over the last decade (Cripps et al., 1999, p. 24). This has had
significant and depressing impacts on the higher education sector (Cripps et al., 1999, p. 25).

In the region's developed and industrialised economies the priority nature of research is shifting.
The movement is away from "pure" or "basic" research, to more applied, problem-solving,
commercially applicable, consultancy based, and shorter term research (Cripps et al., 1999;
Gibbons, 1998). This is driven by new funding from both public and private sources being tied
specifically to applied research projects rather than being available for institutional allocation via
central research funds (Gibbons, 1998). In the developing and emerging economies, this change
is of far lesser significance, though it is present to some degree in most countries.

Other serious issues have been raised by the massification of university education and the
corresponding tyranny of large numbers of students. As institutions battle to cope with ever
increasing numbers (Gibbons, 1998, pp. 26–27) in China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and
Thailand for example, institutions have little scope in terms of resources, human and physical, to
undertake significant research activity, if any.

The Australian (and New Zealand) universities have high-quality research and teaching profiles
but are subject to intense government scrutiny via the use of performance indicators linked to
funding criteria. Hong Kong's universities (The University of Hong Kong, 2001) provide high-
quality education and all are research based, though the mission of each university is prescribed
by government and an increasing priority is being given to allocated research areas and to
teaching.

In the present climate of decreasing government funds in real terms being provided for research,
many universities are initiating programmes to direct research towards key areas necessary to
foster national development. This is the case in Malaysia, through the Government's
Intensification of Research in Priority Areas (IRPA) programme. In Taiwan, leading institutions,
such as the National Taiwan University (NTU), have increased funding for research drawing on
government funded research, private sector funding, and funding from non-profit organisations.
Angeles University in the Philippines conducts a similar programme through their Centre for
Research and Development (CRD) (Ahn Mi-Young, 1999).

Universities in the least developed countries, while still being responsible for a significant
proportion of research in their countries, usually lack the resources necessary to carry out a large
amount of research and focus more on teaching. However, the University of the South Pacific
(USP) has been, and is currently involved in, a limited amount of applied research in order to
solve the problems of local organisations. PNG has a changing research profile as there is a
significant shift to an emphasis on teaching as the national priority. Nevertheless, links between
training and research are maintained, mainly in agriculture and forestry.

Other universities/colleges in Pacific economies have low research profiles and are primarily
teaching institutions, though individual scholars may be good researchers and also provide policy
advice to government, e.g. Samoa. Indonesia has a number of quality universities and many
developing universities which are emerging from essentially teaching institutions. However,
current economic and political crises have exacerbated underlying problems, which have led to
funding shortfalls with diminishing research and quality problems (Hill, 1988).

Nevertheless, all the region's universities face increasing demands for economic relevance
(Gibbons, 1998, p. 8) with pressure to contribute more directly to national innovation. Many are
characterised by personnel concerns, especially of aging researchers and falling student interest
in research, coupled with changes in training, as well as in terms of quality.

In the South, South–East, and North Asian countries in particular, their ability to adapt to new
expectations can be constrained by government regulations and traditional (mode 1) disciplinary
structures. However, there are increasing systemic linkages within economies, within regional
sub-groups, and encouragement to enter into joint ventures and industry partnerships. At the
same time in all but the emerging Pacific nations there is an increasing internationalisation of
university research though it is not even across all institutions. In Japan, universities have
substantially lifted their research cultures as they aim to liberalise the system, raise standards,
and transfer responsibility to individual institutions for curricula, teaching, and research. Korean
universities have also improved rapidly over the last decade from developing country status to
that based on the advanced industrial economies though with considerable variation. The current
ratio of university research to national R&D had risen to 12.0% in 1999 but small compared to
government at 16.6% and private industry at 71.4%. In the more developed and industrialised
economies, the new demands on universities and the massification of education with tighter
financing (Karmel, 1998) are creating new tensions and stresses. In particular, the balance
between research and teaching often remains sensitive and controversial (Neumann, 1992, 1994,
1996).

Top of page

3. The contribution of university research to: national R&D activity;

national innovation systems; and public policy formulation

Universities in OECD (OECD, 2000a, b) countries contribute between 15% and 35% to national
R&D (Cripps et al., 1999, p. 9). In the Asia–Pacific, this is more varied, with the developed
economies around the OECD (OECD, 2001) average, but otherwise a range down to near zero.
Significantly, universities across the Asia–Pacific, (as in other regions) are, or have the potential
to be, very much the principal providers of basic or pure research. This is usually significantly
unappreciated by governments and the business community generally. In consequence, basic
research is under-funded in all countries as short-term, mission-orientated targeted funds replace
longer-term 'base' funds.

The decrease in R&D in many Asia–Pacific universities in recent years is attributable directly to
a tightening of public funding. Partnerships with Industry and Government research institutions
can, and do, make up the shortfall but with a bias away from basic research to applied projects
(Turpin, Aylward, & Garrett-Jones, 1999). However, this contribution does not necessarily offer
an increase of support for fundamentally important basic research. In Taiwan, universities are the
only source of basic or fundamental research and funding has increased from government,
private and non-profit organisations, but private research institutes which concentrate on specific
applications with immediate benefits are also flourishing.

Across the region, the general trend for small, developing universities is to focus on applied
research and research which is relevant to its country or region of influence. Pure research is left
for the larger universities and those in highly developed countries.

Top of page

4. The state of university–industry cooperation in research

In the region's industrialised countries, as in other regions, there is a very strong shift towards
contractual R&D and technology transfer, with licensing and spin-off creation, while in the less
developed and developing countries, where research capacities are generally lesser, consultancies
and professional development are more likely.

Over the past decade the scope of university–industry linkages in all economies, including the
Asia–Pacific, has increased considerably. Most institutions have set up special structures, which
are seen as necessary to bridge the perceived cultural gaps between academic researchers and
industry. University–industry linkages are becoming increasingly important not just as a source
of funding and sponsorship, but to enable information exchange, technology transfer, and to
produce valuable applied research. There tends to be an erosion of the ideological and functional
barriers between university staff and industry, with universities becoming more diffuse
organisations, with less core, full-time staff, and a larger pool of 'associates' and 'adjuncts' from
the private and public sectors.

University–industry linkages are perceived to be very important in all regional economies. In the
OECD countries as a whole they account a steady 5–7% of the institutional research budget,
though in some countries this figure is higher (DETYA, 1999c). Within the Asia–Pacific there is
a stark contrast between the linkages in say the developed economies of Australia, Japan and
Hong Kong, and the situation in the Pacific with Fiji, Samoa and the other Pacific Island states or
even PNG. The aim of boosting university–industry linkages was an important consideration
behind the formation of APHERN which intends to promote such linkages. However, while
industry linkages and partnerships are necessary and beneficial, they should not be allowed to
impinge on the reputation of universities as high integrity providers of ethical and quality
research based on best available methodology.

Examples exist in many regional economies. Governments in many countries are encouraging
universities to actively seek out and develop industry partnerships. This is the case in Australia,
through the programs of the Australian Research Council (ARC). The Malaysian Government
encourages industry partnerships to commercialise university research by providing R&D
funding allocated through its Intensification of Research in Priority Areas (IRPA) program. In
Hong Kong, links with business and industry are encouraged and are important ways in which
the tertiary education sector contributes to the economy as well as a source of university funding.
Convergence is occurring in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan. In Singapore,
universities are major nodes in the national R&D grid. NUS alone accounts for around 15% of
the country's manpower and more than 10% of the GDP on R&D. In Taiwan, university–industry
links have been growing over the past few years, especially though closer interaction as a result
of university policy. In Thailand, industry–university links are relatively new, and despite
established linkages with the established larger universities, they have a long way to go in
developing a co-operative culture.

As the University of the South Pacific's region does not have a strong industry base, there is
hardly any cooperation of the kind that exists between university and industry in the developed
countries. However, there is a degree of cooperation between existing industries and the
university. The Papua New Guinea University of Technology has set up a central interface, to
commercialise a wide range of products and services offered by the university.

In some economies government regulations or policies may inhibit the development of such
linkages. Thus governments, at all levels, need to set frameworks within which such interaction
can take place including the provision of appropriate incentives for university–industry linkages,
removing any restrictions on such linkages or commercial activity.

Top of page

5. Research and ethics, including IT and intellectual property issues

Intellectual property issues have been seen as one barrier to increased university/industry
cooperation. A scheme which gives individuals ownership of intellectual property rights is more
likely to promote increased innovation. Intellectual property laws can inhibit technological
innovation, however, it is a fine balance, as without protected property rights, individual
enterprises will not have sufficient incentives to invest in R&D and develop new innovations. It
is necessary, however, to ensure that research and development (Mendoza, 2000) especially at
the more basic levels, are not unreasonably burdened through excessively restrictive intellectual
property laws.

In most universities in the region (certainly in Australia), the employer has ownership of any
inventions/ideas which employees may create in the course of their employment. This the case in
many economies, including Malaysia, the Philippines, and Taiwan. In Thailand, intellectual
property belongs to the person who creates it, but each university has its own system of setting
up legal agreements with its faculty, so that the majority benefit goes to the faculty.

People and institutions in developing countries generally have far less access to IP laws due to
the prohibitively high cost of patent registration. Some possible solutions include a sliding scale
of fees, or partnerships between universities in developing countries, and institutions/companies
in developed countries (Gibbons, 1998).

A policy which shares intellectual property rights with individual researchers and allows them to
benefit from any income generated by these inventions is clearly provides an incentive to
undertake R&D. However, a problem has been identified in countries such as South Korea,
where R&D currently focuses more on basic research and therefore does not produce knowledge
of a sufficiently applied nature to have immediate commercial potential (French, 2001). This
example illustrates the necessity of universities having a research management plan (Maraboto,
1997; Martin, 2000a, b) guide research into areas which will produce results with commercial
potential.

Top of page

6. Research as an issue of institutional governance and management

Traditionally, in universities, research, or at least, the publication of articles in academic

journals, has been the primary measure of success, and criterion for promotion. This remains an
extremely important measure of performance internationally although academics are increasingly
being required to perform other activities besides basic research and behave more
entrepreneurially. However, when resources are stretched to an intolerable degree, and where
increasing enrolments are generating such an excess of demand and a corresponding shortage of
staff, teaching must be prioritised to the expense of research. Moreover, it is becoming
increasingly common for academics with research profiles, and significantly large research
grants, to want to use part of these funds to buy themselves out of teaching duties. Across the
region, however, no common rule exists.

As universities develop and private organisations undertake an increasing proportion of research

it is likely that some universities will become primarily teaching universities, while research will
continue to be a dominant part of others. This trend is already evident in Australia, Korea, Japan
and (de facto) in developing economies, but will intensify in the future, as demand for university
places increases and competition intensifies.

In some countries, where the system has not been able to cope with massive explosions in
demand, there has been very little governance or management of research in universities. This
has been a problem in Vietnam and in the case of lower tier institutions in Indonesia and the
Philippines, but is now being addressed by government reform policies.

In Australia, for example, universities must, as a condition of their basic grant, present strategic
plans. There has been a fundamental change in the funding formula by which Australian
university grants are determined to a more diversified basis under the institutional grant scheme
(IGS). This in line with the underlying government strategy which is designed to harness the
university research effort to the knowledge economy by means of financial support which
rewards industry funding, research relevance, commercialisation and research strengths
(Macquarie University, 2000). This process is, however, of relatively recent origin, and is by no
means shared by all universities or university systems across the Asia–Pacific though there are
movements in similar directions (DETYA, 1996a).

Decision making processes at the university level in Japan are slow, cumbersome and often
ineffective. However, Monbusho has been working to improve efficiency in public and private
universities as well as their accountability.

In Singapore, as in other countries, a system of academic management has been adopted which is
based on priority, selectivity, and cost-effectiveness in course offerings and research grants. The
National University of Singapore in its strategic plan, has focused on "selected areas of research
in which it wishes to make an impact, especially those areas which are of strategic importance to
the nation" (DETYA, 1996b).

Top of page

7. Assuring research input into teaching and research as part of degree

structure

The link between research and teaching has considerable variation across the Asia–Pacific
region. It is very strong in the more developed economies and weakest in the least developed,
though all acknowledge the importance of such linkages. Most incorporate this nexus into their
strategic plans and generally into research plans if formulated; however, as presented in Part 1,
some institutions within the region, especially in the least developed countries, or least
developed regions within specific countries, have difficulties in sustaining a research profile, but
by linkages endeavour to maintain access to relevant research. This would appear to be the case
with second tier institutions in the Philippines (e.g. the Vsayas Group), Indonesia, Malaysia,
China and Vietnam. The situation is similar in Fiji and PNG.

In Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan there has been traditionally a strong
ethos that university teachers should be researchers and that the teacher who is at the frontiers of
knowledge would be the best instructor. In the lesser developed countries it depends on the status
of the institution. In the first tier of top universities teachers are expected to be researchers and
teach in their respective specialisations so that they can transfer knowledge derived from current
research.

In Australia, a new wave of policy is challenging the traditional view. Whereas there has been
fundamental belief in the inter-relatedness of teaching and research, current policy moves may
well lead to differentiated academic career paths with teaching only and research only strands,
topped by an elite of teaching and research academics. This is likely to see a distinction made
between teaching academics committed to undergraduate programs with high teaching loads and
little opportunity if any for research, and higher status research, higher reward level, academics
with large funded research programs, many higher degree students, and substantial overall
research activity.

The region has much variation but there is an increasing preference developing in all but the least
developed economies for a model of elite institutions with a strong research profile. This elite set
of institutions would be supplemented by a range of second tier institutions which would
concentrate mainly on undergraduate teaching with a more modest research profile. Another
significant trend is that the impact of massification and the shift to the new educational
technology of the virtual classroom, whether wholly or in part as on-campus mainstream support,
is transforming the academic from "lecturer and researcher" into a manager and facilitator of
student learning.

Top of page
8. Incorporating new research into the undergraduate and postgraduate
curriculum

There is a clear conflict between the constant flux and transitory nature of established and
accepted knowledge, and the need to have a relatively stable and coherent curriculum.
Universities that continue to adhere to the traditional disciplinary (mode 1, Angeles University
Foundation, 1999) structure will have increasing difficulties incorporating new research
developments into teaching.

Most countries in the Asia–Pacific endeavour to incorporate contemporary research into their
curriculum at all levels, though again their is significant variation in that this can be with a
significant lag as some follow developments in other countries or institutions. The issues of
information rich and information poor are operative. In Hong Kong, like Singapore, current
research is continually incorporated in teaching at all levels and higher degree research students
work at the frontiers. The National University of Singapore recognises explicitly that academic
staff who are active researchers are in a better position to teach authoritatively and to challenge
students intellectually. In Japan, new reforms are designed to ensure graduate students are
involved in research, especially at doctoral level. At undergraduate and sub-doctoral level this is
less apparent though changes are occurring. All students benefit from the research of their
teachers and there is a strong established belief in the link between research and teaching (Mok,
2000).

Top of page

9. Assessing research quality

With the increasingly managerial focus in universities, more attention is being focused toward
assessing the quality of research and all other activities. In most institutions, applications for
research funding are assessed by peer panels whether internally or externally. Such quality
assessment can be carried out either by the university itself, or by an external standards body or
as it most likely, both. Procedures vary greatly in their sophistication and level of formality
between countries.

Publications resulting from research is the most common method of measuring the output and
quality of research. In Australia, quality publications in leading journals or equivalent are of
highest priority, but virtually all institutions now also require excellence in teaching as confirmed
by assessment. In Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong research publications are crucial but are
often supplemented by other contributions. Japan and Korea which have had seniority based
systems are now moving to research outputs via publications as a key determinant, though at
least in Japan these may be in the Universities own journal(s). There can be no denying the fact
that the rate of publications, the quality, and the expectations of the number of publications vary
quite widely between universities in the developed countries and those at a developing university
such as the USP.

Top of page
10. Evaluating research quality and research capacity

There have been increasing moves by some governments within the region, as elsewhere,
towards evaluation and accountability over the past two decades which have resulted in the
establishment of national level bodies with responsibilities for university research. This has in
turn caused universities to introduce an increasing institutional focus on evaluation, which has
imposed demands, firstly, in administrative demands (time and effort of reporting); and second
in the fields, types of activities and outcomes which are valued (and those not valued) by the
external agency in terms of its priorities (see DETYA, 1996a).

Using performance criteria as the basis of research funding runs the risk of producing conformity
rather than diversity amongst institutions. There is a risk that if a university acts to make the
most of government imposed criteria—they can prove advantageous for the institution when the
indicators are increasing, but if they drop the system can turn against the university (DETYA,
1996a).

Japan stresses self-evaluation, which does not always guarantee the results required for national
innovation (Cripps et al., 1999) though recent government initiatives are leading towards
assessment. In Korea, current voluntary "encouragements" for evaluation and assessment are
expected to soon become mandatory. In India, The University Grants Commission has recently
(1999) taken a decision that all universities must accredit their courses through the National
Assessment and Accreditation Council. Australia, through the ARC, undertakes comprehensive
performance evaluations of all its programmes, but apart from this, responsibility for quality is
also largely at the university level. Most universities have comprehensive self-assessment
programs and many degrees are subject to approval by professional standards boards.

The changes in research funding have been paralleled by increasing 'commodification' of

teaching, research and administration performance, which "encourages" academics to produce
particular kinds of measurable activities. While some middle developed countries such as India
have enthusiastically adopted the focus on quality, most less developed countries have neither
the resources, nor the infrastructure to systematically assess and control quality. This problem is
exacerbated by the explosion in demand for higher education. In countries such as Indonesia and
the Philippines, a lack of government funds mean that such excess demand has to be met by
private institutions. While some of these are of high standard, many are not, and it becomes
almost impossible to adequately monitor quality or maintain standards (Hill, 1988).

Top of page

11. Developing research management skills for higher education academic

and administrative staff

With resources stretched to the limit in the present environment in developed countries, and even
more so in developing countries, most universities are not investing a lot in developing research
management skills among their staff. In developing countries, in particular, there is often not
enough money to either adequately compensate staff, or maintain facilities, with many academics
forced to work in several positions or jobs at the same time. One possible solution where
individual institutions lack the resources to maintain staff research management development
programmes, is for the government to provide public courses. This is the case in South Korea for
example.

At the National University of Singapore (NUS) there is feedback to individual staff on their
research performance and recognition of all, but especially of the needs of new, and mid-career,
academic researchers' differing support needs. This includes mentoring and start resources, as
well as the facilitation and encouragement of team building. At USP, while academic staff have
teaching as their primary responsibility, they have a lot of leeway, within the framework of
teaching and other duties, in terms of doing research and publishing and there are several policies
and allowances in place to encourage staff to undertake research.

Research careers: the conditions faced by researchers (career prospects, remuneration, state of
research facilities including information and communication technology).

In most countries within the region, academics are not paid a competitive salary relative to that
received by employees in the business sector or in some economies even in relation to the
government sector. Brain drain effects many economies. Researchers in developing economy
universities emulate topics of the developed economies in order to be published and gain
"respectability" often to the neglect of local need and national priorities. Nor is a research career
anywhere as secure as it once was, with the disappearance of tenure. These problems are much
worse in LDCs where relative salaries are extremely low, reward systems are highly
bureaucratic, often corrupt and misguided. Faculty are often rewarded for long service rather
than success in research and teaching. Universities are often severely under-resourced, and
insufficient linkages between universities, cronyism and academic 'inbreeding' stifle cross-
fertilisation of ideas and restrict career advancement (Gibbons, 1998). Most Higher Education
institutions in the region's developing countries, as in other regions, suffer severe deficiencies in
these requirements due mainly to a lack of resources.

Public universities in Asia often devote up to 80% of their budgets to personnel and student
costs. This leaves little left for maintenance or new resources and therefore presents a severe
disadvantage in relation to adoption of new technologies. Where research is rewarded
disproportionately, academics will always be strongly tempted to favour it and this can have
detrimental effects on teaching. Recent initiatives to reward excellence in university teaching,
both at individual and institutional level, in Australia, among others, are interesting, but
generally do not translate into promotion opportunities and hence are relatively isolated
developments.

Top of page

12. Research integrated/non-integrated

It is apparent that universities differ in the extent to which research is integrated within the
institution. Moreover, universities may take different approaches to the allocation of
responsibilities vis à vis teaching and research across the academics within the institution. In
some institutions, there is a possibility of 'buying out' of teaching duties as part of research grants
so as to 'cover' for time spent on research. This is the case in Australia and at many regional
institutions such as Angeles University in the Philippines (The Research Digest, 2000).

In South Korea for example, until the early 1990s faculty were rewarded for length of service
and promoted by quantity of research publications. However, the new system being implemented
at leading universities, depends on a more rigorous evaluation of research in terms of quality. A
new quality assessment scheme has been developed to facilitate this. Moreover, tenure has
disappeared, with new young staff being appointed under short-term contracts of 3–5 years
(French, 2001). In Singapore and Taiwan, quality published research is crucial for promotion.

In many Asian countries academics have been immediately tenured upon being hired. This has
been the case in Japan though publications, even if in-house, were expected. Throughout their
careers, Japanese academics traditionally encountered little if any performance evaluation,
although the government is now working to introduce such mechanisms. Japanese university
research efforts are constrained by a number of factors: rigid governing hierarchies, inadequate
financing especially for facilities, poor programs at the postdoctoral level, weak ties to industry
and limited involvement by foreign researchers (Asia and Pacific Regional Conference, 1997,
pp. 224–232). Major reform is needed in education and training if Japan is to stay competitive
and meet the challenges of the New Millennium. Future reforms are expected to involve mergers
of universities and increase specialisation. Given the rigid and centralised nature of the Japanese
education system, and resistance to change, these reforms will be a challenge to achieve.

Top of page

13. Regional trends in research funding

Funds for universities and in particular for research have decreased in real terms almost
universally in universities across the region over the last decade. Given the pressures of
massification and internationalisation with its commodification of outputs, this has led to the
forced 'rationalisation' of university departments and managerial downgrading of certain research
efforts, especially in pure research.

In the newly industrialised countries awareness of inadequate support services, physical facilities
and technological infrastructure brought demands for significant injections of funds to upgrade
facilities. One essential, teaching and research resource, good libraries, continues to require
significant funding to reach international standards in the lesser developed countries such as
South Asia, such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Mynamar, but also in PNG and the Pacific,
as well as second and third tier institutions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, and Thailand.

The sources of funding available to the Asia-pacific universities varies greatly, however,
Governments are usually a major contributor to universities. The majority of funds for public
universities in Australia (61% in 1996) are provided by the government (Australian Research
Council (2002)), however, this is changing. Now an average of 19% comes from commercial
sources. This reduced Government funding has largely been replaced by higher private funding
through significantly increased student fees. Universities have been forced to find alternative
sources of income from the private sector, through commercialising their research and
establishing companies.
Throughout the region, government funding of higher education has been, generally, either
stagnating or declining as a proportion of revenue and often in real terms as well. In South
Korea, for example, government funds for research have decreased or stagnated in spite of the
increasing number of researchers in the late 1990s. Although decreasing, government funds are
still the major source of revenue to universities (71–78% of all funds).

Even in countries where Government funding of higher education institutions remains

proportionately high, increasing pressure is being exerted on them to find alternative sources of
income. In Malaysia, for example, currently most public universities depend upon public funding
for up to 90% of total revenue. However, the Education Ministry has recently urged institutions
of higher learning to earn at least 30% of total financial requirements from sources other than
direct government funding within the next 5–10 years. In Vietnam, government funding for
universities, much via international agency loans, such as the US$100m World Bank loan has
enabled a considerable upgrading of facilities and capacities, enabling the consolidation and
merger of higher education institutions into larger and multi-disciplinary universities.

In most countries in the region, there is a trend away from general grants of funding towards
more specific funding allocations designed to promote certain targeted activities and research
areas. Furthermore, there has been a marked increase in short-term project-based funding at the
expense of funding for longer term projects such as basic (Cripps et al., 1999, p. 38), this is
certainly the case in Australia. These trends, reflecting a change in government strategy, have
forced universities to seek alternative sources of income, such as industry, other private sources,
and the commercialisation of research. This reduction in 'core funding' too, has effectively
reduced the autonomy of universities to select areas of research, and has seriously impaired in
many cases, the viability of undertaking long-term basic research. These trends raise the
important question of "how to provide long-term stability in an environment where research
depends increasingly on external funding" (Cripps et al., 1999, p. 38).

Thailand perhaps presents one exception to this general trend in the region, of governments
reducing core funding grants to universities. Funding arrangements also are changing as the Thai
Government is attempting to promote university autonomy though the provision of block grants,
with the aim that all units to be autonomous by 2002.

Another exception to these trends in funding allocation is presented by Japan. The Japanese
Government has increased funds available for basic research in institutions of higher education
(Cripps et al., 1999, p. 26) and has made increased funds available in arrangements linked to
increased autonomy and hence greater institutional responsibility in Japan. In Hong Kong, there
has recently been a $1.9b or 4% cut from university budgets over next 3 academic years. In
Taiwan, the National University of Taiwan reports that research funding has shown steady
growth over the last 5 years, averaging NT$25-26 hundred million per annum. Funding comes
from government, industry and non-profit organisations. As globalisation and advances in
knowledge management continue to intensify, LDCs are at great risk of being left behind if they
are unable to keep up with developments.

The question of costing for commercial research by institutions is also an important issue.
Universities generally use a full cost approach to price setting, not the price the market will bear.
One example of a method to calculate an overhead was put forward in 1989 by the Australian
Vice-Chancellors Committee and which proposes differential rates of overheads for laboratory-
based research (154% of direct labour costs) and non-laboratory-based research (113% of direct
labour costs).

Top of page

14. Research cooperation

Internally most economies endeavour to encourage co-operation between their universities,

however, in many instances this is tempered by measures such as competition for funding and
students, including quality research students and staff. This may prevent universities in the
region achieving their full cooperative/collaborative potential via sharing of resources, and
maximising the level of intellectual interaction with its synergistic benefits.

There are continual efforts to develop regional linkages between higher education institutions,
but many are bilateral, as individual regional institutions are very active in seeking linkages with
quality institutions, especially in the United States and Europe, but also in Australia, New
Zealand and in sister institutions within South and North East Asia, and into the Middle East.
The bilateral linkages are generally for staff and student exchanges but also promote co-
operative research. As in Europe, the Americas, and elsewhere, each institution forms a
multiplicity of linkages, but they are not brought into multilateral interaction as inter-connecting
cluster. Many regional groupings are discipline specific or even subject specific, and an
increasing number are linked to the securing international project funding. Others which are
becoming more significant within the region include student exchange arrangements and varying
degrees of researcher exchange.

Top of page

15. Strategies to strengthen the research capacities of universities in the

region

The major problems in the region that need to be addressed, regardless of the size of the
economy or its stage of development, relate to the changing nature of stakeholder expectations as
to the outcomes required from university systems, the individual institutions, and academics.
These problems are the fundamental issues of returns to investments in tertiary education and
research. Globalisation via the forces of international competition, in a world where technology
is shrinking timeframes and barriers, is imposing a new order which every society is obliged to
accommodate requiring new directions in both education and training, and in research and
development. Governments, businesses, the community and students, require institutions to
efficiently deliver the products they value, or can be persuaded as to potential value, as opposed
to accepting institutionally determined values. Demands for the commodification of education
and research require strategic responses. A subset are the problems that are related to size and
stage of development. These are particularly pressing as they can causes economies to be denied
the ability to participate as other than claimants or poor relations in the new global order. The
small Pacific Island states are a case in point. They are each too small to reap the benefits of a
tertiary education sector with its research contribution to the needs of their economy. However,
by grouping together this is made possible though, like the case of PNG, issues of size and
resources remain. The stage of development of an economy and its higher education institutions.
Costs of modern technology are problems in the smaller and less developed economies. In
particular, the accelerating rate of obsolescence in computers and the need to acquire software
compatible with that currently used in the developed world.

Cooperation is particularly important at the regional level so as to help individual countries to

achieve critical mass in scientific subjects but to access current levels of knowledge and share
the benefits of advances, links to networks in the developed economies are essential. In the
developing world, however, the paucity of such contacts is often an impediment to creativity and
productivity. Nevertheless, there are developing linkages with Australia, New Zealand, Europe
and North America. It is via inclusion in global networks and the inter-linking of networks that
the problems of isolation, size and level of development can be overcome. These issues raise the
fundamental question of the role and status of universities in small and lesser developed
economies. Should these universities strive to be replicas of the university in developed countries
with frontier research, a comprehensive spread of faculties, and delivering standards of education
and research which reflect global demands? Or, should they be primarily teaching and training
institutions in disciplines delivering some applied research, often mainly in agriculture and basic
science/technology, most appropriate to current stage national development priorities?

A suggested alternative is a middle road in which the university, though specializing mainly in
areas of national priority, includes expertise via faculties of sciences and arts which provide a
well integrated education delivering adaptable skill and knowledge bases that encourage and
permit life long learning. Staff should be attracted internationally, to contribute quality inputs via
teaching and research. The university would be linked into regional and global networks for
access to information, expertise, and exchanges, so that, though small in scope and size, it would
act as a conduit for the conveyance of knowledge and information for the entire community. In
this role, it would not only produce quality graduates but also be a source of expertise and advice
to government and business. Of course, this has costs, and appropriate human and physical
resources will be more expensive than a lesser option. In particular, academic salaries are an
issue. International scholars, unless sponsored under aid or exchange programs, will be costly.
Failure to offer appropriate salary packages may well lead to dependency on too many scholars
from other "third world" or emerging nations and with this an inability to achieve the intellectual
environment that will produce the necessary research culture or adaptable graduates. Many
universities in the region have realised the need to internationalise their operations, attract
international students and develop working relationships with foreign universities. This has led
to a dramatic growth in foreign student exchange programs, and staff exchange programs
between universities. The development of an effective regional hub integrating research
resources across the region would be a considerable impetus to the level of both teaching and
research.

Another much needed common overall strategy to strengthen research, is the development of an
appropriate research culture, and research management across the Asia–Pacific that would
address many of the regions problems, would be one that by regional cooperation raised both the
capacities for, and profile of, university research potential and contributions to the region, and to
each economy. In this context, the overarching regional networks such as AUAP, APNON, and
the open APHERN, have a unique and important function to fulfil. The international agencies
play a very important role in supporting the multiplicity of regional networks, but it is a divided
house, and international leadership is needed to bring the many networks into an organisational
structure within or in association with the overarching networks so as to synergies their strengths
and link with other regions.

There are many current initiatives to establish new linkages though many are seemingly
exclusive and possibly orientated highly to the research or other strategic interests of a major
institution or group of institutions. This injects a competitive element into the region which will
only be advantageous to the lesser developed economies and their higher education institutions if
by sharing processes it transfers knowledge, expertise and ideally resources, providing
stimulation to the teaching, learning and research environment. Research-orientated multilateral
and non-exclusive networking is new phenomenon.

For example, the UNESCO supported Asia–Pacific Higher Education Institutions' Research
Network (APHERN) is a non-exclusive open network for all peak bodies representing regional
or national groupings of universities, relevant Ministries, scientific and higher education research
organisations linked to university systems, and of course universities and academics, throughout
the greater Asia–Pacific region. Its membership extends from the Middle East to the Pacific
Island States. APHERN promotes and publicises regional research conferences and symposia,
facilitates researcher exchanges and face-to-face activities, including seminars, workshops and
research training support, across the Asia Pacific. It also seeks to promote interaction with
industry and best practice in research management.

Top of page

16. Conclusion and implications

Universities across the Asia—Pacific are experiencing significant pressures in terms of

resources, especially financial, with "encouragement" to be more market orientated in terms of
curricula, administration, and links with the private sector. Most are in the middle of significant
government instituted reform processes in which the conference of "autonomy" (Japan, Korea,
Thailand) translates to increased responsibility managerially and financially. This also has
carried with it significant changes in the way research is funded and managed, with a shift from
basic to applied research with increased dependency on industry funding. A divide is being
established between on the one hand those with productive industry links and commercialised
activities who are financially comfortable and their cousins who lack such income streams.
Additionally, another divide is developing within some countries (e.g. Australia, Korea) where
there is new pressure to stream institutions and academics into essentially distinct categories as
primarily or exclusively teachers or researchers, with some specific provision for hybrid
institutions. Finally, there is the divide between the established research universities, mainly in
the more developed economies, and those in small emerging nations such PNG or in the South
Pacific, but also least developed regions within the developing countries such as the Philippines
and Indonesia, who lack resources. These divides raise serious concerns for the future of
university research and as to the future nature of the region's tertiary education sector.
Some of the concerns about the changing nature of universities and research or the impact of
managerialism will be burning issues for the rest of this decade, but in the long run they are
probably necessary to enable the higher education sector to survive as a key contributor to R&D.
No institution, and certainly not in the Asia–Pacific is immune from change. Educational
institutions, like all others, must adapt to meet fundamental changes in social and economic
needs. However, adaptation need not, and should not, mean a loss of fundamental values, culture,
or heritage, such as free intellectual debate, quality teaching and learning, and the quest for
knowledge via basic research. But it can, and arguably should, involve accountability, efficiency
in use of resources, and quality outcomes. However, adherence to short term standardised
performance indicators (Australia, plus in proposed reforms Japan, Hong Kong, & Korea) may
potentially inhibit achievement of optimal long-run performance though it may also "encourage"
higher overall performance assuming slack or under-performance was pre-existing.

In the larger countries within the Asia–Pacific region, the massification of the university is
common in its implications for teaching and research. It places pressure on academics to manage
large courses (units of study) and has serious implications for research in terms of time and
resources, especially funding.

However, in some developing areas, including especially the Pacific, conflicts are being
encountered in regard to the role of academics, whom some governments may see primarily as
teachers, and the necessity of an academic and institutional research vision. An on-going
question in these countries is whether research should be orientated to local needs or to gain
prestige and academic "respectability" by addressing major (theoretical or applied) subjects more
relevant to large developed nations. Here national priorities are important and should be
addressed, but this should not prevent scholastic interaction with more developed economies,
which like basic research per se has many valuable but often unanticipatable spinoffs.

All indications are that the commercialisation of research is an imperative (or becoming so)
across the Asia–Pacific for the research (or research aspirant) university in order to maintain
viable levels of funding both institutionally and to support continuing research activity. It is clear
that if universities are to equip themselves to compete with private research institutions, or
effectively collaborate with industry in MODE2 commercialised research, they need better
facilities and full-time researcher commitment of senior academics and postgraduate research
students. In many countries, within the region significant institutional change via the reform
processes, although underway, has a long way to go!

Yet there are signs of resistance to reform in Japan and Korea, and Hong Kong, and less overtly
in Thailand, which may delay the transition to more accountable performance based systems.
Managerialism in universities, like globalisation, is neither wholly good or bad, but it is
unavoidable. The challenge for the Asia–Pacific region's universities is how to retain the great
asset that is embodied in universities and scholarship through basic research, while
accommodating society's changing needs for greater access to tertiary education and national
(government and industry) demands for efficiency and measurable outputs. In this context,
teaching and learning have no fixed mode of delivery. Multiple channels will be needed to meet
demands but in this process, as observed, the distinction between distance education and on-
campus teaching will erode. The small and the least developed nations may benefit from access
(if affordable) to foreign educational output, but the implications for the survival of their own
universities in their present form, if they do not have active research and consultancy roles, are
uncertain.

Whilst in the region's developed and developing economies alike changes are underway which
essentially are reformist in terms of overall university systems and constituent institutions, it is
the commercialisation of university research which will be a major part of their future. This has
not fully permeated to all institutions within some countries (Philippines, Indonesia, Korea,
Thailand or the Pacific) but it illustrates a new order. More supportive regional networking is
essential for research support, especially for the small vulnerable institutions. There is a
proliferation of linkages between institutions, but mostly they are clusters of bilateral linkages.
Some are exclusive and are only of major players while most are discipline or subject specific. A
few are open, multilateral, and at the peak body or institutional level, providing mutual support.
These offer opportunities to support the developing members and share expertise, but they are
generally under-resourced. Solutions need to be found to co-ordinate and better support these
activities within the region. The value of university based research and specific high profile
achievements, need to be constantly demonstrated to governments if it is to be sustained.
Regional networks involving government representatives, or including them, can play a
significant role in this process. International agencies such as UNESCO and the OECD can
provide mechanisms whereby the Asia–Pacific's universities can be assisted to more effectively
work together.

Top of page

References

1. Ahn, M.-Y. (1999). South Korea: Universities compete for students,

http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/feb99/05_33_006.html
2. Angeles, E. Y. (1999). CRD in-charge of research publication. The
Researcher's Digest, Newsletter of the Centre for Research and Development,
Vol. I, No. 2. Angeles University Foundation, Philippines.
3. Angeles University Foundation (1999). Angeles University Foundation (1999–
2008). Center for Research and Development, Angeles City, Philippines.
4. Asia and Pacific Regional Conference (1997). Regional conference on higher
education: National strategies and regional co-operation for the 21st century,
http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/toyodec.htm
5. Australian Research Council (2002). Australian research council investing in
our future strategic plan 2000–2002,
http://www.arc.gov.au/strat_plan/role.htm
6. Brogan, B. Hills, R. Brogan, B. (Australian National University) & Hills, R.
(Dubai Campus). Personal Communications and Advices. University of
Wollongong [former Vice-Chancellor University of Papua New Guinea.
7. Chung Ang University (2001). Research-exchange activities,
http://www.cau.ac.kr/neweng/college/reserh.html
8. Coaldrake, P., & Stedman, L. (1999). Academic work in the twenty-first
century, changing roles and policies. Higher Education Division, Department
of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Australia.
9. Commonwealth of Australia (1998). Research in the national interest:
Commercialising university research in Australia 2000. Commonwealth
Information Services, Australia.
10.Cripps, D., et al. (1999) University research: Technology transfer and
commercialisation practices. Commissioned Report No. 60, Australian
Research Council, Australia.
11.Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (1996a). Knowledge and
innovation: A policy statement on research and research training (White
Paper). DETYA, Canberra, Australia, December,
http://www/detye.gov.au/highered/whitepaper/default.asp
12.Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (1996b). Quality assured:
A new Australian quality assurance framework for university education.
Seminar on the quality assurance framework, DETYA, Canberra, Australia, 10
December, http://detya.gov.au/ministers/kemp/dec99/ks101299.htm
13.Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (1999c). Higher
education report for the 2000–2002 triennium. DETYA, Canberra, Australia,
December,
http://www.detya.gov.au/highered/he_report/2000_2002/default.htm
14.Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (2001). Allocation of
institutional grants scheme funding to Australian higher education
institutions, Australia.
15.French, N. J. (2001). The Hong Kong Research Grants Council — The First
Seven Years", http://www.ugc.edu.hk/english/documents/papers/rgc_91-
7/RGC01_97.htm
16.Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher education relevance in the 21st Century.
Education, The Task Force on Higher Education and Society, World Bank,
Washington, USA.
17.Hayes, L. D.Higher education in Japan. The Social Science Journal, 34 (3), 297.
18.Hill, S. (1988). World-wide people webs: UNITWIN/UNESCO chairs programs
for the 21st century university. Presented to UNESCO APHEN Meeting,
December 1998, Sydney, Australia.
19.Kagami, M., Humphery, J., & Piore, M. (1998). Learning, liberalization and
economic adjustment. Tokyo, Japan: Institute of Development Economics.
20.Karmel, T. (1998). Financing higher education in Australia. Occasional paper
series 99-D. Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
21.Macquarie University (2000). Research strategic plan 2001–2003. Sydney
Australia: Macquarie University.
22.Maraboto, J. E. (1997). Managing university–industry relations: The case of
the centre for technological innovation at UNAM. Paris France: UNESCO
International Institute for Educational Planning.
23.Martin, M. (2000a). Managing university–industry relations, a study of
institutional practices from 12 different countries. Paris, France: UNESCO
International Institute for Educational Planning.
24.Martin, M. (2000b). (Ed.) The management of university–industry relations:
Five institutional case studies from Africa, Europe, Latin America and the
Pacific region. Paris, France: UNESCO International Institute for Educational
Planning.
25.Mendoza, S. M. (2000). CRD Underscores research culture. The researcher's
digest, Newsletter of the Centre for Research and Development. Vol. II, No. 3.
Philippine: Angeles University Foundation.
 26.Mok, Ha Ho (2000). Impact of globalisation: A study of quality assurance
systems of higher education in Hong Kong and Singapore. Comparative
Education Review, 44 (2), 148.
27.Neumann, R. (1992). Perceptions of the teaching-research Nexus: A
framework for analysis. Sydney, Australia: Higher Education.
28.Neumann, R. (1994). Researching the teaching-research Nexus: Applying a
framework to university students' learning experiences. European Journal of
Education.
29.Neumann, R. (1996). Researching the teaching-research nexus: A critical
review. Australian Journal of Education.
30.OECD (1998). University research in transition. Paris, France: OECD
Publications.
31.OECD (2000a). Education at a glance—OECD indicators. Paris, France: OECD
Publications.
32.OECD (2000b). Main science and technology indicators, Vol. 2. Paris, France.
33.Prasad, S. (2001). Regional overviews of research management issues in the
South Pacific. Commissioned unpublished paper.
34.The Research Digest (2000). Angeles University. Newsletter of the centre for
research and development, Vol. II, No. 1. Philippines: Angeles University
Foundation.
35.The University of Hong Kong (2001). Vision and mission of the University of
Hong Kong, http://www.hku.hk/acad/mission.html
36.Turpin, T., Aylward, D., Garrett-Jones, S. (1999). University and industry
research partnerships in Australia—An evaluation of ARC/DETYA industry-
linked research schemes. Canberra, Australia: J.S. McMillan Printing Group.

Further reading

1. Hong Kong Polytechnic University . Research and Consultancy,

http://www/polyu.edu.hk/cpa/polyu/research/prof.htm
2. ILO/JIL Network of National Institutes for Labour Studies in Asia and the Pacific
(1996). The impact of globalisation on the world of work. Bangkok, Thailand:
ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
3. International Relations Divisions, Srinakharinwirot University, Srinakharinwirot
University , http://www.swu.ac.th
4. International Strategic Technology Alliance (2001). Objectives, http://www.ist-
net.net/e-objecotent/e_objectent.htm
5. Japan Society Promotion of Science (2001). JSPS Newsletter,
http://www.jsps.go.jp/e-newsltr/31/htm
6. Kim, B.-S. The Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies,
http://www.kofst.or.kr/about/about_1.htm
7. Malaysia Ministry for Science Technology and the Environment . undated.
Intensification of research in priority areas. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
8. Ministry of Science Technology and the Environment (1986). The national
science and technology policy. Malaysia: Standards and Industrial Research
Institute of Malaysia.
9. Monbusho (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture) (1999). The
university research system in Japan. JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science).
 10.National University of Singapore, Office of Research . Strategic plan for
research (undated).
11.Neumann, R., & Guthrie, J. (2001). The corporatisation of research in
Australian higher education. CPAJ conference on corporatisation in
universities. Adelaide, Australia: UNISA (forthcoming).
12.OECD Conference (2001). University research management: Learning from
diverse experience. Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University. February.
13.Pacific Islands Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat ,
http://www.forumsec.org.fj/about/spfs.htm
14.Ro, T. Personal Communications and Advices, Yeungnam University, Korea.
15.Seoul National University (2001). Seoul National University—History,
http://www.snu.ackr/engsnu/about/history.htm
16.Teichler, U., & Sadlak, J. (2000). Higher education research: It relationship to
policy and practice. Issues in higher education series, Vol.12. UK: Pergamon.
17.The Academic and Faculty Services Section, the University of Hong Kong ,
The University of Hong Kong, http://www.hku.hk/rss/frame.html
18.The Commission for Higher Education of Papua New Guinea (2001).
Commission for higher education, http://www.dg.com.pg/Che/che.htm
19.The Council of Australia's University Presidents (2000). Our universities: Our
future—an AVCC discussion paper, Australia.
20.The National Research Institute , http://www.nri.org.pg/index.html
21.The National University of Samoa ,
http://www.nus.edu.ws/general/history.html,
http://www.nus.edu.ws/news/26.htm
22.The Task Force on Higher Education and Society (2000). Higher education in
developing countries–peril and promise. World Bank, Washington, USA: The
Task Force on Higher Education and Society.
23.United Nations Statistics Division ,
http://unsd.ics.trieste.it/pmappl/unesco/sld120.htm
24.University Council Report Japan (1998). A vision of universities in the 21st
century and reform measures—to be distinctive universities in a competitive
environment (JSPS Website link).
25.University of Macau (2001). The Mission of University of Macau,
http://www.umac.mo/general/mission.html
26.Wang, Y. K. (2001). University Research Management in South Korea. OECD
conference—university research management: Learning from diverse
experience.
27.Yee, A. H. (1995). East Asian higher education—traditions and transformation.
IAU issues in higher education series, Vol. 4. UK: Pergamon.
28.Yeungnam University (2001). Goal & Mission,
http://www.yeungnam.ac.kr/english/inro/int04.html
29.Yunnan University Kunming PR China (1998). International conference on
university—enterprise linkage. China: Somboon Printing Co. Ltd..

Main navigation
• Journal home
• Current issue
• Archive
 • Catalog entry

• Instructions for authors

• Contact editorial office
• About the journal
• Subscribe
• Contact us
• Sample articles
• Order reprints
• Rights and permissions
• Education Media Pack 2011

Related titles
• International Journal of Educational Advancement
• Journal of Public Health Policy

Palgrave Macmillan Journals

• Home
• For authors
• For institutions
• For librarians
• For personal users
• For advertisers

Palgrave Macmillan Books

• Higher Education

Extra navigation
.

ARTICLE NAVIGATION - FULL TEXT

Previous | Next

• Table of contents
• Download PDF
• Send to a friend
• CrossRef lists 0 article citing this article
• Request Permission
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Research and current trends in knowledge production
 • 3. The contribution of university research to: national R&D activity; national
innovation systems; and public policy formulation
• 4. The state of university–industry cooperation in research
• 5. Research and ethics, including IT and intellectual property issues
• 6. Research as an issue of institutional governance and management
• 7. Assuring research input into teaching and research as part of degree
structure
• 8. Incorporating new research into the undergraduate and postgraduate
curriculum
• 9. Assessing research quality
• 10. Evaluating research quality and research capacity
• 11. Developing research management skills for higher education academic
and administrative staff
• 12. Research integrated/non-integrated
• 13. Regional trends in research funding
• 14. Research cooperation
• 15. Strategies to strengthen the research capacities of universities in the
region
• 16. Conclusion and implications
• References

• Export citation
• Export references

Association resources
• Association home page

ADVERTISEMENT
Top

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on

Publication Ethics.
Higher Education Policy

ISSN: 0952-8733

EISSN: 1740-3863

• About Palgrave Macmillan

• Contact Us
• Legal Notice
• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility Statement
• RSS Web feeds
• Help

Copyright © 2011 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. A company

registered in England and Wales under Company Number: 785998 with its registered office at
Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hants, RG21 6XS, United Kingdom.
Palgrave Macmillan Journals - partner of INASP, JDP, Cross Ref, COUNTER and COPE. View
Partners