Mapping the Discursive Terrain: Part 1157979/n05chapter4.pdf · Chapter 4 Mapping the Discursive Terrain: Part 1 99 access to resources preferably reinforced by national budget allocations

95

Chapter 4

Mapping the DiscursiveTerrain: Part 1

4.1 Introduction

Together with Chapter Five, which examines international education in Britain and the United

States, this chapter on the Australian terrain of international education, provides the

discursive background from which to situate the micropractices of promotion which will form

the basis of the Chapters Seven, Eight and Nine. I explore the different meanings surrounding

international education by analysing Australian public discourses, which I take to be policy,

academic and media texts. I examine the different interpretations of international education

made by each of these texts – the public ‘truths’ they produce and circulate about international

eduction and international students. These ‘truths’ provide the discursive grounding from

which to understand how the power relations which inform international education, are

associated with contemporary processes of globalisation. More specifically, I examine how

nation-state instrumentalities are interpreting and negotiating the myriad forces and

processes of globalisation, through their international education policies and practices. These

public truths also provide a grid against which to re-imagine how international education

may be reconfigured to ‘fit’ with a more globalised world, a topic that I discuss in the final

chapter of this thesis.

In a globalising environment, national dimensions of higher education are frequently

referenced against global trends, indicators and benchmarks. Governments frequently invoke

‘globalisation’ and ‘international competition’ as the rationale for their selective borrowing of

policy initiatives. So too do universities and educational brokers, both of which routinely

undertake research to inquire into the marketing innovations of international competitors. In

the previous chapter I noted that globalisation is conceptually contested and that different

discourses accord different emphases to the material, cognitive and socio-temporal

dimensions of globalisation. Globalization thus presents the possibilities of several types of

Chapter 4 Mapping the Discursive Terrain: Part 1

96

engagements with other national contexts, ostensibly both superficial and deep (Marginson

and Mollis, 2000, p. 53). Making international comparisons to establish potentially useful

borrowings, requires in the first instance, ‘a situated’ understanding of policy, that is, an

understanding of the conditions of emergence and existence of policies in their different

national contexts.

The language within policy statements, the meanings they communicate and the knowledge

they constitute, are indicative of what is ‘sayable’ in the terrain of government. Policies are

part of an ‘intellectual machinery’. They link the concerns of government and institutional

practices with the individual behaviours of the worker-subject (see Rose, 1993, p. 289, also

Marginson, 1997b, xiii). As I explained in Chapter Two, effective governance in globalised

times requires mobilizing the productive imperatives of capillary power. In other words,

individuals are encouraged to employ particular technologies of self, so that they will

self-steer towards particular subject positions. Similarly, in institutional settings policy

discourses are central to understanding the exercise of influence and power. They embody

meaning by shaping what can and cannot be said and done; who can speak, with what

authority and under what circumstances. Thus, “policies create circumstances in which the

range of options available in deciding what to do, are narrowed or changed” (Ball, 1994, p. 12).

Describing policy making as “a process of bricolage” and policies as “ramshackle,

compromise and hit and miss affairs”, Ball (1998, p. 126), alerts us to the power relations

underpinning policy production and dissemination. Within the context of higher education,

policies have a role not only in producing and sustaining institutional practices, but also in

constituting the subjectivities of staff and students.

However, policy discourses are not the sole sources of meaning and knowledge about

international education. Academic discourses, what is sayable in discussion papers, research

papers and conference proceedings also shape knowledges about international education.

Academic texts are powerful instruments in shaping academic ‘realities’ including academic

subjectivities and ‘academic commonsense’ about international students and

internationalisation. They also have the potential to influence the experiences that

international students have at universities.

Along with policy and academic texts, media discourses about international students and

international education also shape the meanings we attribute to ‘international education’.

Media discourses offer valuable insights into how power is embodied in, and through, people

and institutions. They are part of what Law and Hetherington (2000, pp. 35-36) describe as

‘networks of heterogeneous materialities’, ‘things’ which collectively define the complex

social world surrounding the production and consumption of international education. Media

discourses are also useful in highlighting any competing discourses which may influence

what is visible and sayable about international education.

This chapter does not seek to undertake an exhaustive analysis of key Australian higher

education policies. Such a herculean task clearly exceeds the scope of this thesis, which is


97

concerned with the micropractices of promotion used by the six universities featured in this

study. Instead, this chapter offers a selective snapshot of the key policy developments in

Australia which have influenced the policies and practices of internationalisation. Similarly, I

do not undertake an exhaustive analysis of all the public discourses which constitute the field

that is ‘international education’. In keeping with archaeology, my concern is not with issues

of ‘representative-ness’ but with mapping ‘what is visible and sayable’. This allows me to limit

my analysis to particular policies, media texts and academic papers.

This chapter first, describes and analyses selective supranational and national policies that

have shaped the discursive field that is ‘international education’ in Australia. It identifies

defining themes, issues and rationales, that is, the visible ‘objects’ of discourse, and their fields

of emergence. It also identifies the key authorities responsible for legitimising particular

interpretations and expressions of internationalisation. Second, it examines academic and

media discourses which comment on international education and international students.

Together, these public discourses (policy, academic and media), their fields of emergence and

the authoritative bodies which institutionalise them, establish the basis for identifying the

power/knowledge constellations underpinning international education.

Given that all three producer countries that are the focus of my study are members of the

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and especially given its

role in shaping the internationalisation agenda in higher education, the next section describes

the OECD’s contribution to the internationalisation debates. Using archaeology, I examine

statements from key OECD monographs on internationalisation to reveal the types of subject

positions produced and sustained by its interpretations of internationalisation.

4.2 The OECD and Internationalisation

Established as an international think-tank in 1961, the OECD’s declared aims are to contribute

to the world-wide development of market economies, multilateral world trade, and pluralistic

democracies (Henry, Lingard, Rizvi and Taylor, 2001, p.8). Since its inception, the OECD has

provided an extensive commentary on the financing and governance of the public sectors of

its various member countries, including the higher education sector, whose role the OECD

sees as critical in supporting the development of a global capitalist economy. Its diverse

membership expresses itself in ideologically variable approaches to education policy. A

largely European social democratic strand coexists with a neoliberal Anglo-American

membership (Lingard, 1997; Henry et al., 2001, pp. 8-9).

Henry et al. (2001) have provided an authoritative and detailed account of how the OECD

functions not just as a forum for discussion of ideas, but also as a policy actor. It actively steers

the production of policy through a series of discursive interventions, and in this regard, it acts

as “an agent of anticipatory convergence” (p. 128). The writing and language in OECD reports

is instructive and illustrative of a ‘degree zero’ style. Although appearing ‘objective’, general,

and impartial, it is a style that allows for the surreptitious inclusion of normative


98

interpretations and stances, which represent the OECD’s ideological position (ibid, p. 14, 145).

The OECD’s discursive interventions in the internationalisation debates did more than simply

report on and describe the discussions between its members. Through a series of discursive

manoeuvres, it occluded the ambivalences and differences between its numerous

stakeholders, and arrived at a normative definition which effectively grafted the

internationalisation agenda to a restrictive definition of globalisation. The OECD took the

ostensible position that the diversity of meanings and interpretations of internationalisation

“may lead to a weakened overall sense of legitimacy and impact” (Knight and de Wit, 1995, p.

28). It was against this backdrop, that the OECD arrived at following definition of

internationalisation:

..the process of integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the teaching,

research and service of an institution (ibid, p. 15)

International curricula was defined as:

Curricula with an international orientation in content, aimed at preparing students for

performing (professionally/socially) in an international and multicultural context and

designed for domestic students as well as foreign students (ibid).

Both these definitions were sufficiently general to appear to accommodate the divergent

perspectives held on internationalisation by OECD stakeholders. A close reading of both

definitions reveals the ambiguity surrounded the agent responsible for driving the ‘process of

integrating an international/intercultural dimension into the functions of universities. Would

it be the state? Or the ‘market’? Clients? Funding authorities? Also occluded are the power/

knowledge configurations underpinning what constitutes ‘curricula with an international

orientation’.

European member states had interpreted internationalisation as a set of processes aimed at

increasing staff and student mobility. Conscious of the significant diversity within their

systems – the Humboldtian and Napoleonic traditions in Northern and Southern Europe,

together with the very significant educational diversity in Central and Eastern Europe –

European stakeholders did not seek a singular definition of internationalisation, nor a

standard evaluative framework to inform and monitor institutional processes of

internationalization. The ensuing OECD monographs on the other hand, called for a “mobility

of ideas” and methodologies to monitor the mobility of ideas and programmes (de Wit, 1995,

p. 2). The implicit assumption here was that the mobility of ideas would occur by natural

osmosis, undeterred by relations of power.

The OECD acknowledged that the consensus on internationalisation held by member states

was frail, and furthermore, that its progress could be unsettled by “isolationism, racism and

monoculturalism” (Knight and de Wit, 1995, p. 29). However, it did not offer any suggestions

on keeping these developments at bay, aside from highlighting the importance of sponsoring

research into internationalisation. The report endorsed a systemic approach to the task of

internationalisation, identifying strong and innovative leadership, staff involvement and


99

access to resources preferably reinforced by national budget allocations. It said little about

how these outcomes were to be achieved in light of the fiscal restraints facing universities (de

Wit, 1995, pp. 25-29, see also Kameoka, 1996, p. 36).

After a detailed analysis of reports, guidelines and case studies, Henry and her colleagues

concluded that the OECD’s preferred definition of internationalisation expressed its

ideological commitment to market liberalism (neoliberalism). Although both economic and

cultural dimensions of internationalisation had been acknowledged, the OECD’s rationale for

internationalisation was expressed in terms of credentializing graduates with the

instrumental skills to work in an economy without borders (Knight and de Wit, 1995, pp.

13-14). It was this philosophy which were subsequently adopted by the Australian

Vice-Chancellor’s Committee (AVCC) (Henry et al., 2001, p. 147).

A series of case studies published by the OECD sought to describe ‘best practice’ in

internationalisation. They are part of a discursive ensemble which normalized

internationalisation and as such are worth analysing. I will restrict my comments to the

Australian case study which was based on an institutional audit of internationalisation

strategies in place in Australian universities. First, the choice of researcher merits some

comment. The audit was conducted by IDP Education and financed by the Department of

Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). IDP functions as a ‘broker’ of

international educational services. It promotes and recruits international students for

Australian universities, manages international development projects and conducts market

research on a fee for service basis for public and private sector institutions (IDP, 2002).

Based on this institutional audit, Australia’s internationalisation policy was lauded as highly

successful and some 1011 internationalisation initiatives were noted to be in place in

Australian universities. A close reading of the Australian audit however, reveals that it did not

formally sample the opinions of international students. This is a significant omission given the

dominance of the international education export industry in Australian expressions of

international education. By contrast, interviews with university staff were largely

concentrated at the senior levels (Vice-Chancellors, Pro-Vice Chancellors, Deans, Heads of

International Offices and Departments). In another publication, the authors acknowledged

that their study did not evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of university

internationalisation strategies, arguing that this was not part of the terms of reference, a

curious omission given the study’s intention to document best practice (see Back, Davis and

Olsen, 1996, p. 108). A significant and powerful exclusion is also mirrored in the study’s failure

to state the audit’s methodological limitations in the OECD reports.

Thus far, I have discussed how the OECD’s role as a policy actor as been pivotal in setting the

agenda for internationalisation in higher education systems. My next task is to examine the

OECD’s rationales for internationalisation, to ascertain the subject positions that these

rationales are premised on, and the subjectivities that they perpetuate. I first describe and

analyse the OECD’s rationales before moving onto an analysis of subject-formation processes.


100

4.2.1 Establishing ‘objects’ of policy and shaping subjectivities

A major and decisive report which established the terms of the internationalisation debate was

the 1995 OECD report, titled Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: A comparative

study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America. In describing stakeholder

rationales1 for internationalisation, the report categorized rationales into two broad clusters:

economic /political rationales, and cultural/educational rationales (Knight and de Wit, 1995,

pp. 9-10).

The economic rationales for the internationalisation of education were grounded in their

perceived contribution towards greater economic growth. Short-term commercial benefits

were anticipated to arise from the recruitment of international students and by selling

international education advisory services, while longer-term benefits were anticipated when

returning graduates favoured the provider (host) country in the purchase of goods and

services. Another anticipated economic benefit was attributable to the individual who, having

obtained an internationally recognised credential, would be able to participate in the global

labour market. Here, the notion of a global labour market is discursively constructed as ‘real’

with no hints of its selective permeability which would provide access to some and not others.

The relative importance given to commercial goals of internationalisation varied across

member nations, notably:

...from the North American regional perspective...economic and trade motivations are

becoming more important and higher educational institutions must be more responsive

to these issues...Survival of some higher education institutions may require that they

attempt to serve the economic and diplomatic purposes of their national government

and regions (OECD, 1996,p.11)

While there was acknowledgement of the need to balance “economic internationalism” with

“the internationalism of values and understanding”, there were no suggestions on ways of

reconciling the tensions of narrow utilitarianism and pecuniary interests, with broader

humanitarian goals including intercultural goodwill (p.11).

The political rationales for internationalisation for member countries were strongly

nation-centred and above all premised on fixed notions of national interests. Educational

cooperation thought to arise from internationalisation initiatives was viewed as “a form of

diplomatic investment...it has the potential to increase knowledge and sympathy of the host

country’s political system, culture and values” (p.11). Here, an older colonial discourse

resonant with the Colombo Plan, constructs international education as a ‘gift’ aimed at

cultivating and consolidating the influence of the ‘host country’ by influencing local elites. In

language which produces ideations of hospitality, exemplified by words like ‘host country’,

these rationales carry no traces of the brutal coercions of colonial and superpower struggles.

1. A number of stakeholders were consulted, including governments at the international, national and regional levels, the private sector, institutions, academic staff (faculty) and students.


101

By contrast, an archaeological reading of these statements identifies a discursive logic which

resonates with the colonizing and imperializing persuasions of an earlier era where

cultivation of local elites was key to legitimating control.

The OECD’s investigation of internationalisation rationales among Asia-Pacific countries,

identified these rationales with the desire to preserve national and ethnocultural identities.

Internationalisation was perceived as a means to increase competitiveness in the arena of

international trade, and by extension, enable many of these former colonies, to engage with

the broader global polity on more equal terms. For example, internationalisation was

associated with establishing the intellectual means for the Asia-Pacific states to develop an

advanced technological capacity, to enable ‘technological leapfrogging’ (see Vervoorn, 1998,

p. 117). Countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and Japan were reported to view

internationalisation as a means towards building an export industry in education. By

establishing their credentials as equal partners in the global trade arena, the countries of the

Asia-Pacific would be better able to manage the globalising tendencies of westernised cultural

forms (de Wit, 1997, pp. 23-27). Similarly, academic rationales for internationalisation in the

Asia-Pacific countries were seamlessly linked with political and economic discourses. Thus,

internationalisation was noted as the means to achieving standardization of ‘quality’ vis-a-vis

international institutions, which would improve competitiveness.

An archaeological reading of the statements within these rationales, places

internationalisation within the discursive domain of modernization. The discursive logic

inherent in these statements can be interpreted along these lines:

internationalise = increase intellectual, economic and technological capacities =

equalise existing power differentials between postcolonial states and former colonial

powers = offset hegemonic power of westernised cultural forms + enable the

preservation of ethnocultural and national identities.

Underpinning these rationales for internationalisation rationales is a political and discursive

reasoning which hearkens back to colonial and capitalist modernity, except the vogue term for

this historical moment, is internationalisation and not modernisation.

Another of the political rationales to emerge from OECD monographs identified

internationalisation with social stability in those consumer (sending) nations with insufficient

educational infrastructure and high levels of domestic demand. Internationalisation

initiatives, it was argued, would remove political pressures on some governments to channel

more resources into providing in-country facilities (de Wit, 1995, p. 12)2.

Cultural arguments for internationalisation were framed in language which reflected both

imperial and internationalist persuasions. The desire to “export...national and cultural and

moral values”, had a particularly strong resonance in French and American rationales for

2. Greece, Norway, the countries of Central Europe, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong were listed for mention.


102

internationalisation (Knight and de Wit, 1995, p.12). As with the political rationales discussed

earlier, cultural rationales for internationalisation were also embedded in older colonial and

imperial texts. Admittedly, a second and less parochial, educational rationale for

internationalisation was also expressed: to expand the learning and development

opportunities of individuals, increase intercultural knowledge, skills and research and

provide an international dimension to research and teaching and in doing so improve the

quality of education and research (ibid, p. 12). To this end, internationalisation was

constructed as delivering a broader public good (p.13).

Although a welcome departure from the imperialising assumptions underpinning the ‘export’

of national and cultural values, this second rationale fails to acknowledge that cultural

engagements which seek to forge collaborations and build interdependent transcultural

networks are not power-neutral. As potential sites for intercultural engagements, education

systems are themselves materially and discursively embedded in power/knowledge

structures. Their role in the development, transmission and reception of international and

intercultural knowledges are shaped by a series of power relations. An important omission

here is the failure to identify internationalisation with the ability to think reflexively and

critically about the production and reproduction of knowledge (Henry et al., p. 153).

Having described and analysed the OECD’s cultural, economic, political and academic

rationales for internationalisation, it is timely to examine the subject-formation processes at

work through these rationales. Three subject positions can be identified. First, the

subject-positions of imperial educator and colonial ‘other’. As a diplomatic investment,

internationalisation is intended to cultivate a loyal indigenous elite which will favour the ‘host

country’.

The second subject-position produced by OECD discourse is the autonomous, self-sufficient

and responsible consumer whose investments in international education are driven by a

desire to be competitive in the global job market. By implication, such an individual holds no

expectation of his/her rights as a citizen to be provided with a quality education by the state.

Instead this subject is impelled to take personal responsibility for educating herself. By

extension, consumer (home) governments have no responsibilities for direct provision of

higher education. Both the political and economic rationales thus, reveal subjectification

processes which work to transform the citizen to self-sufficient customer and in doing so

reinforce the OECD’s ideological commitments to market liberalism (see also Lingard, 1997;

Lingard and Rizvi, 1998, pp. 262-267; Henry et al., 2001, pp. 8, 26-31; Spring, 1998, pp. 160-178).

Third, the OECD’s rationales are premised on the modern subject for whom knowledge is

uncontested, objective, representative of the real world and universally relevant across time

and space. Where globalisation demands the skills to ‘relativize’ the production and

application of knowledges across local, national and global domains, and across divergent

spaces and places, the OECD’s understanding of knowledge is anchored within a

spatio-temporal fixity.


103

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the OECD documents on internationalisation.

First, there are strong economic and political imperatives driving the internationalisation of

education, with macroeconomic theory having a significant influence on stakeholder views.

Internationalisation is viewed as the means to competitive advantage for national economies

(Knight and de Wit, 1995, p.116; Henry et al., 2001, pp. 146-150). This perspective was held by

both Anglo-European Member states and stakeholders within the Asia Pacific region. Second,

and in conclusion, academic and cultural rationales appear to be secondary and subordinated

to the economic rationale. To this end, the role of universities in upholding the ‘national

interest’ suggests a thematic continuity with the nation-building and imperialising university

of the 19th and 20th centuries.

There is broad agreement by educators that the OECD tends to steer education policy agendas

towards ideological preferences which are largely market centred (Henry et al., 2001, p. 8).

This has not always been the case and the OECD’s shift towards the market is best understood

as emblematic of a particular historical moment. For example, in the 1960s and 70s, it

subscribed to a version of human capital theory influenced by the social democratic discourses

of the Keynesian state where education was associated with national investment, a means

towards greater national wealth and social development for the individual (Marginson, 1993,

pp. 45-50; 1997a, pp. 92-94; Lingard and Rizvi, 1998, pp. 262-264). By the end of the 1980s, the

OECD was promoting a reframed human capital theory, one which was strongly influenced

by market liberalism. The benefits of education were touted to be greatest for the individual

and in accordance with this logic, costs were attributable to the individual. Key OECD reports

such Universities Under Scrutiny (1987) and Financing Higher Education (1990) highlight the

organisation’s role in producing the discursive conditions which has led to the normalisation

of education markets.

Given that the objects of discourse in the OECD-led internationalisation debates have largely

been framed in terms of national interest, it is timely to discuss the national policy frameworks

surrounding internationalisation in the producer countries. In the next section, I describe the

university sector in Australia as a basis for exploring key developments which have

influenced its internationalisation policies and programmes. I follow this up with a selective

review of academic writings about international students and international education. Some

space is also devoted to describing media discourses about international education and

international students. My interest is to examine how these public discourses of policy,

academic and media texts construct ‘truths’ about international students and international

education.

4.3 Australia: Mapping The Policy Terrain

From the post-war period to the 1970s, a series of policy initiatives transformed Australia’s

universities from ‘elite’ to ‘mass’ institutions. These developments took place against a

backdrop of postwar reconstruction, rising community aspirations, high economic growth

and Keynesian economic management. In other words, a ‘reason of state’ rationality


104

constructed education as a public good which had a vitally important role to play in

Australia’s modernisation and nation-building projects. (Marginson, 1997b, pp. 11-15).

The 1974 abolition of university fees for all students, marked the accelerated momentum

towards the ‘massification’ of higher education. In addition, some 10, 000 government funded

places were provided for international students who, up to then, had paid fees to attend

Australian universities (Jones, 1986; Throsby, 1985). Country quotas were also in place to

regulate/control regional flows. This brief period of free education for private overseas

students was abolished five years later with the introduction of the Overseas Student Charge

(OSC)3.

In the second half of the 1980s, a series of micro and macro-economic reforms saw the

promulgation of what were essentially private sector practices, into the management and

operations of the public sector in Australia. These changes, broadly termed ‘corporate

federalism’ by social policy theorists (see Lingard, 1993, 2000), were mirrored in other spheres

of the Australian public sector. A steady stream of Reports and Commissions4 were used by

government to support arguments for the marketisation of the public sector (see Marginson

and Considine, 2000, p. 45). Beginning with the privatisation of several government

enterprises, the sites for marketisation were rapidly broadened to incorporate health,

education and welfare services. A raft of ‘technologies’ were used to reconceptualise and

reconfigure public services to “a form of economic production” (Marginson, 1997a, p. 85). The

government’s rationale for these sweeping changes was the urgent need to improve Australia

international competitiveness. Indeed, the imposition of full fees for international students in

1986 took place against a backdrop of a deteriorating trade deficit, when the government saw

the export of education services as replacing the declining revenue from manufacturing

exports. Universities were exhorted to do their bit to alleviate this national economic crisis by

admitting fee paying international students.

The 1988 White Paper on Higher Education established the basis for the introduction of

market rationalities in the higher education sector by introducing changes to the financing,

structures, operations and governance of universities. Popularly referred to as the ‘Dawkins

reforms’, after the Education minister of the day, these changes included: the abolition of the

binary system of higher education which had been based on a two-tiered system of

universities and the more vocationally oriented Institutes of Technology and Colleges of

Advanced Education. A Unified National System was subsequently introduced based on the

amalgamation of both tiers (Marginson, 1997b, pp. 231-233). New systems of funding were

introduced to allow institutions greater autonomy in managing their budgets and planning

their operations, while at the same time, placing greater emphasis on reporting and evaluation

3. The OSC was set at one third of the average cost of a university education in 1979. This proportion rose to 50% by 1988

4. They included the Industries Commission, the Productivity Commission (reforming the public service) and the Hoare Report (on governance within universities) (see Marginson and Considine, 2000).


105

of institutional performance. Meek and Wood (1997, p. 255) observe that these changes were

partly driven by the transformation of Australian higher education from an elite to a mass

system. These new systems also encouraged greater competition between and within,

universities.

A ‘touching faith’ in market principles by governments of all political persuasions in Australia

saw the discursive construction of higher education as a market. Central to this discourse of

markets, was the assumption that the operational efficiency of the higher education sectors

required a ‘performance’ culture and improved management. The ‘grids of specification’ were

resolutely corporate (see Marginson, 2000b; Meadmore, 1998, pp. 28, 31-34; Meek and Wood,

1997, p. 262). A series of accountability frameworks were subsequently introduced, ostensibly

to monitor the progress of universities, but also to discipline and steer universities towards

market-like behaviours. Couched in a language of protecting universities from declining

academic standards, the accountability frameworks reflected an appropriation of a

university-originated discourse which first emerged at the time of the Unified System: falling

standards (Vidovich and Slee, 2001, p. 35).

The introduction of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) in 1990 for all

students established the basis for a user-pays system of student funding. The government

defended itself against criticisms that it was re-introducing an elite higher education system

by utilizing a similar argument used in the OECD-produced Universities Under Scrutiny: free

university education had not improved socioeconomic representativeness of students in

universities5 (Marginson, 1997b, p. 2, 224-231).

However, like any policy field, the higher education field features multiple actors, all of who

wield different levels of influence and who push different agendas (see Ball, 1994, 1998; Taylor

et al. 1997, pp. 22-35). The policies aimed at marketisation of the university sector were

‘settlements’ and ‘trade-offs’. Thus, in the midst of a broader push to propel universities

towards market-like provisions and forms, an equity agenda emerged, aimed at increasing the

representativeness of university student population. Expressed in the narratives of social

justice, A Fair Chance For All: Higher Education That's Within Everyone's Reach (1990) outlined a

national policy framework for educational equity. As part of this policy, universities

introduced a series of curricular and pedagogical initiatives which established the context for

pedagogical improvements to address the needs of students from non-English speaking

backgrounds, including international students 6.

A change of government in 1996, saw a reduction of government contributions to universities

and exacerbated the funding crisis that universities were already facing. Against this

5. Set originally at a fixed fee (A$1800) for full-time students, and payable through the taxation system when students joined the workforce and acquired the capacity to pay, by 199 7, HECS had escalated so that students were paying a yearly fee between $3300- and $5500, depending on their course of study. In other words, Australian students were contributing anywhere from 35% to 125% of the cost of the course (Marginson, 1997b, p. 2, p.228). In effect, changes to HECS in 1996, has resulted in an average 40% increase to students (ibid, see also Universities in Crisis pp. 276-280).


106

backdrop, the government commissioned the West Review in 1998. It was expected to establish

a blue-print for the role of Australian higher education in the twenty-first century. The Review

took the stance that education was a commodity to be globally traded. This was evident in the

numerous references it made to the ‘globalised higher education marketplace’. The Review

called for greater differentiation within Australian higher education to maximise student

‘choice’ and to enable the higher education ‘industry’ to be globally competitive. It argued for

‘student-centred funding’ which it declared, would establish the basis for ‘student choice’ to

be incorporated into the funding equation, suggesting by implication that such a move would

introduce a democratic impulse into considerations of funding.

Two other themes highlighted by the Review as significant were lifelong learning and the

educational possibilities offered by the ‘digital revolution’. Significantly, the West Review

called for accreditation arrangements which would enable the inclusion of more private

providers in the higher education sector. It framed its recommendations against a grid of

‘world best practice’ in the global education marketplace. As with the Dawkins’ inspired

reforms, international forces were identified to be driving the need for changes to national

education policy (Marginson and Mollis, 2000, p. 53; Pratt and Poole, 2000, p. 17). In short, the

West Review provided the discursive framework for greater engagement between higher

education and market forces in the future.

The 1999 ministerial White Paper on research and research training, Knowledge and Innovation

echoed the market focus which had featured in the West Report: universities through their

research activities have an important role to play in enhancing Australia’s competitive

position; there is a need for accountability measures to ensure value for public monies spent

on universities. Knowledge and Innovation was followed up a year later with an action plan,

Backing Australia’s Ability: An Innovation Action Plan. Three thematic priorities constituted the

Plan: ‘Generating ideas through research, commercialisation research and building a highly

skilled workforce’. The Plan recommended increased research funding in targetted areas,

introduced project-specific infrastructure grants and curiously, for a plan aimed at enhancing

Australia’s research abilities, it introduced an income contingent loans scheme for

non-research, fee paying postgraduate students.

The next major report on the university sector was essentially a report card on the health of

Australian universities. Universities in Crisis (2001) reported on a parliamentary inquiry by the

Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Committee into

6. These equity frameworks steered higher education institutions towards formulating policies aimed at recruiting and retaining students from six identified equity groups, through a series of funded initia-tives. These groups were students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (SES), rural and isolated students, Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders, students with disabilities, women in non-traditional disciplines (technosciences) and students from non-English speaking backgrounds. The criteria to con-sider an individual from a non-English cultural background was that they had to have English as a second language and to have lived in Australia for less than 10 years. A resident of Australia for more than 10 years cannot be considered in this category regardless of language abilities. A 1996 Review subsequently found that students from non- English speaking backgrounds were no longer underrep-resented (DEET, 1990).


107

universities7. In contrast to the West Review which excited much interest from corporate

bodies, the Inquiry received relatively few submissions from the private sector and was

dominated instead by submissions from universities, individual academics, students and

professional associations. The findings and recommendations of Universities in Crisis were

broad, far-reaching and as such are beyond the scope of this thesis. I will restrict my discussion

to those sections of the Inquiry which commented on the international education export

industry.

A key argument made to the Committee was that insufficient public funding of Australian

universities was affecting Australia’s ability to participate in the global knowledge-based

economy.The Committee noted that government outlays accounted for 47% of university

revenue compared to 57% in 1996 and 85% in 1987. Public funding of universities was noted

to compare unfavourably with the OECD country average (Senate Employment, Workplace

Relations, Small Business and Education Committee, 2001, p. 5, 34-40). It was reported that the

student-staff ratio in universities had declined from 13.7 in 1989 to 18.8 to 2000 (ibid, p. 166).

This was noted as reducing the quality of the education experience for both international and

domestic students (pp. 356-357). Against this ratio, it was noted that between 1987 and 1998,

there had been a 300% increase in the numbers of Pro-and Deputy Vice-Chancellors (ibid, p.

40, 126).

Submissions to the Committee claimed that reduced public funding of universities had

facilitated greater institutional segmentation than what had previously existed in the

pre-marketised era. Regional and ‘newer’ universities were noted to be experiencing greater

financial difficulties and a number of regional universities had attempted to ‘re-spatialise’

themselves in a bid to be more attractive to international students. They did so by opening

‘branch campuses’, in reality, managed offices, in the Central Business Districts of major

Australian cities. The Committee heard that university entrepreneurialism, particularly in the

area of international student fees, had not replaced lost public funding in real terms (p. 353).

The higher education ‘success story’ of the decade, the international education export

industry, was problematised in several submissions made to the Committee. It was

acknowledged that while fee income from international students had generated export

income and provided fiscal resources to offset reduced government funding, the international

export industry had little impact on broadening Australia’s engagement with the Asia-Pacific

region and the broader international community (p. 344). Of particular concern was the

concentration of international students and by extension, revenue, in a handful of disciplines.

Business and Information Technology emerged as the ‘winning’ disciplines. Concerns were

also expressed about the small numbers of international students enrolled in research degrees,

a trend which was anticipated to do little for Australian efforts in becoming a knowledge

society. The gains made by the Colombo Plan in training future leaders for public services,

research and industry were considered to be at risk with the concentration of students in

7. See Universities in Crisis (2001).


108

selected areas of study (pp. 347-348). Furthermore, some submissions alleged subtle steering

by universities towards ‘soft marking’ to allow international students and other full fee paying

students to pass courses.

The ‘success’ of international education was further problematised by the release of financial

data which noted the heavy reliance of several universities on international student fee

income. Three universities were named as drawing more that 20% of their revenue from

international students’ fees, leading to concerns that they were exposed to high levels of

financial risk, given that recruitment targets were influenced by factors outside of the control

of universities (Moodie, 2002)8.

Many of the submissions to the hearing into Universities in Crisis used a discourse of national

interest to argue for greater ‘public investment’ in Australian universities to enable Australia

to participate in the knowledge-based economy. This was not a unanimous view. An opposing

position from sections of the educational bureaucracy expressed renewed commitments to the

‘ideal’ of the self-sufficient ‘public entrepreneurial university’ (Gallagher, 2001; 2000, see also

Richardson, 2001, p. 34). Universities were discursively constructed as private sector

organisations: “universities are autonomous financial institutions who are responsible for

their own survival” (Gallagher, 2001). The ‘crisis’ facing Australian universities required them

to “be internationally competitive or risk losing market share” (ibid). What these statements

reveal is the dominance of market rationalities in the imaginations of education bureaucrats.

International competitiveness was equated with the ability of matching the services of

overseas competitors who could “provide customised convenience programmes, 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week“(Gallagher, 2001, p. 7). The spheres of education and training were thus

converged, using the ‘virtual’ for-profit, corporate university as a ‘grid’ against which to

evaluate the performance of Australian universities. Barriers to the internationally

competitive university were identified to include “operating times which failed to take into

account the changed characteristics and circumstances of students” and “underperforming

staff” who were protected by intransigent university unions (ibid).

The recent discussion paper, Higher Education at the Crossroads, has revisited issues raised in

the earlier West Review including ‘efficiency and effectiveness’, ‘revenue diversification’,

‘allocation of public subsidies’, ‘learning experience and outcomes’, ‘institutional

specialisation’, ‘governance, management and workplace relations’. One particular issue that

has received significant public coverage is whether government support should be directed

towards supporting one or two world class universities. For the greater part, the discussion

8. The three universities whose operational budgets were noted to be excessively reliant on fee income of international students were: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), Central Queensland University (CQU) and Curtin University. The external risk factors identified were the changing gov-ernment policies of sending countries, changes in currency exchange rates and the changing economic circumstances of students and their families (Moodie, 2002).


109

has used ‘league tables’ as the grid with which to determine ‘world class’ and ‘excellence’

(Duckett, 2002).

Having mapped the policy context in which Australian universities operate, I now describe

and analyse the policies relating to international education. I start with a historical snapshot,

beginning with the ‘aid’ phase of international education to the present dominance of the

higher education export industry.

4.3.1 International Education: Building An Export Industry?

The earliest records of overseas students in Australia point to their presence in 1904 in

Australian universities although Australia’s engagement with significant numbers of

international students commenced in 1950 with the introduction of the Colombo Plan (see

Tootell, 1999). As detailed in Chapter One of this study, the Plan’s rationales reflected a

mixture of political self-interest and humanitarian concerns (Auletta, 2000, pp. 47-51;

Alexander and Rizvi, 1993, p, 17-18; Rizvi, 1997, pp.6-17). The withdrawal of colonial rule and

the success of communist-rule in mainland China, had created Australian anxiety about

threats to national security from the ‘north’. The Plan was to be a ‘gift’ to establish affiliations

and affinities between Australia and the local elites and middle classes in the newly

independent states.

In the latter half of the 1980s, major shifts in higher education policy designed to reduce

reliance on government funding led to the introduction of full fees for international students.

An earlier quota which capped the numbers of international students in Australia was

removed along with a country quota which governed the numbers from sending countries.

The shift from an aid to trade policy can be traced to two significant government reviews in

the 1980s. The Jackson Committee (1984) which was appointed to review the Australian

overseas aid programme, recommended the introduction of a policy to impose full fees on

international students9. The Review argued that such a policy shift would provide a source of

export income for Australia:

The Committee believes that Australian education does not need the protection it now

enjoys but that it has the resources and ability to compete effectively in an international

context...

...The demand for education services throughout the Asian region is likely to be quite

large in the next 20 years or so. The expansion of Australian education to meet this

demand would encourage cultural exchanges and tourism. It would provide jobs for

Australians directly, and there would be multiplier effects through the provision of

food, shelter, clothing and entertainment for students. In American university towns,

one ‘town’ job is generally added for every additional ‘gown’ enrolled (ibid, p.93).

9. See Australian Parliament Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence (1984)


110

With this in mind, the Review urged that foreign students be accepted on the basis of

“...available places, academic performance and a full economic fee...” (ibid, p.94).

The Goldring Review (1984), by contrast, recommended the continuation of the 1980s

programme based on offering a subsidised number of places for international students to

study in Australian universities10. Both Reviews had arrived at opposing recommendations,

yet the recommendations of one, the Jackson Review, were translated into subsequent

government policy, leading to one of the most significant transformations in Australian higher

education11. This, despite the fact, that the Jackson Review ‘s primary focus was not on the

higher education system. It was, after all, reviewing Australia’s aid programme. However,

following the dictum of critical policy analysts, the form and timing of a policy’s introduction,

that is, its ‘fields of emergence’, are influenced by the ideological, political, economic and

social forces germane at a particular juncture in time and space. The ‘will to marketise’ had

engulfed the entire public sector and Australia’s development of an international education

export industry must be seen in this broader context.

With the endorsements of the Jackson Review, the government introduced two policies in

1985 which established the basis for the export industry in Australia: the Overseas Student

Policy12 and the Policy on the Export of Education Services. A number of initiatives were

provided by the government in a bid to stimulate interest on the parts of universities.

Institutions were allowed to retain a large proportion of the international student fee

income.Where there had once been rules intended to assuage domestic disquiet at the

potential displacement of Australian students by large numbers of wealthy overseas students,

quotas on international student numbers were now removed13. Grants of up to A$200, 000

were provided to universities to enable them to develop promotional and marketing plans for

the recruitment of overseas students (Back, Davis and Olsen, 1996, pp. 6-7; Marginson, 1997a,

p. 233; Meek and Wood, 1997, p. 259).

Where an ‘aid’ discourse had once prevailed in the interests of furthering national and

geopolitical aims, this rapidly eclipsed into concerns about the private benefits that

international students were receiving individually. International students were constructed

into an elite group whose eligibility to receive education subsidies from Australia was called

into question: “In many cases subsidised students had been relatively well off or from

relatively wealthy countries” (Back, Davis and Olsen, 1996, p. 7; Jones, 1986, p. 105). The policy

10. See Mutual Advantage (Goldring,1984).11. Not all the Jackson Review’s recommendations were accepted. A recommendation to substantially

increase the number of aid scholarships to 10,000 by the mid-1990s, was not taken up. 12. The Overseas Student Policy established 3 categories of overseas students: those sponsored by the

Australian government as part of the development assistance (aid) programmes, the private but subsi-dised students who paid a proportion of their education costs and the new category of full fee paying overseas students (FFPOS).Country quotas were maintained for both the sponsored students and the ‘subsidised’ category of private students.

13. The regulations stipulated that no more than 10% of a university’s students could be overseas stu-dents. Also, subsidised students could not constitute more than 20% of numbers enrolled in any one course (Smart and Ang, 1993).


111

shift led to a meteoric rise in international student numbers14. A new discourse of ‘trade’ had

emerged. A repertoire of discursive objects both produced and sustained this discourse:

‘customers’, ‘export commodities’, ‘priority markets’, ‘international competitiveness’,

‘products’, ‘brands’, ‘customer service’. It came as no surprise when the government policy of

offering subsidised places to private students was discontinued in 1990. In the space of just

five years, a market-driven industry had been grafted onto a publicly funded system which,

up to then, had catered for Australians from the dominant English-speaking

Anglo-Celtic/Saxon groups.

From a marketing and promotional perspective, Australia’s incursion into the international

export market depicted a peculiarly ‘back-to-front’ quality, which contradicts international

business axioms. The usual sequence of events that accompanies the sale of a product in an

international market is such that a product is usually first marketed domestically. Through

this experience the product is improved continuously and thereafter launched into an

international context with appropriate refinements and accommodations for what is

recognised as a different customer base (see Lynch, Scott and Smith, 1996). The pre-marketised

Australian university however, had little experience of relating to the student as a potential

customer. It lacked the requisite competencies within both academic and administrative

streams to provide a quality educational product to a culturally and linguistically diverse

population of students hailing from post-colonial nation-states (Alexander and Rizvi, 1993,

pp. 16-19; Rizvi and Walsh, 1998, pp. 8-10; see also Marginson, 1997a, p. 242-244).

Within a relatively short time, concerns were emerging about the workings of the deregulated

international education sector. The collapse of several English language schools, a ‘corporate

cowboy’ approach to recruitment by some marketing personnel and concerns of immigration

fraud were listed as damaging Australia’s reputation as a provider of quality international

education. In 1991, in a bid to reign in the excessively entrepreneurial practices of some

Australian educational institutions, the government introduced ESOS – the Education

Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act. ESOS

was part of a broader discursive ensemble aimed at curbing the fall out from the ‘free market’

era of international education. The Beazley Ministerial Statement and the AVCC’s Code of

Ethical Practice for the Provision of Education to International Students are part of this

ensemble.

The 1992 Beazley Ministerial Statement was emblematic of a government move to officially

articulate a wider interpretation of, and commitment to, international education. In opening,

the Statement addressed two areas, ‘Benefits of International Education’ and ‘Safeguards for

14. In 1986, the first year of introduction of the Education Services for Overseas Students, there were 2,000 full fee paying international students. By 1991, this number had swelled to 48, 000 (Smart and Ang, 1993,).


112

Australian students’, indicating that it was aimed at both domestic and international

audiences. It claimed the following as its guiding principles:

• educational values and quality,

• a policy and regulatory framework,

• quality infrastructure to enable the provision of broader expressions of internationali-

sation (staff exchanges, joint research, study abroad opportunities etc.),

• an Asia-Pacific focus (which included America) and,

• partnerships between government and education providers aimed in part, at intro-

ducing flexible and streamlined processes.

The Statement’s opening paragraph attempted to discursively ‘re-focus’ the meaning of

international education away from the largely commercial focus which followed the ‘free

market’ phase at the tail-end of the 1980s:

International education and training comprises a wide range of activities involving the

international movement of staff, students, education materials, ideas and research.

The Government recognises that international education is an increasingly important

part of Australia’s international relations. It uniquely spans the cultural, economic and

interpersonal dimensions of international relations. It assists cultural understanding for

all parties involved. It enriches Australia’s education and training systems and the

wider Australian society by encouraging a more international outlook.

(Beazley, 1992, p. 1)

The Statement portrayed international education as multidimensional with the potential to

deliver a series of reciprocal social, cultural, political and economic benefits to all parties

involved. Internationalisation was expected to endow Australian students with a ‘globally

portable’ education which would enable them to participate in a globalising economy.

The ‘public relations’ function of the Statement is strongly evident and indicates a bold

attempt to counter overseas criticisms that Australia’s interest in international education was

both narrow and commercial. Accordingly, the Statement attempted to create the impression

that a raft of well-considered, coherent and systemically cohesive policies underpinned

Australia’s commitment to internationalisation:

The terms ”internationalisation” and “international education” reflect the move to a

more internationally oriented education system. Accepting international students at

Australian institutions is only one element of this process. It also involves making

courses and teaching methods more internationally competitive through links with

business and through agreements with overseas governments and educational

institutions (ibid).


113

The Statement acknowledged criticisms of the ‘trade’ phase of international education

although it tried to limit responsibility for this ‘deviation’ to private providers. It pledged to:

...shift institutions away from narrowly economic perspectives... it is important to focus

on internationalisation of education... Focusing on internationalisation does not require

neglecting education as an export industry. We must continue to increase the

competitiveness of our education services....(ibid)

On the one hand, this paragraph and some of the preceding policy text, suggests a

fundamental shift in values from an insular and inward-looking nationalism to a more

inclusive internationalism However, a closer reading unsettles this proposition. The passive

clause, “...it is important to focus on internationalisation of education...”betrays the absence of

government agency to institutionalise broader understandings of internationalisation within

Australian universities. Economic rationales tend to dominate in the Statement’s text, evident

in references to: “making courses more internationally competitive”, “improving our

competitiveness”, “enhance trade and investment”, “appreciation of the diversity and quality

of Australian goods and services”. By comparison, there are relatively few references to the

cultural dimensions of internationalisation.

The Beazley Ministerial Statement attempted to discursively link the internationalisation of

education with the emerging processes of globalisation, although it clearly privileges the

economic dimensions of globalisation. For example, the Statement attempted to re-spatialise

Australia’s identity by prioritizing Australia’s geographical links with the Asia-Pacific region.

By opening with a reference to cultural understandings, it highlighted the importance of

intersubjective cultural literacies for Australian students as prospective members of the

workforce, and on a broader scale, for Australia’s international relations (Rizvi, 1997).

In this respect, the Beazley Statement reflects a discursive continuity with the discourse of

Productive Diversity.15 Constructed by melding together the discourses of the market, equity

and cultural diversity, Productive Diversity sought to build an ‘enterprise culture’ aimed at

increasing productivity and competitive advantage in the global marketplace. A central

dimension of this discourse focused on how Australian businesses could ‘capitalise’ on the

skills and knowledge of Australians who were born and educated overseas (see Karpin, 1995).

A host of reports, political pronouncements and conferences like, this 1992 conference,

Productive Diversity in Business: Profiting from Australia’s Multicultural Advantage discursively

manoeuvred the social inclusion of Australia’s non-English speaking population, in

particular, those of ‘Asian’ heritage with the Enterprise Nation.

A macro-contextual reading of the Productive Diversity discourse would associate its

emergence with the economic dynamism of South-East Asian countries and the economic

15. The concept of Productive Diversity was part of a state-led initiative intended to encourage Australian enterprises to prepare “Australia’s managers to meet the challenges of the Asia-Pacific century”. Firms were encouraged to develop greater cultural and gender diversity in their management and to expand their vision to trade in the Asia-Pacific.


114

awakening of the ‘sleeping giant’, China. Putting cultural diversity to work for capitalism

involved the discursive positioning of Australia as a node in an East-West trade circuit and the

construction of multicultural Australia as a both an active player, mediator and facilitator of

Euro-American business incursions into Asia. The social justice impulses within the

Productive Diversity discourse were subordinated while its commercial imperatives were

seized upon (see also Mitchell, 1993). Perhaps a consequence not intended by the architects of

the Productive Diversity discourse was its role in ‘othering’ Asians. It did so by resurrecting a

populist narrative of fears of ‘Asian-style’ exploitation and inequality.

Another instrument that was intended to temper rabid entrepreneurialism was the Australian

Vice-Chancellor’s Committee’s (AVCC) Code of Ethical Practice for the Provision of

Education to International Students. The Code covered wide ranging aspects of international

education including the promotion, recruitment, admission, education and welfare

dimensions. It addressed the burgeoning complexity of international education programmes

and activities and acknowledged the economic, psychological and intellectual challenges that

accompanied study overseas:

By accepting a place international students have taken a major step in their lives; they

may leave their home countries for long periods, travel considerable distances and

undertake considerable expense. The Code has been formulated with this in mind

(AVCC, 1998).

The Code specified the types of customers to be targeted by universities as: “only those

international students who have reasonable chances of success”. The Code’s Guidelines for

the promotion and marketing of international education also made several references to the

need to uphold ‘national interest’ ostensibly expressed as: upholding the quality and

reputation of Australian education by paying due regard to “the cultural and education

relationships between Australia and other countries”, and refraining from circulating

“malicious, misleading” information about other Australian universities to further the

competitive advantage of individual universities (ibid). The Code functions as a set of

guidelines rather than a set of prescriptive norms or set policy, leaving institutions to

self-monitor their adherence. There is no evidence of any action being taken against any

institution for breaches of the Code, although the recent Universities in Crisis inquiry revealed

continuing concerns about entry and assessment standards. (Senate Employment, Workplace

Relations, Small Business and Education Committee, 2001, p. 350).

In 2000 a new version of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act was

introduced in a bid to augment the regulatory role of the government. ESOS (2000) can be read

as part of a broader governmentality aimed firstly, at reinforcing an earlier policy aimed at

protecting Australia’s reputation as a exporter of quality education. It has placed a renewed

emphasis on English language competence as a screening device. Prospective students from

regions considered to be at ‘high risk’ for illegal immigration, must now sit an examination to


115

ascertain their English language proficiency, even if a significant proportion of their education

has been in English.

To this end, ESOS (2000) shares a discursive continuity with government measures aimed at

‘border control’. As a discourse, border control has seized the official and popular imagination

in Australia for much of 2000 and 2001. Its emergence in the discursive field of international

education export industry is thus not surprising, given the historical links between national

interest, national security and educating ‘the other’ (see Alexander and Rizvi, 1993). Both

xenophobia and its sibling, racism, have been long-standing fixtures in the Australian

nation-building project (see Castles and Miller, 1998; Fiske, Hodge and Turner, 1987; Turner

1994). Contemporary preoccupations with border control may well be resonant with the

discursive logic of the ‘yellow peril’ and White Australia, although recent developments have

seen a broadening of the thesis of national vulnerability to ‘international terrorism’.

ESOS 2000 places greater responsibilities on universities and their agents to ensure that

accurate information is provided to potential students about courses, and to accelerate credit

transfer processes16. As well as the more stringent admissions requirements noted above, it

vests increased monitoring and enforcement powers in the education and immigration arms

of government.

A few preliminary deductions can be made about the types of subject positions which are

being assumed and produced by ESOS (2000). Students’ spatial or geographical identities are

central in determining whether they will occupy subject positions of ‘valued customer’ or

‘potentially illegal immigrant’.The AVCC has criticised the use of English language

examinations for the Indian subcontinent, arguing that “key markets stand to be wiped out”.

Of particular concern is the fate of the Indian postgraduate market, currently the second

largest market for American universities and which up to the introduction of ESOS (2000) had

been carefully nurtured by Australian marketers to grow from a fledgling earlier state. In this

respect, ESOS 2000 exemplifies the complex, contradictory and incoherent side to policy

responses. It has superseded national economic concerns by privileging border protection.

16. ESOS (2000) will require a number of administrative changes. For example, courses cannot be adver-tised without a CRICOS code (The Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Programs for Overseas Students). The revised ESOS Act has the potential to place barriers on the electronic enrolments, previ-ously regarded as an inevitable step towards the goal of technological and administrative efficiency. ESOS also exposes universities to increased financial costs and accountability: it is their responsibility to ascertain that their agents are fully trained to discharge the new institutional responsibilities stem-ming from changes to the Act. By accelerating time frames for credit transfer approvals, there are pos-sible consequences for academic workloads and possibly, academic standards. All approvals for credits for prior learning must now be made at the point of offer. It is possible that this change may steer the process of credit transfer approval towards the administrative arm of the university, where it was previously an academic function.


116

To conclude my discussion of policy discourses, I end with an analysis of the AVCC ‘s

Discussion Paper On International Education. The Paper starts with an introductory statement

which discursively links international education with Australia’s national interest:

Internationalisation is a major priority for Australian universities. It must remain so if

Australia and its universities are to be internationally competitive and lay claim to

quality education.

The Paper’s captions and headings highlight its main concerns as: the economic impact of the

international education export industry, (‘The Economic Impact’), competition with other

producer nations (‘The Competition’), and the impact of state regulations (‘Government

Imposed Regulations and Barriers’). In articulating its vision for the future (‘The New

Paradigm in International Education’), it makes references to: “distance education, flexible

delivery and e-learning”; “international experience for Australian students”; and staying

competitive in “the globalising environment in which higher education operates”.

Maintaining a competitive edge in international education markets is the argument with

political currency and the AVCC, as a pre-eminent higher education lobby body has used this

discourse strategically. Three key objects form the basis of these recommendations: ‘markets’,

‘competitive advantage’ and ‘government barriers’. In essence, these recommendations

exemplify the AVCC’s s vision for international education. However, its largely commercial

preoccupations are worrying in their reductionism and appear to have obscured its ability to

imagine a richer understanding of internationalisation. This is particularly evident in its calls

for a greater emphasis on marketing and promotion. To bolster its lobbying for greater

government support for marketing activities, the AVCC has discursively linked higher

education with the tourism industry 17. The AVCC argues for a government contribution of

$35 million in place of current funding of $13 million.

The way forward for international education according to the AVCC, is more marketing,

easier and cheaper visas, and financial initiatives to encourage Australians to study in

universities in the Asia-Pacific. No mention is made of the need to change university curricula

to develop a ‘global imagination’ in students and staff, nor of the need to develop

understandings of the historical, economic, cultural and spatial politics surrounding

knowledge development and transmission (see Rizvi, 2000; also Sadiki, 2001; Patrick, 1997).

The AVCC’s acknowledgement for the need for improved Study Abroad programmes to the

Asia-Pacific region is commendable18, however, the rest of the Discussion Paper offers a

discursive vision for international education which is at best, pedestrian.

17. The AVCC compared the federal government’s current contribution for the marketing and promotion of international education against the $90 million spent by the government on promoting Australian tourism.

18. The AVCC has recommended setting a government target of 10% of Australian undergraduates to study overseas as exchange students. It has also required greater government support for regionally focused programmes like UMAP (University Mobility in the Asia- Pacific Program) and UMIOR (Uni-versity Mobility in the Indian Ocean Region Program) to facilitate greater staff and student mobility.


117

To summarise my discussion of the policy terrain of international education, the raft of

changes popularly expressed as the ‘aid to trade to internationalisation’ trajectory, have

yielded both negative and positive outcomes. On the negative side, a prevailing short-termism

on the parts of many universities, coupled with declining government support has hindered

the sector from developing into a unique and viable, globally-oriented higher education

system (see Clyne, Marginson and Woock, 2001; Marginson, 2002). Researchers have

associated this narrow vision with the constitutive power relations that shaped

monoculturalism and neocolonialism in Australia (Alexander and Rizvi, 1993; Morris and

Hudson, 1995; Singh, 1998). Furthermore, a weak and relatively young university culture has

led the Australian university to produce a model of higher education which is a poor imitation

of an American brand (Marginson and Considine, 2000, pp. 182-183; Marginson, 2002, pp.

420-423). The resulting international university has remained narrowly preoccupied with the

national economic interests.

There have also been positive consequences from the international education export industry,

even if these were not intended by Australian policymakers in their ‘will to marketise’. The

experiences of teaching relatively large numbers of international students from culturally and

linguistically diverse backgrounds, had the effect of problematising the monocultural

assumptions of Australian curricula and pedagogy, which up to then, had remained

tenaciously resilient to broader societal moves towards greater engagement with

multiculturalism and inclusivity (Morris and Hudson, 1995; Rizvi and Walsh, 1998; Singh,

1998). In Chapter Two, I provided a deconstruction of a selection of academic writings from

the pre-marketised university. I argued that the aid era produced and sustained a discourse

of ‘unequal other’. The subjectivities constructed for international students were premised on

a profoundly ethnocentric, ‘othering’ discourse. The international student was a passive and

uncritical learner who made unrealistic demands of university staff. Against this backdrop, it

is problematic to idealize the liberal university as a custodian of intellectual ideals, whose

integrity has only recently been sullied by the excesses of crass academic capitalism.

Other productive engagements with marketisation include the massification effects of

recruitment drives by Australian universities. In the pre-marketised era, access to Australian

higher education was limited by quotas on student numbers and source countries.

Furthermore, for ethnic minorities such as the Chinese heritage communities of Indonesia and

Malaysia whose participation in local universities had long been impeded by discriminatory

state policies, this massification of international education was perceived in largely positive

terms. Many students have been able to use their Australian credentials to re-locate to

countries where they face less discrimination. Finally, through the proliferation of franchises

and articulation arrangements, the flow of capital and investment from ‘west’ to ‘east’ has

been partially reversed.

This stated, the concern of this thesis is not to undertake a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis into

international education. Rather, it is to inquire into the adequacy of the subject-positions that


118

are being produced by the international university, a creature of the modern nation-state;

whether the subjectivities arising from an international education are appropriate for a more

global and globalising world and if indeed, a temporal closure from the excesses of modernity

is being achieved.

4.3.2 Academic Discourse: Research into International Education

Academic research on international education embraces a vast array of topics: markets and

marketing (Brown, 1997; Edwards and Edwards, 2001; Smart and Ang, 1995, Jolley, 1997),

student satisfaction (Chen, 1999; Volet and Tan-Quigley, 1999); international student learning

(Aspland, 1999; Cadman, 2000; Keech, 1996; Pearson and Beasley, 1996; Ramburuth, 2001;

Sanderman-Gay, 1999; Volet, Renshaw and Tietzel, 1994), new models of pedagogy (Gough,

2000; Kelly, 1998, 2000; Nines, 1999; Patrick, 1997), intercultural relations and acculturation

stresses (Smart, Volet and Ang, 2000; Volet and Ang, 1998), costs-benefit analysis (Baker,

McCreedy and Johnson, 1996; Harris and Jarrett, 1990); post-colonial relations with Asia

(Alexander and Rizvi, 1993; Rizvi, 1997), globalisation (Clyne, Marginson and Woock, 2001;

Luke and Luke, 2000; Rizvi, 2000) and educational aid (Auletta, 2000; Toh and Farrelly, 1992).

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to review the positions that are taken by each of these

researchers given the focus of this thesis is on promotional practices and constructions of

international education. Instead, I will briefly review the key themes that have arisen from the

literature on international education, particularly those which have assumed the status of

‘dominant discourses’. I discussed some of this literature in Chapter Two, where I described

and analysed statements from academic discourses of the ‘aid’ era. I argued that knowledge

about the international student in the ‘aid’ era of internationalisation, constructed the student

as a passive and uncritical ‘Asian learner’. I posed the question if this discursive construction

of the international student remains resident in the imagination of some educators (see

Alexander and Rizvi, 1993). While there has been a burgeoning counter-discourse which

problematises the ethnocentric epistemologies and teaching practices of Australian

universities (see Biggs and Watkins, 1996; Keech, 1996; Niles, 1995; Patrick, 1997; Volet and

Renshaw, 1995; Pearson and Beasley, 1996), what is less clear is the extent of the

institutionalisation of this counter-discourse.

The work on international education markets spans a gamut of positions from those who see

education markets as providing ‘win-win’ outcomes for its beneficiaries, to those who

challenge the insularity of a marketised vision for international education. For Smart and Ang

(1995), the international education market in Australia has matured after a problematic start.

This maturation is evident in the continuing demand for an Australian credential, even during

the Asian Financial Crisis. Yet studies like Chen’s (1999) suggest that Australian universities

are failing to meet key expectations held by international students of the international

education experience, a view which resonates with Smart, Volet and Ang’s (2000) finding that

low levels of intercultural friendships predominate on university campuses. There are

indicators then, that spatially and culturally based conceptions of self and ‘other’ remain in


119

place even in universities which pronounce themselves to be cosmopolitan and international.

This stated, when read against escalating demand by international students, it is difficult on

the surface of it to fault the brand of international education offered by Australian universities.

Other research points to the benefits received by international students – they attain an

internationally recognised credential, valued cultural capital in their home countries and

provide Australian universities with much needed fee income (Brown, 1997). Additionally, it

is argued, that international students, cannot be considered as passive recipients who

cheerfully transmute their ethnocultural and national identities while absorbing ‘western’

epistemologies (Luke and Luke, 2000; see also Luke, 2001). These points have some merit.

However, the object of my investigatory ‘gaze’ is not the international student-other, but the

world class international university. Therefore, the concern of this thesis is with the adequacy

of existing discourses and subjectivities that are produced by the international university for

the globalising world of the 21st century, rather than on the implications for individual

international students.

A more radical position is to critically analyse existing expressions of international education

against the challenges posed by a rapidly globalising world. In Appadurai’s words (2000), the

challenge is to deploy an academic imagination which is inspired by, and sustains,

globalisation-from-below. To this end, new ways of investigating the relations between

international education and globalisation are required. It is in this light that Patrick (1997), and

Kelly (1998, 2000) criticise the existing Australian brand of international education for its

failure to explore and develop new paradigms for education. They attribute this insularity to

an institutional culture preoccupied with merely selling education to international students.

Rizvi and Walsh (1998) have observed that while many Australian universities have expressed

a commitment to policies of internationalisation, these rest on limited understandings of the

power/knowledge relations underpinning notions of diversity. Following Babha (1995), they

argue against a liberal concept of cultural diversity which fails to recognise the links between

the politics of difference and the power/knowledge relations which shape what constitutes

educational discourse. As a result, “...student diversity is [seen to be] mainly relevant to issues

of interpersonal relations and not to issues of academic content and pedagogies “(p. 9). Rizvi

(2000) argues that for international education to respond adequately to the complexities,

contradictions and ambiguities of globalisation requires that both educators and students are

provided with the opportunities to develop a global imagination which he associates with

openness, tolerance, cosmopolitanism and self-reflexivity. Sadiki (2001) adds an iterative

voice to Rizvi and Walsh’s (1998) call for internationalisation to unsettle the discourse

structures within Australian universities by calling for an ‘equalisation’ of power relations

within higher education. Curricular plurality is the first step to this end, although Sadiki also

cautions against “zero-sum curricular games where... what is taught is filtered through the

mindset of quite often insular education providers”.


120

For Kelly (1998, 2000) a truly international education is a ‘post-development’ education which

engages with ‘futures’ thinking and tackles thorny global issues such as equity, cultural

diversity, sustainability and gender issues. Taking a similar stance, Patrick (1997) calls for

curricular changes within the international university, which not only develop professional

capacities to tackle tasks in profoundly different national and sociocultural environments, but

more importantly, also facilitate a critique of the values espoused by various disciplinary and

professional discourses. Ultimately, Kelly (1998, 2000), Patrick (1997) and Gough (2000),

conceptualise international education as a transnational and post-development education,

one which is informed by reciprocity, responsibility and engagement with the complexities

inherent in a globally interdependent world. At the heart of their research is a discursive

vision for international education resonant with the ‘global consciousness’ and ‘global

interdependence’, highlighted in the works of various globalisation theorists (see Robertson,

1992, p. 8).

Any discussion on academic discourses on international education is not complete without an

analysis of the large body of academic writing on education markets. An exploration of this

domain, which I started in Chapter Three, is potentially useful to understand the power

regimes underpinning existing expressions of international education and the international

university. Much of this work has linked the development of education markets with a

neoliberal political rationality and the development of corresponding market-like mentalities

and subjectivities in institutions and individuals. By discursively linking the national

economy with the ‘global economy’, the state has been able to convince ‘free subjects’ of the

need for macro-economic policies to ensure ‘international competitiveness’. In other words,

by using a ‘reason of state’ rationality ‘and a complex collection of ‘steering’ technologies,

governments of all political persuasions have been able to connect the state, the market,

universities and individual employees, using the rationale of ‘there is no alternative’ (Currie

and Vidovich, 1999; Dudley, 1998; Marginson, 1997a, 1997c, 2000; Marginson and Considine,

2000; Meadmore, 1998). A preoccupation with a predominantly economic logic has also been

associated with a rise in educational instrumentalism and impression management by

universities (Meadmore, 1998; Symes, 1996, 1999).

Education markets are thus criticised for producing and perpetuating new cultures where

performativity reigns. Individual behaviours and institutional practices are deployed so as to

give the impression of ‘efficiency’ and ‘productivity’ (see Ball, 2000; Currie, 1998a). The

professional subjectivities privileged by such institutional cultures are overwhelmingly

centred towards competitiveness, individualism and self-interest. However, the work on

education markets has been largely related to domestic rather than international education

markets. There have not been empirical studies to investigate, for example, the types of subject

positions produced in consumers who participate in international education markets.

A second strand within the education markets discourse has largely applauded the

marketisation policies of government. Within this discourse, the normative understanding of


121

international education is as an export industry. According to this group of academic writers,

globalisation has created an “irreversible momentum” which will culminate in the

disintegration of the higher education “industry” (Chipman, 1998). The demand for higher

education is anticipated to be so great that established universities will not be able to meet it,

leaving the field open for private, for-profit institutions. The presence of the newcomers will

bring more competition and will push existing universities to radically reconfigure

themselves by modelling themselves on corporations to improve efficiencies and

productivity, and through collaborations with the private sector (Coaldrake and Stedman,

1998, 1999).

As they currently exist, universities are variously considered as ‘the last socialist enterprise’

(Schwartz, 2000a, 2000b), as ‘elaborate theme parks’, and expensive and bureaucratic

institutions which are relics of a redundant past (see Chipman, 1998, 2000; Schwartz, 2000b).

Within this discourse, understandings of ‘quality’ are couched in commonsense

understandings of ‘meeting customer needs’ and cost-effectiveness or ‘value for money’ (see

Gilbert, 2000; Norton, 2002). Academic entrepreneurialism is lauded as benefiting not only

talented hard-working academics, but also their institutions, individual students and

ultimately the nation-state.

This discursive strand constructs education as a commodity and universities as service

industry providers. Their responsibility is to meet the needs and expectations of their

customers and to provide a low-cost, high quality product. In this hyperglobalist context,

there is no need for a singular institution called ‘university’. Rather, the different functions of

the university – from preparation of curriculum materials, to teaching and assessment – are

best separated and outsourced. Thus, different producers could develop ‘packages of learning

resources’, to be delivered to customer-students ‘any where, any place’ by other links in the

production chain (Chipman, 1998, 2000). In effect, there are resonances here of a Fordist mode

of production along with an unassailable belief in human capital theory. Students and

employers are rational, utility-maximisers who will seek ‘value for money’ in the form of

‘quality’, low cost, credentials that provide access to employment.

Not surprisingly, it is a view held by private marketing agents who, as suggested by the

comments below, regard education like any other commodity:

...there are a great number of local agents working in Sydney...Many local agents are

discounting tuition fees to international students. And they do that often through

giving the students a share of the commission from the institution. They are giving

students cash, they are giving students discounts, they are giving students

laptops…they are giving students trips to the Gold Coast...(manager, IDP)19.

Here, despite the best of safeguards imposed by the universities, the deployment of a ‘value

for money’ discourse has manifested into a ‘discount war’. This example suggests that there

19. From interview conducted with IDP manager, 22 October 2000.


122

are limitations to ‘managing from a distance’ and flirting with the market carries reputational

risk.

By way of summary, a reading of academic discourse on international education would

suggest that the international university ‘subjects at the same time that it is subjected’; the

university is both an agent and an object of power. An earlier but powerfully resilient body of

discourse has constructed the passive and uncritical Asian learner. More recent research has

problematised the monoculturalism of Australian higher education and argued for the

development of ‘new literacies and learning spaces’ which foster recognition and respect for

difference beyond the instrumental (see Rizvi and Walsh, 1998; also Gough, 2000; Kelly, 1998;

Marginson, 2002).

However, discourse structures within Australian higher education are also subjected, more

recently, by the emergence of neoliberalism which has encouraged the development of

market-attractive knowledges and market-like subjectivities. The emergence of a

governmentality committed to fiscal savings, earning institutional income and upholding

financial independence, along with notions of performativity and efficiency, has seen the

emergence of particular expressions of international education. The disciplinary power of the

market has done little to institute deep-seated curricular changes which respond to the

cultural dimensions of globalisation (Marginson, 1999, 2002; Rizvi, 1997). In all,

power/knowledge relations within the international university have continued to privilege

cultural singularity at the expense of cultural plurality along with market-attractive

disciplines and knowledges.

In the following section, I discuss media representations of international education,

international students and universities. Media texts are productive in the construction of

‘commonsense’ understandings about international education and international students.

They shape institutional and individual realities, which ultimately can influence the

subjectivities of both academic staff and international students.

4.3.3 Mapping Media Discourses

In analysing media discourses about the Australian brand of international education, three

themes are discernible. First and most prevalent is an economic theme which celebrates the

success story of the international education export industry. Second, a ‘dot.edu’ discourse is

apparent which discursively associates international education with technology. Third, a set

of discursive practices seek to textually link international students with illegal immigrants and

declining academic standards. In doing so, these constructions reinforce the position of

international students as ‘the other’.

Evident in the economic theme is a collage of dynamic phrases (“boom in exports”) and a

vocabulary of ‘competition’. Much is made of a “world market” for education. In the face of

stiff international competition, Australia is portrayed as ‘winning’ markets. The caption


123

headings of news reports that I have listed below are fairly typical and work to construct a

singular meaning about international education as an export commodity:

• Nations plot to grab share (Lawnham, 2001d, p. 36)

• Asian demand to endure (Illing, 1999b, p. 40)

• British push for bigger share (Illing, 1999c, p. 36),

• Education gold in Japan (Courier-Mail, 26 March, 1999)

• There’s profit in ideas (Lyon, 2001, p. 43)

• Joint degree opens door to China market (Lawnham, 2000, p. 39)

• Oz shopfront in the UK (Lawnham, 2001a, p. 44)

• Uni push to export courses (Illing, 1998, p. 33)

• Chinese market ready for boom (Illing, 1999d, p. 38)

• A New Boom Sweeps Clean (Australian, 28 April, 1999, pp. 38-39)

• Conference showcases education as business (Lyon, 2000, p. 34)

• There’s gold in them commercial arms (Australian, 2000c, p. 37)

• Ideas flow in a sellers’ marketplace (Leon, 2002, p. 34)

The melding together of the discourses of markets with education are also evident in

advertisements like Frequent Flyer? (see Figure 5)20. The three listed items in Frequent Flyer?,

“International education, Cash in your network and $115 ++neg package” are a crude

illustration of these discursive links. A closer reading reveals the subject position created by

this discourse is that of an entrepreneur. The implicit message here is that international

education is simply another export commodity and selling education is no different from

selling other goods or services. A few articles such as Dark Side to Export Boom, report on the

problems which are arisen from an export approach to international education. For example,

the skewed demand for Business courses and non-research degrees has reduced Australia’s

capacity as a ‘knowledge nation’ (Illing, 2001b, p. 34). However, they have a subordinated

status in comparison to the ‘boom’ stories of commercial success.

Also under the aegis of ‘the economic’ were a series of reports on the financial crisis facing

Australian universities: Ups and downs in bottom line (Moodie, 2002) and Cash cures for campus

blues, (Marginson, 2000). The failed corporate ventures of universities also received some

mention: Melbourne University Private21, Melbourne IT and Anutech, the Australian

20. Frequent Flyer? appeared as an advertisement in the Higher Education section of the Australian newspaper on 11 July 2001.

21. Commenced in 1998 as the offspring of its Sandstone parent, Melbourne University Private received considerable publicity when it failed to make the rich profits anticipated at its inception. It was subse-quently merged with the profit making Melbourne Enterprises Initiative (MEI) amidst reports of an impending insolvency. In a move aimed symbolically at flexing its regulatory arm, the state govern-ment of Victoria has initiated a review to ascertain Melbourne University Private’s eligibility for con-tinued accreditation as a university in light of its limited research output and student enrolments (In 2000, it enrolled only 101 students (Madden, 2001a).


124

National University’s commercial arm. Reporting on universities and their staff was largely

ambivalent and only occasionally sympathetic. News items like, Unis ‘more than pay their way’

highlight the public good function of higher education through observations like this one –

“the state receives an 11.5% return on its investment on university trained professionals”22

(Illing, 2002, p. 27). Notably, this public good function is expressed in economic terms.

Similarly sympathetic are articles like Student jam drives staff into overload where issues such as

declining staff numbers and funding cuts are highlighted (Illing, 2001a, p. 35). By far and large

though, these types of articles are less frequent. The more common trend is to discuss key

issues such as underfunding in terms of the foibles of university unions: Union to limit use of

casuals, (Madden, 2001b); or as a collective failure of universities to manage their budgets: Unis

warned of fiscal breaches (Lawnham, 2002).

When they do appear, articles like Unis ‘more than pay their way’ and other such reports, do not

receive the ‘headline’ treatment reserved for items such as Degrees in the Pipeline (Richardson

and Lawnham, 2001, p. 31, see Figure 6) and Town and Gown (Richardson, 2001b, p. 21) both

of which appeared on the front page23. Degrees in the Pipeline announced Edith Cowan

Figure 5: Frequent Flyer?

22. Benefits such as reduced welfare dependency and the reduced propensity for crime among the uni-versity educated were also noted.

23. Paradoxically, a report on the findings of investigation, The Commercialisation of Public Sector Research was modestly sized and situated in the last few pages of the newspaper. Its findings, that the U.S. produced some 27 times more spin-offs for each US$100 million of research expenditure than Australia, is premised in the discourse of academic entrepreneurialism. It was noted that Australia would need to generate ten times the number of licences and spin-off companies to compete with the U.S. (Illing 2001c).


125

University’s introduction of the Bachelor of Surf Science and Technology. The layout, site and

presentation of this feature work together to make this a ‘major’ story. Its primary meaning

resides in its ‘feel-good’ quality. It merges the twin discourses of leisure with education and

applauds “...[the] commitment by academics to offer rigorous subjects in which students are

interested”. The female Dean of Regional and Professional Studies is pictured dressed in

corporate attire, complete with handbag and high-heels, holding a surfboard silhouetted

against blue skies and a sandy beach. The valorisation of news items like this can only serve

to reduce the importance of more serious challenges facing higher education.

A second discursive strand which appeared with some regularity in news reports was the ‘dot.

edu’ discourse. The linking of technology, markets and internationalisation is common to both

media reports and to institutional plans. The Universitas 21 initiative is one example where

the discourses of e-education, profits and international education are joined together.Together

with institutional plans, these news items help to construct the ‘virtualisation of education’ as

a logical, inevitable and progressive development within education:

• Web of learning is expanding (Australian, 2001, p. 32)

• Bouquets for online learning (Richardson, 2001a)

• Hooked with an online lure (Roberts, 2001, p. 37)

• Deal opens for global uni (Madden, 2001d, p. 38).

• University opens window to a new world (Gottliebsen, 2001, p.34)

Figure 6: Degrees in the Pipeline


126

• E-uni recruits more paying members (Madden, 2001d, p. 27)

• Students attracted to dot com degrees (Australian, 2000a);

• Plug for e-learning network (Richardson, 2002, p. 36)

• Online Masters bucks tradition (Madden, 2001e, p. 36)

• E-learning is the only way ahead (Spender and Steward, 2000).

University opens window to a new world, which reported on the Universitas 21 initiative, typifies

the type of laudatory coverage given to ‘e-education’. It describes Universitas 21 as “one of the

world’s most ambitious higher education initiatives”.

The combination of a publisher with a US$6 billion (A$11.64 billion) turnover and

between 16 and 18 of the world’s best universities is unique and confirms that while the

dot.com stock market boom may be dead, the re-writing of the business landscape

using internet-based technology continues rapidly (Gottliebsen, 2001, p. 34).

The article links education and business discourses unproblematically to construct a positive

image of the online university. There is no discussion as to how technology will deliver

improved learning outcomes for students. The sole references to students are in terms of the

projected demand: 1 million students. Finally, advertisements like Online learning in a

borderless market suggest the endorsement of state instrumentalities in the virtualisation of

education and the strategic use of this discourse to promote the education export industry.

Reporting on international students largely took three forms: their “insatiable” demand for an

Australian education, immigration fraud (No entry under false pretences), the issue of ‘soft

marking’ (Marking row leads to QUT inquiry; Marking inquiry exposes glitches) and declining

academic standards (Marks and Sparks)24. In the lead up to both state and federal elections, a

series of rhetorical strategies were used in news reports to position ‘Asian students’ as

powerful entities who deploy their power as consumers of Australian education to discipline

the democratic impulses of the broader Australian community. Articles such as Unis fear Asian

Student Backlash (see Cole, 2001), impose a powerful subjectivity onto the ‘Asian student’ who

is able to discipline ‘fearful’ universities. The article discusses the impact of popular support

for the One Nation party on institutional efforts to recruit international students.

To what extent are academics, who face large teaching and administrative workloads,

vulnerable to the ‘othering’ practices depicted in some parts of the media discourses? Judging

by the statements listed below, some academics equate the presence of international students

24. see Boucher (2001), Illing, (2001d) Lawnham, (2001c).


127

in Australian universities with declining academic standards and the loss of their professional

integrity:

...in the eyes of many academics a good service for the fee paying clients is the same

thing as prostituting your academic standards for the sake of a dollar...

...it is a common claim among academics that overseas students are accepted under

spurious entrance criteria ahead of qualified students then herded through courses

despite inadequate performance so that they can make way for the next lot of milch

cows. Another common grumble is that paying for their degrees gives them unrealistic

expectations of passing. (from Degrees of Doubt, Armitage, 1996, p. R01)

This and the statements below work to position international students against Australian

academics and students. International students are conferred with a powerful subjectivity –

their power resides in their capacity to ‘buy’ degrees and they are observed to have powerful

advocates within their institutions:

In the campus international offices that recruit them, international students have

powerful advocates which local students lack. These offices have power because they

bring in money: between $200 and 300 million a year in total... It is perfectly normal for

the international office to intervene when international students are failing... (ibid).

4.4 Concluding Comments

This chapter described and analysed the macro-context of international education in

Australia. More particularly, it examined how key nation-state instrumentalities are

interpreting and negotiating the myriad forces and processes of globalisation. In closing, I

re-visit some of the key points which have emerged from the analysis of public discourses

about the Australian university sector.

I have shown that the ‘policyscapes’ which have shaped international education have been

intersected by ‘national interest’ considerations. Where containing communism and winning

allies was a key national desire in the educational aid phase, by the end of the 1980s, national

interest was framed by the demands of the national economy. International education was

thus propelled into the role of earning export revenue. Allied to considerations of national

interest was a neoliberal discourse which argued for corporatisation and deregulation of the

Australian public sector. State instrumentalities subsequently deployed a series of

governmental technologies such as national ‘quality’ policies to produce and sustain

‘market-friendly’ relations of power and knowledge.

That the market dominates is reinforced by media discourses on international education.

International education is discursively constructed as a tradeable export commodity which

has yielded ‘gold’ for Australia. At the same time, media discourses through their promotion

of online education are developing alternative understandings of what constitutes

international education. The largely hyperglobalist e-education discourse has married the

‘dot.edu’ and ‘dot.com’ phenomena to privilege such objects as: ‘business’, ‘technological


128

progress’, ‘customer demand’, and ‘a global clientele’. Together, policy, academic and media

discourses construct the international student as a favoured ‘customer’ who seeks privileges,

an ‘uneducated other’ who has an ‘insatiable demand’ for things western and a duplicitous

character who is involved in immigration fraud and ‘soft marking’ scandals.

To conclude, a discourse of national interest has been influential in shaping

power/knowledge relations within international education. Various institutional reforms

have been undertaken in the interest of national competitiveness, producing the higher

education export industry as the dominant expression of international education. At the same

time, an older colonial text, premised on Australia as an educator of Asia and Asians remains

in place, along with a national fear of being swamped by the ‘other’. The end result has seen

the development of a dominant ‘brand’ of international education which has continued to

endorse cultural singularities in knowledge production despite some evidence of creative and

transformative work aimed at challenging the twin hegemonies of the market and

monoculturalism.

In the next chapter, I examine discourses of international education by two of Australia’s key

competitors within the global market, the United Kingdom and the United States. I start by

introducing the higher education contexts of both countries, and the economic, political and

cultural forces that have shaped the sector. This will be followed by a discussion of

internationalisation in the British and American higher education contexts.

Documents

Mapping the Discursive Terrain: Part 1157979/n05chapter4.pdf · Chapter 4 Mapping the Discursive Terrain: Part 1 99 access to resources preferably reinforced by national budget allocations