Yat Wai Lo-soft Power University Rankins & Knowledge Production

7/29/2019 Yat Wai Lo-soft Power University Rankins & Knowledge Production

1/15

Comparative Education

Vol. 47, No. 2, May 2011, 209222

Soft power, university rankings and knowledge production:distinctions between hegemony and self-determination in highereducation

William Yat Wai Lo*

Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong KongTaylor and FrancisCCED_A_554092.sgm10.1080/03050068.2011.554092Comparative Education0305-0068 (print)/1360-0486 (online)Original Article2011Taylor & Francis0000000002011William Yat [email protected]

The purpose of this article is to analyse the nature of the global hegemonies inhigher education. While anti-colonial thinkers describe the dominance of theWestern paradigm as an oppression of indigenous culture and knowledge and as

neo-colonialism in higher education, their arguments lead to such questions ashow much self-determination do non-Western countries have? On what basis canthe colonised resist the coloniser? To what extent are non-Western nations awareof the Western hegemony? To answer these questions, this article uses the conceptof soft power to interrogate how global hegemonies are manifested in highereducation agendas. With reference to the pursuit of a world-class status inhigher education in East Asia, it discusses how the international inequality inhigher education is viewed from the anti-colonial perspective in the existingliterature. The article then proposes the soft-power perspective as an alternativeway to explain why non-Western countries are willing to follow the Anglo-American paradigm to develop their higher education systems. Extending thisanalysis, the article argues that the emerging global university rankings are

important resources of soft power that have the potential, as a governance tool, toreshape the global higher education landscape.

Introduction

Over two decades ago, Altbach (1987) adopted the centreperiphery model todescribe the global landscape of higher education. He pointed out that academic

resources are unequally distributed in the contemporary world where prominent

higher education institutions in the developed world, mainly referring to Anglo-

American universities, occupy and control most of the means and resources of knowl-

edge production, whereas those in the developing world can only play the role ofconsumer and follower in the global academia. Such an unequal pattern has been

further strengthened under the impacts of globalisation. Some have even argued that

globalisation has caused a convergence trend that merely means a process of re-

colonisation, resulting in reproducing and copying Western practices (Deem, Mok andLucas 2008). Recent studies, however, suggest that nation states still play a determin-

ing role in developing infrastructure and initiatives of higher education. In addition,

the rapid economic growth has brought a tide of massification and of the quest for

world-class excellence in higher education sectors in some newly industrialisednations, such as Japan, China and the four East Asian tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore,

Taiwan and South Korea) (Mok 2010). Building centres in peripheries has become

*Email: [email protected]


2/15

210 W.Y.W. Lo

a common measure adopted by East Asian countries in response to the global compe-

tition in higher education (Altbach and Baln 2007). In this regard, the question howmuch is hegemony and how much is self-determination? is still the focus of discus-

sion in the dialectic of the global and the local (Vaira 2004; Postiglione 2005).

The purpose of this article is to analyse the line between hegemony and self-

determination with special reference to the higher education systems of East Asian

countries. The article delineates and explains the existing anti-colonial perspective onunderstanding the central status of the Anglo-American paradigm in higher education.

It argues that the anti-colonial perspective is inadequate to explain the self-determina-

tion of peripheral nations. Therefore, it proposes an alternative perspective by adopting

the concept of soft power (Nye 2004). While it is suggested that the emerging globaluniversity rankings denote a resource of soft power and a missing link in the transition

between the global and the local, the article considers the potential of global rankings

for reshaping the global higher education landscape.

Perspectives on understanding the empire of knowledge: from oppression to

attraction

The anti-colonial perspective: an oppression

In the recent literature, it has largely been acknowledged that globalisation of highereducation has deeply affected higher education worldwide. While traditional and

national universities are experiencing increasing competitive pressures generated by

the diversified forms of education and intensified cross-border activities, many higher

education systems have incorporated global practices and standards in order to survive

in the globalised environment (Vaira 2004, 491493). Nevertheless, it has been

argued that global scholarship is predominately defined by the West. As Deem, Mokand Lucas (2008, 93) pointed out, in face of the trend of convergence, the quest for

best practices and more advanced systems is interpreted as policy copying through

which non-Western higher education systems, like those of East Asian countries, havebeen strongly influenced by the Anglo-American standards and ideologies.

Analysing such internationalisation experiences through the anti-colonial lens,

globalisation of higher education can be interpreted as a form of neo-colonialism that

maintains the patterns of dependency and reinforces the superiority of Anglo-

American scholarship. In fact, this anti-colonial approach to the globalisation of highereducation helps connect the dynamics brought by the emergence of the knowledge

economy and globalised environment with the inequality between North and South,West and East. In general, analyses based on anti-colonial thoughts argue that while

low-income countries (e.g. countries in sub-Saharan Africa) are further marginalisedin the process of globalisation (Tikly 2001), high-income peripheral nations (e.g. the

four Asian Tigers) are dependent upon Western-based transnational capital and

Western forms of knowledge and innovation despite the fact that they have benefited

from participating in the global economy (OHearn 1999). With regard to educational

research, by the former, commentators focus on the issues of widening inequalitycaused by globalisation (e.g. brain drain), while, by the latter, debate falls for Western

dominance in cultural and scientific spheres (e.g. convergence in higher education).

This article focuses on the latter with reference to the East Asian experience.

Several accounts of neo-colonialism in the global age are useful in formulating anoverview of the anti-colonial perspectives on the development of global higher educa-


3/15

Comparative Education 211

by the US and the UK, has led to the existence of the centreperiphery platform where

universities in the developing world are at a disadvantage in the international networkof knowledge production and distribution, even though they play an essential role in

their own countries (Altbach 1987; Tikly 2004; Marginson and van der Wende 2007a;

Forstorp 2008). Altbach (1987) identifies five elements (namely, the modern university

as a Western tradition, the dominance of English, the uneven allocation of research

capacity, the control over the means of knowledge communication and the brain drain)that the centreperiphery platform is based on. Secondly, in the global era, neo-

colonialism is transnational in nature. According to Harvey (2003, 26), empire in the

post-Second World War period refers to the ways that economic power flows across

and through continuous space, towards or away from territorial entities (such as statesor regional power blocks). This means that the form of power is associated with the

actions and interests of transnational corporations (TNCs), the workings of global finan-

cial markets, the development of new forms of production based on new technologies

and the globalization of the labor market, as Tikly added (2004, 174). This transnational

feature distinguishes this new imperialism from classical colonialism characterisedby country-to-country occupation. The new imperialism on the one hand confirms that

the new world order is premised on Western hegemony and that indirect forms of

the political and cultural predominance of Western societies are exercised through neo-

colonialism (Tikly 2004, 175). On the other hand, it addresses the changing role ofnation-state in a post-national geography (Appadurai 1996, 2003). As Tikly specified

(2004):

dominant global economic interests are to a lesser extent identified with nation states, oreven with elites within nation states, but are increasingly transnationalin their compo-sition (Robinson & Harris, 2000). This emerging class is tied to TNCs and to globalfinancial firms and funds although it is not of a piece and represents competing mercan-tilist interests linked to different sections of global capital, regional trading blocks and

political interests (Hoogvelt, 1997). (Tikly 2004, 176, emphasis in the original)

Thirdly, extending the above account, territorial terrain is replaced by discursive

terrain in the exercises of control and predominance in the global era (Tikly 2004).

Tiklys analysis of discourse about development provides a basis for such an under-

standing of the forms of hegemony in the post-independence settings. As he

explained, key organising concepts in relation to development are Western-based(also see Rist 1997; Tucker 1999). The West therefore is able to dominate the

discourse of development through defining developed and underdeveloped andthrough classifying places as developed regions/countries or underdeveloped ones.

Hence, if non-Western countries want to join the club of developed nations, they arerequested to be civilised. From the anti-colonial perspective, this is equivalent to

Westernised and colonised (Tikly 2004, 180187).

The world-class movement in East Asia

The anti-colonial perspective provides an analytical framework in which the world-

class movement in East Asian higher education can be viewed as a part of moderni-

sation coupled with westernisation and colonisation, along the theme of development.

Despite the unequal pattern of global higher education outlined above, many nationsin peripheries have put great effort into boosting their higher education in quantitative


4/15

212 W.Y.W. Lo

role in national development in the knowledge economy. As noted by Postiglione

(2005), rapid expansion coupled with increased privatisation has brought East Asianhigher education, including that of high-, middle- and low-income countries, onto the

road to massification. More importantly, in addition to quantitative growth, some high-

end/large economies in the region are keen to pursue excellence in quality through

building world-class universities in recent years. For instance, Chinas 211 and 985

projects, Japans Centre of Excellence in the 21st Century (COE21) programme,Taiwans five-yearfifty-billion programme and South Koreas Brain Korea 21

(BK21) are special initiatives imposed by these nations to improve the research capacity

of selected institutions or research units, thereby facilitating them to achieve world-

class status [see Kim and Nam (2007), Liu (2007), Yonezawa (2007) and Lo (2009)for details]. Under these schemes, a number of top universities in the countries are

selected to be awarded a special grant. In return, they are expected to pursue better

performance (e.g. in university rankings) and to promote the notion of world-class

excellence in the higher education sector.

This world-class movement (Mok 2008) is important, not only because it standsfor an enforcement of catch-up strategies in higher education within the context of

global transition toward post-industrial, knowledge-based economy, but also because

it appears that centreperiphery explanation may be losing some explanatory value,

as part of the process of global transition (Postiglione 2005, 211). The pursuit ofworld-class status may eventually generate a number of centres in places conven-

tionally known as peripheries. In this sense, the catch-up strategies of higher education

development can make centreperiphery platforms less relevant or even appeal to this

thesis of a global higher education landscape.

Empirical evidence for this argument includes the increasing use of English in

teaching, the emphasis on conducting research publishable in English publicationoutlets, introducing foreign higher education providers (mainly from the US and the

UK) in the territories, recruiting more overseas staff and students, and adopting mana-

gerial and neo-liberal values and practices in university governance in the region (Chanand Lo 2008). Supporters think that these policies and actions represent adherence to

established paradigms and themes and therefore help enhance education quality and

research capacity in peripheral nations (see, for example, Altbach 2007; Mohrman, Ma

and Baker 2008). They believe that the development of the knowledge production

systems in developing nations can benefit from more active and deeper involvementsin the global academic community through such a process of internationalisation.

Nevertheless, critics believe these reactions to the global trend are Western domi-nation and oppression over indigenous culture and knowledge (Dei 2006). With the

goal of achieving a world-class status, output and quality measures in the West havebeen transplanted to the East in recent years. Yet, the overemphasis on league tables,

citation indexes and performance measures has drawn a great deal of attention and

debate in academic communities in the region. Several issues, such as the dominant

role of English, the declining status of local studies, the emergence of performativity

culture and the negative consequences of role differentiation, have been raised as thenegative impacts of the world-class movement on national higher education systems.

In this regard, Deem, Mok and Lucas (2008, 93) argue that the world-class move-

ment has created a new dependency culture reinforcing the American-dominated

hegemony. Under such a hegemonic influence, many Asian countries have adoptedWesternisation or Americanisation as the strategies for internationalising their higher


5/15


Who is colonising who?

The previous section has empirically demonstrated the correlation between the world-

class movement and neo-colonialism in higher education. The process of deterritori-

alisation then is considered as the means conceptually explaining the nature of dominant

interests in the post-independence period by connecting two key concepts, global andcolonial.

Tikly used the rationalities and programmes of the World Bank as an example to

prove that Western hegemony functions as a discursive terrain through the transla-

tional governance framework of development agencies. Using Foucaults theory, hepointed out that this form of power and oppression is disciplinary rather than political

rationales (Tikly 2004). This strand of the convergence thesis on globalisation is

important in terms of providing the possible way to respond to the question who is

colonising who? in the post-independence period (cf. Forstorp 2008).However, there is an opposed interpretation concerning globalisation, i.e. the

divergence thesis or the concept of reterritorialisation. While the former reasserts the

importance of the nation-state through emphasising localisation of and local responses

to global trends (Vaira 2004), the latter addresses the role of states as arbiters of vari-

ous forms of global flow (Appadurai 1996). Applying these concepts to East Asia, itis recognised that owing to specific historical circumstances, states in the region, as

developmental states, remain strong in terms of driving the countries towards becom-

ing developed [see Green (2007) for details]. Reasserting the role of the state in

governance not only brings the state back in the globalisation discourse, but also leadsto questions like on what basis can the colonised resist the coloniser? and to what

extent are peripheral nations aware of the Western hegemony? in the anti-colonial

discourse. In other words, the anti-colonial perspective on global higher education is

useful in highlighting the dominance of the Western paradigm, but is inadequate toexplain the self-determination of peripheral nations. It is argued that the core issuehere is the nature of the Western hegemony and that the concept of soft power is a

possible answer.

The soft-power perspective: an attraction

In previous discussions, neo-colonialism has been adopted to interpret the centre

periphery platforms of global higher education. This section, however, argues that the

concept of soft power developed by Nye (2004) is an alternative to deconstruct the

dominance of the Western paradigm.Soft power is a popular term that is increasingly used in international politics.

Nye (2004, 5) defined soft power as the power of getting others to want the outcomes

that you want through co-opting people rather than coercing them. He pointed out that

soft power is not merely the same as influence it is also the ability to attract, andattraction often leads to acquiescence (2004, 6). Based on this concept, he developed

a spectrum of power in which behaviours range along from command that enacts hard

(commanding) power at one end to co-option that enacts soft (co-optive) power at the

other, and corresponding behaviours/sources (see Figure 1) (Nye 2004, 78).Figure 1. Power.Source: Nye (2004, 8).

There is an awareness of the relations between soft power and higher education

in the existing literature. For example, Nye (2005) himself suggested that Americanhigher education is an important resource to enhance the USs soft power in interna-


6/15

214 W.Y.W. Lo

authors projecting Americas and other countries soft power (see, for example,

Yang 2007; NSB 2008; Yasushi and McConnell 2008). The focus of these authors is

on how higher education can be taken as a national asset in order to expand individ-

ual countries influence through winning hearts and minds. Yet, instead of acountry-to-country approach, this article uses the typology of power in Nyes theory

to deconstruct the discursive basis of global governmentality, thereby developing a

soft-power perspective on understanding the Western hegemony in higher education.

Different to the anti-colonial analysis, in which the Western dominance is viewedas an oppression of indigenous culture and knowledge, the soft-power perspective

considers the central or world-class status of the universities in the West as an attrac-

tion for peripheral nations. On the basis of this analysis, the forms of power in higher

education range along a continuum (Figure 2).Figure 2. Power in higher education.Source: developed by the author based on Nye (2004, 8).

In Figure 2, the world-class image originated from the Anglo-American paradigm

represents a resource producing co-optive power in higher education. Given theincreasing competition between higher education systems in the globalised environ-

ment, many countries, like some in East Asia, are attracted by such a world-class

image and therefore are reshaping their higher education sectors by learning or evencopying the Western-based world-class model (Deem, Mok and Lucas 2008). While

we have witnessed the emerging quest for world-class status across the globe (Altbach

and Baln 2007; Huisman 2008), this form of soft power is viewed as an attractiveness

generating impacts on a global scale.

Figure 1. Power.Source: Nye (2004, 8).

Figure 2. Power in higher education.


7/15


Meanwhile, higher education policy of individual nations is seen as a form of hard

power within national borders (left panel of Figure 2). Although universities, espe-cially the national top ones, may have some bargaining power in their relation with the

government, universities can offer little resistance to government policies in general

terms. In East Asia, for example, those countries conventionally with a strong state

and/or a large public higher education, like China and Singapore, are more likely to

use sticks (threats), while in those countries with a strong civic society and/or a largeprivate higher education, like Taiwan and South Korea, carrots (inducements) are

more common in upholding government policies. And, in the reforms for driving

towards world-class status, it is suggested that the policies of role differentiation and

of concentration of funding provide the functions of coercion and inducement, respec-tively (Altbach 2007). In this sense, policies, as the direct way to get what the govern-

ment wants, in the politics of education can be viewed as the exercise of hard power

in accordance with Nyes classification.

Based on the above account of the spectrum of power in higher education, national

borders denote a line between hegemony and self-determination. Yet, if we confirmthat national governments are self-determining within their national borders, does it

mean that they are autonomous to decide whether or not they should pursue a world-

class image? The recent literature tends to agree that there are autonomous states.

Postiglione (2005) for example has argued that states are the buffer, in key areas,between institutions of higher education, especially flagship universities, and the

wider global environment despite that there is general agreement about the minimal

role of the nation state (2005, 220); that though some states aim to limit their role to

a macro-monitoring type, more traditional demands continue, especially on flagship

institutions (2005, 221). Green (2007, 23) also said,

at a time when globalization theory predicted the demise of the national economy andthe waning of national identity, East Asian growth was driven, above all, by the devel-opmental state, with strong and interventionist Governments often successfully supportingnational neo-merchantilist economic policies and strong state identities.

This article does not intend to appeal to this transformationalist approach to globali-

sation. Nevertheless, it addresses the importance of the emerging global university

rankings in the dialectic of the global and the local.

It is argued that global university rankings provide the function of institutions

along Nyes spectrum of resources of power (right panel of Figure 2). Taking global

university rankings as a missing link in the transition from hard power to soft powerand between the global and the local, the continuum demonstrates how hegemony

and self-determination work within their own scope of influences respectively but

interactively. Indeed, taking two principal global university rankings, the researchrankings prepared by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the composite rankings

from the Times Higher Education Supplement, as examples, recent studies have

reported that criteria used in these systems of university comparison have become

important considerations in the making of higher education policy and university

governance (see, for example, Marginson and van der Wende 2007b; Hazelkorn2008). For instance, Taiwan and Malaysia clearly state that they aim to develop one

of their universities to reach the worlds top 100 universities within a given period oftime. Japan, China and South Korea have provided special grants for selected univer-

iti t i th i f i l b l i it ki (Ch d L 2008)


8/15

216 W.Y.W. Lo

Based on these observations, global university rankings are interpreted as a mecha-

nism of agenda setting in the global knowledge economy. It provides a much morestructured form of soft power that significantly influences the behaviours of individ-

ual higher education systems and institutions. In turn, it is argued that states do not

have much space to determine their own ways because of the need to follow the

agenda (e.g. rankings) set by the external parties within the globalised environment

(Marginson 2008).It is important to note that the exercise of soft and hard power is not in a linear (i.e.

globalnationinstitution) manner, though the continuum is presented in that way in

the diagram. Instead, it is suggested that power relations in higher education, as

illustrated in Figure 3, are of a networked form in which individual higher educationinstitutions are influenced by soft (global) and hard (national) power simultaneously.Figure 3. Power relations in global higher education.Source: drawn by the author.

As shown in Figure 3, the paradigm is formulated based on the world-class image

generating soft power over states and higher education institutions globally. This

impact of paradigm formulation on individual higher education systems is the devel-

opment of policies and reforms in relation to building a world-class universitymentioned earlier, and that on individual higher education institutions is the changing

university governance and the related transformation of organisational culture and

behaviours. At the same time, those policies and reforms at the systemic level exercise

hard power over higher education institutions and enforce the new modes of highereducation governance in the territories. This illustration of power in higher education

is in line with the concept of multilateral governance that further specifies the

changing role of states in the globalised settings (Castells 2000).

Actualising soft power: a new hopeAlthough the two perspectives provide different explanations of the nature of the

central status of the West, both of them agree on the existence of a powerful Western

hegemony in higher education. Thus, they share a common view on the unequalpattern of international higher education. However, the foundational difference

between the two perspectives is about the position of the non-West, peripheral nations.

From the anti-colonial perspective, the dominance of the Anglo-American paradigm

generates a political and cultural situation that serves as the way to maintain and legit-

Figure 3. Power relations in global higher education.


9/15


imise Western dominance and privilege (Hickling-Hudson, Matthews and Woods

2004). Hence, its nature is oppressive. This means that the societies that are known asperipheries arepassive in the relationship and communication with the centres.

Nevertheless, from the soft-power perspective, the Western image is presented as

an icon of the world-class status. Then, the strong intention to copy the Western,

American-dominated paradigm is understood as the national strategies for catching up

with the world-class standards. They copy because they think the Western model isattractive. In this sense, peripheral states areproactive in directing their higher educa-

tion systems, even though they are limited by the externally-generated requirements.

In light of this analysis, the use of university rankings can be understood in three

ways. Firstly, university ranking can be adopted as a governing tool. Marginsonsanalysis of the Chinese use of university rankings provides a good elaboration of how

the national will can direct higher education systems in the global environment. He

pointed out that the Jiao Tong index has not favoured Chinas universities despite its

nationally-funded background. Instead, it exactly demonstrates where the Chinese

universities stand because the Chinese government needs to know the capacity ofresearch and development of the Chinese knowledge production sector precisely so as

to guide the nation transiting from the labour-intensive, medium technology manufac-

turing economy to the knowledge-intensive, high-tech economy. In this respect, the

Jiao Tong data collection serves as a mechanism that monitors the existing gap inresearch capacity between Chinas universities and their counterparts in the Western

world in accordance with the benchmark of the American comprehensive research-

intensive science university. This explanation also largely reflects why Taiwan devel-

oped a merely research-, publication-oriented ranking, when it decided to establish its

own league table (Marginson 2009, 2324).1 This analysis is along the same lines as

the globalists argument. It points out that higher education governance in China aswell as Taiwan is increasingly subject to new external standards of measurement. To

streamline their internal governance procedures, the two Chinese regimes have devel-

oped their own ranking systems (the Jiao Tong ranking in China and the HEEACTranking in Taiwan) to guide and monitor the development of their higher education

systems. In this regard, university rankings are used by these two regimes as govern-

ing technologies for aligning the architecture of and advancing the competitiveness of

their university sectors (Mok 2010).

Secondly, in addition to the impact on governance of individual higher educationsystems, we should be aware of the potential use of global university rankings as a

mechanism of agenda setting in global higher education, if we admit to the analysis ofglobal university rankings as a resource of soft power in the previous section. It is

suggested that the ranking, as a mechanism of producing status and reputation, can beused as a resource to expand Chinas influence over other higher education systems

through reviewing the criteria used in the league table. It is obvious that the Jiao Tong

group is not free in setting the criteria and indicators used in the Jiao Tong index (Liu

and Cheng 2005); but, if we agree that the central status of the American university

system is connected with Pax Americana, it is possible that the rise of China willbring a relaxation of the Western preconception in global higher education and

adding non-Western elements in the Jiao Tong index will be a possible measure to

balance Western dominance in the future.

With regard to global university ranking as a mechanism of soft power projection,Marginsons analysis ofThe Times ranking shows how ranking has been used as a

2


10/15

218 W.Y.W. Lo

way that he describes the league table published by The Times vividly shows the

connection between The Times index and Pax Britannica heritage. In fact, the index isheavily grounded on a reputation survey, in which responses are gathered mainly from

the UK and the former British colonies. This means that the methods tend to favour

the UK universities. In turn, The Times ranking has successfully reduced the American

global dominance and sustained the UKs core role in the imperial global geo-politics

of knowledge (Marginson 2009, 2527). Marginsons analysis reminds us about theimportance of national interest in the geo-politics of knowledge. It demonstrates that

the US and its allies (i.e. the UK here) can be competitors, whilst we often generalise

the Western dominance as a hegemonic bloc constituted by the US and the UK. In

fact, in the competitive global higher education market, the two countries do not sharemany common interests on this front. Instead, competition between higher education

systems for students and other resources has dominated the discourse of the new world

order in higher education. The Times ranking then is seen as a successful story of how

ranking is used as a tool for actualising soft power to promote national interest in

higher education.Thirdly, in light of the concepts of regionalisation and regionalism, it is argued that

global university ranking can be used as a zoning technology intensifying cross-border

networks and integration in higher education in East Asia. The regionalisation of

higher education in Europe, characterised by the Lisbon strategy and the Bolognaprocess, has set an example of how the development of Europe as a region has raised

and improved the status and visibility of its higher education sectors globally (Dale

2008). Therefore, we should pay attention to the implications of the emerging ranking

systems run by China and Taiwan for other higher education sectors in the region. In

fact, these two Chinese regimes have developed their own citation indices in social

sciences [namely, Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) and Taiwan SocialSciences Citation Index (TSSCI)]. We can see the possibility of regionalisation of

higher education in Chinese-speaking countries and territories, if these Chinese indi-

ces are used in their own university ranking systems. The point of extra regionalmade by Robertson (2010) further suggests that the extension of the Chinese univer-

sity ranking systems and indices may not be limited in the region, given the increasing

mobility of academics and students, the popularity of learning Chinese language and

the growth of Chinese communities in other countries and regions. In this sense, the

processes of regionalisation and globalisation of higher education may provide a newplatform for normative leadership by China.

While the existing literature argues that global university rankings reinforce theWestern hegemony in higher education (see, for example, Altbach 2006; Hazelkorn

2008; Marginson 2009),3 the above analyses have underlined the potential use ofglobal university rankings for reducing the Western dominance in knowledge produc-

tion. From an anti-colonial perspective, we hope that diversification of metrics can

contribute to reducing or even eliminating dominance in knowledge production.

However, returning to the soft power thesis, the extension of a ranking is dependent

on its attractiveness. In this respect, the discipline of a ranking is influential only if itis underpinned by an attractive value, culture or paradigm. Furthermore, as examined,

the global university rankings are largely founded on the national interests. In the case

of the Jiao Tong ranking, the project was carried out for our academic interests, with

potential impact on the strategic planning of Chinese universities, as Liu (2009, 2), aprincipal member of the Jiao Tong group, said. In this sense, the end of the Western


11/15


of a new hegemony. Nevertheless, the above account of global university rankings

provides a post-colonial approach to addressing the importance of ranking as anemerging information and possible governance tool in the globalised and marketised

world. It reminds us that it is worth exposing the possibility of designing a culturally

and politically neutral global university ranking system in order to achieve diversity

in higher education.

Conclusion: departing from anti-colonialism?

Though this article proposes the soft-power perspective as an alternative to the anti-colonial perspective, it is recognised that both the two perspectives are founded on an

anti-colonial conception in a deeper sense. It is obvious that the anti-colonial perspec-

tive is characterised with anti-imperial and anti-colonial features. However, if we

acknowledge Tiklys analysis of the concept of development, the soft-powerperspective may not be that far from the anti-colonial position. Quoting Tikly (2004)

once again:

development is a central organizing principle of the entire Western episteme includ-ing the discourses of anti-colonial activists who have, given the hegemonic nature of thedevelopment discourse, largely been obliged to struggle within its discursive boundaries whereas development had in the past been a natural phenomenon, in the new hege-monic worldview, development took on a transitive meaning, that is, it became some-thing that could be performed by one actor or region over another actor or region. (2004,181, emphasis in the original)

In light of this discursive expression of development, the notion of attraction in the

soft-power thesis is on the basis of the Western definition of development. The EastAsian countries think the image of a world-class university is attractive because they

position themselves as less developed. In this sense, the soft-power perceptive proba-

bly has moved forward from an enduring feature of the anti-colonial thought embed-

ded in an international inequality between North and South, West and East, white and

coloured, but it does not depart from the inequality between developed and under-developed manifested in the Western discourse.

While this article commits to anti-colonial thought, it has proposed an alluring

prospect that makes a contribution to the discussion on colonialism and education. By

forming a spectrum along which behaviours range from role differentiation to funding

to global university rankings to the world-class image, this article gives a new mean-ing to global university rankings with which an institution is provided to uphold the

Western hegemony without undermining the self-determination of the non-Western

countries. In this regard, it leads us to rethink the winner-take-all competition in the

global, post-colonial era through underlining the potential importance of globaluniversity rankings. While quality, excellence and world class have become the

keywords in the present discussion, new keywords, like diversity and equality, are

added into the future discussion of global university rankings.

AcknowledgementsI am grateful to Anthony Welch for his helpful and incisive comments on an earlier draft ofthis article. I express my sincere gratitude to Ian Holliday for his encouragement and support.


12/15

220 W.Y.W. Lo

originally submitted to the journal. Notwithstanding all these generous assistances, any errorsand omissions are entirely my own.

Notes

1. The Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities is a ranking systemdeveloped by the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan(HEEACT) reflecting universities performance in terms of their research output.

2. Different to the Jiao Tong ranking which is a nationally-supported project, The Times rank-ing is privately funded. National project here refers to its strong preference for the UKuniversities.

3. Marginson (2009) provides a two-sided analysis in which the Jiao Tong ranking, as heargues, shows an intention to build a new structure of university authority by using a non-

biased research-count method on the one hand; and reinstalls the old structure byreconfirming the privileged status of the American universities on the other.

Notes on contributorWilliam Lo is an instructor in the Department of Applied Social Sciences at The Hong KongPolytechnic University. He has worked as a researcher in Hong Kong and Britain. His mainresearch interests include education policies and reforms in East Asia, and the impacts ofglobalisation on education. His recent research focuses on the implications of global universityrankings for higher education.

References

Altbach, P.G. 1987. Higher education in the third world: Themes and variation. New Delhi:Sangam Books.

Altbach, P.G. 2006. The dilemmas of ranking. International Higher Education 42 (Winter):

23.Altbach, P.G. 2007. Empires of knowledge and development. In World class worldwide:

Transforming research universities in Asia and Latin America, ed. P.G. Altbach and J.Baln, 130. Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Altbach, P.G., and J. Baln, eds. 2007. World class worldwide: Transforming researchuniversities in Asia and Latin America. Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Appadurai, A. 1996. Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. MinneapolisMN: University of Minnesota Press.

Appadurai, A. 2003. Sovereignty without territoriality: Notes for a postnational geography.In The anthropology of space and place: Locating culture, ed. S.M.L. Low and D.Lawrence-Ziga, 337347. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Castells, M. 2000. The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Chan, D., and W. Lo. 2008. University restructuring in East Asia: Trends, challenges andprospects. Policy Futures in Education 6, no. 5: 641652.

Dale, R. 2008. Changing meanings of the Europe of knowledge and modernizing theuniversity, from Bologna to the new Lisbon. European Educational Research Journal39, no. 4: 2742.

Deem, R., K.H. Mok, and L. Lucas. 2008. Transforming higher education in whose image?Exploring the concept of the world-class university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education

Policy 21, no. 3: 8397.Dei, G.J.S. 2006. Introduction: Mapping the terrain towards a new politics of resistance. In

Anti-colonialism and education: The politics of resistance, ed. G.J.S. Dei and A. Kempf,123. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Forstorp, P.-A. 2008. Whos colonizing who? The knowledge society thesis and the global

challenges in higher education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 27, no. 4: 227236.Green, A. 2007. Globalisation and the changing nature of the state in East Asia. Globalisation,

Societies and Education 5 no 1: 23 38


13/15


Harvey, D. 2003. The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hazelkorn, E. 2008. Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of

institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy 21, no. 2: 193215.Hickling-Hudson, A., J. Matthews, and A. Woods. 2004. Education, postcolonialism and

disruptions. In Disrupting preconceptions: Postcolonialism and education, ed. A. Hickling-Hudson, J. Matthews and A. Woods, 116. Flaxton: Post Pressed.

Huisman, J. 2008. World-class universities. Higher Education Policy 21, no. 3: 14.Kim, K.S., and S. Nam. 2007. The making of a world-class university at the periphery: Seoul

national university. In World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asiaand Latin America, ed. P.G. Altbach and J. Baln, 122142. Baltimore MD: The JohnsHopkins University Press.

Liu, N.C. 2007. Research universities in china: Differentiation, classification and futureworld-class status. In World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asiaand Latin America, ed. P.G. Altbach and J. Baln, 5470. Baltimore MD: The JohnsHopkins University Press.

Liu, N.C. 2009. The story of academic rankings. International Higher Education 54 (Winter):23.

Liu, N.C., and Y. Cheng. 2005. The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education

in Europe 30, no. 2: 127136.Lo, W.Y.W. 2009. Reflections on internationalisation of higher education in Taiwan:

Perspectives and prospects. Higher Education 58, no. 6: 733745.Marginson, S. 2008. A funny thing happened on the way to the k-economy: The new world

order in higher education: Research rankings, outcomes measures and institutional classi-fications. Paper presented at the IMHE General Conference, City, 810 September.

Marginson, S. 2009. Open source knowledge and university rankings. Thesis Eleven 96: 939.Marginson, S., and M. Van Der Wende. 2007a. Globalisation and higher education. OECD

Education Working Paper No. 8. Paris: OECD.Marginson, S., and M. Van Der Wende. 2007b. To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global

rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education 11, no. 3/4:306329.

Mohrman, K., W. Ma, and D. Baker. 2008. The research university in transition: Theemerging global model. Higher Education Policy 21, no. 3: 527.

Mok, K.H. 2008. University restructuring experiences in Asia: Myth and reality. PolicyFutures in Education 6, no. 5: 528531.

Mok, K.H. 2010. Emerging regulatory regionalism in university governance: A comparativestudy of China and Taiwan. Globalisation, Societies and Education 8, no. 1: 87103.

Mok, K.H., ed. 2010. The search for new governance in higher education in Asia. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.

NSB. 2008. Science and engineering indicators 2008. Arlington, VA: National ScienceFoundation.

Nye, J. 2004. Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.Nye, J. 2005. Higher education and soft power. In Forum futures 2005, 1114. Cambridge

MA: Educause.OHearn, D. 1999. Tigers and transnational corporations: Pathways from the periphery? In:Critical development theory: Contributions to a new paradigm, ed. R. Munck and D.OHearn, 113134. London: Zed Books.

Postiglione, G.A. 2005. Questioning centreperiphery platforms. Asia Pacific Journal ofEducation 25, no. 2: 209225.

Rist, G. 1997. The history of development: From western origins to global faith. London: ZedBooks.

Robertson, S.L. 2010. The EU, regulatory state regionalism and new modes of highereducation governance. Globalisation, Societies and Education 8, no. 1: 2337.

Tikly, L. 2001. Globalisation and education in the postcolonial world: Towards a conceptualframework. Comparative Education 37, no. 2: 151171.

Tikly, L. 2004. Education and the new imperialism. Comparative Education 40, no. 2: 173198.

Tucker, V. 1999. The myth of development: A critique of a Eurocentric discourse. In:Critical development theory: Contributions to a new paradigm, ed. R. Munck and D.OHearn 1 26 London: Zed Books


14/15

222 W.Y.W. Lo

Vaira, M. 2004. Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework foranalysis. Higher Education 48, no. 4: 483510.

Yang, R. 2007. Chinas soft power projection. International Higher Education 46(Winter):2425.

Yasushi, W., and D.L. McConnell, eds. 2008. Soft power superpowers: Cultural and nationalassets of Japan and the United States. Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Yonezawa, A. 2007. Japanese flagship universities at a crossroads. Higher Education 54,no. 4: 483499.


15/15

Copyright of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed

to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,

users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Yat Wai Lo-soft Power University Rankins & Knowledge Production

Documents

Transcript of Yat Wai Lo-soft Power University Rankins & Knowledge Production