This title is printed to order. This book may have been self-published. If so, we cannot guarantee the quality of the content. In the main most books will have gone through the editing process however some may not. We therefore suggest that you be aware of this before ordering this book. If in doubt check either the author or publisher’s details as we are unable to accept any returns unless they are faulty. Please contact us if you have any questions.
In an era of globalization, internationalization of higher education (IHE) has been constructed as an almost inevitable trend and has become a common pursuit of many nations in their higher education (HE) policies. This book focuses on two nations, China and Australia, in terms of this trend. The broadest aim of this book was to find out the interactive relationships between global and national pressures in policy development by comparing the international HE policies in China and Australia. The three categories, overarching meta-policies at the macrolevel (nation), institution focused policies at the mesolevel (universities), and people focused policies at the microlevel (individuals) are documented and analyzed. Similarities and differences are identified. Similarities include promoting and deepening IHE as one important agenda in national policies at the macrolevel in the two nations, promoting transnational cooperation in the provision of HE at the mesolevel, as well as increasing international student numbers and encouraging an outflow of student learning and exchanges at the microlevel. Differences include China’s soft power initiatives and Australia’s appeal for the sustainability of international HE as a national priority in the area of IHE at the macrolevel; the focus on World Class Universities construction in China and strengthening the overall HE system in Australia; and different issues in relation to people mobility and brain circulation-specifically, encouraging more outflow of students and attracting more inflow of talents and international students in China, and over-reliance on international students financially in Australia. It is suggested that different responses to the global trends reflect the specificities of each nation and the ways path-dependent factors mediate global pressures. This comparison will facilitate a better understanding of how globalization has affected and been responded to in IHE policies and enable a better understanding of their path-dependent mediation through a focus on two specific sets of national policies.
