Educational improvement to whose images? – A coloniality perspective of higher education policy in Taiwan

Abstract

The recent reform movement of higher education policies, which are modeled on the top-ranked Western higher education institutions globally, has significantly impacted the administrative model among universities in Taiwan. This study takes the Higher Education Sprout Project, one of the current governmental higher education policies, as an example to examine the problem representation of the policy discourse and how one regionally selective university responds to the policy. This study aims to provide an alternative perspective to unpack how the global university rankings and the entrenched “world-class” imaginary have represented higher education improvement agenda in Taiwan. By bringing light to a coloniality perspective, this study argues that the ongoing colonial logic has been promoted and perpetuated by current higher education policies, which have reshaped the institutional mission of Taiwanese universities. The long-term misinterpreted connotation of “internationalization” and the entrenched “world-class” ideology within policy discourses have overlooked and systemically denied the Western hegemony of epistemic violence, as well as the Anglo-American dominated academic coloniality.

Keywords

higher education internationalization educational policy coloniality

Introduction

The development of higher education has been greatly influenced by the prevailing trend of neoliberal internationalization in Taiwan recently. Notably, with the transformation of higher education policies as well as the reformed school management strategies that are commonly modeled on the top-ranked higher education institutions (HEIs) in Western countries (e.g., the U.S., the U.K., etc.), the unexpected consequences, and the related debates have emerged during the past decades in Taiwan.

Taiwan is a small island economy in East Asia. Along with the entrenched neoliberal ideology among the globalized higher education contexts, the popularity of the global university rankings (GURs) has received increased attention and interest from governments and HEIs worldwide (Pusser & Marginson, 2013; Stack, 2016). Taiwan is not an exception to such worldwide ranking games. Improving the rankings performance of universities has been widely regarded as imperative in the agenda and aspirations for internationalization of higher education (IHE) policies in Taiwan. Notably, with the reduction of the higher education budget and governmental funding, many HEIs are eager to achieve better performance on the GURs to not only compete for governmental merit-based research grants but also improve their reputation and global visibility to attract international students and faculty members from higher-ranked overseas institutions. Against this background, the rationale of higher education policies in Taiwan is mainly driven by a neoliberal-instrumental discourse, which is comprised of market-based and competition-based values (Khorsandi Taskoh, 2014).

GURs have played an influential role in constructing the reputation and educational quality of HEIs in Taiwan. Notably, the annually released ranking league tables of the Big Three rankings¹ have commonly been considered influential external validators that represent the perceived prestige and quality of HEIs. However, some critical voices raise concerns that the rankings are epistemic tools that embody the influence of a Western-dominated global imaginary of higher education by legitimizing the privileged status of the higher-ranked Global North institutions, particularly the English-speaking, wealthy, and White-dominated institutions (Ishikawa, 2014; Rhoades et al., 2019; Stack, 2016; Stein & de Oliveira Andreotti, 2017). In other words, university rankings are seen to represent the dominance of the Western model of the knowledge economy as well as the outcome of neoliberal internationalization in the contemporary global context (Ishikawa, 2014; Trahar, 2013).

Moreover, the internationalization level of institutions has become an indicator of success in GURs systems. For instance, the rankings criteria of the influential Big Three rankings are widely associated with internationalization, such as international research collaboration, a ratio of international students and faculty members, student mobility, and international research influence and reputation survey (Larsen, 2016; Stack, 2016). Given these “international” indicators, the higher-ranking institutions seem to be more likely to achieve and retain a higher level of institutional internationalization as compared to their lower-ranking counterparts. For one thing, existing studies have demonstrated the influence of university rankings on international students’ decision-making in school choice (Broecke, 2015; Cebolla-Boado & Soysal, 2018; Tan & Goh, 2014). The top-ranked institutions are more attractive to international students and therefore continue to maintain or improve the ratio and numbers of international students. For another, given the ranking performance of universities is considered a crucial criterion for competing for governmental funding and research grants in Taiwan, higher-ranking institutions are more competitive in receiving funding for conducting high-quality international research projects and attracting distinguished international scholars and faculty members (Chou & Chan, 2016, 2017; Lo, 2014). Consequently, it seems to be a ranking vicious circle for lower-ranked institutions to break the deadlock, which is the commonplace narrative of many Taiwanese universities nowadays (Chou, 2014; Chou & Chan, 2016, 2017; Lo, 2014).

How the educational improvement represented to be in policy? – the Higher Education Sprout Project

The Higher Education Sprout Project (HESP) is one of the significant higher education policies that has been implemented since 2018. The term “sprout” stands for “sustained progress and rise of universities in Taiwan,” (MOE, 2018) which also indicated the goals of the policy. The HESP has two primary parts of practice to improve the overall quality of higher education in Taiwan. The first part of the policy agenda focuses on the improvement of equality in higher education. There are three dimensions of educational improvement represented in the first part of the policy agenda. First, there is a need to create a stronger connection between universities and local communities to support regional economic growth and sustainability. Second, there is a need to develop innovative student-centred teaching models and develop the university’s featured disciplines to increase research productivity and capacity. Finally, there is a need to provide educational resources to support minority and disadvantaged students to access higher education and improve equality. To meet these goals, with a five-year evaluation cycle, the government is providing $11.37 billion New Taiwanese Dollars (NTD) in subsidies to eligible colleges and universities. The eligibility criteria for the subsidy are based on academic performance (i.e., research productivity), and number of students and faculty members at the institution. During the first evaluation cycle (i.e., 2018–2022), 33 public universities, 15 public colleges, and polytechnic universities, 37 private universities, and 65 private colleges and polytechnic universities are eligible for the subsidy (MOE, 2018, February 13). However, the gap in subsidies is very significant between institutions. For example, the top five subsidized public universities received more than $6.5 billion new Taiwan dollars (NTD) (more than 70% of the funds), yet the remaining hundreds of institutions are allocated less than 30% of the total funds (MOE, 2018, February 13).

The HESP noted that the competitive funding provided by previous policies has limited the number of institutions subsidized by the government and narrowed the space for the development of private universities and junior colleges. Considering that the limited government funding has resulted in aggressive competition between institutions and between faculty members, the HESP has enlarged the sponsorship scale and shed light on multi-faceted issues, including equality, teaching and learning innovation, social responsibility, resource configuration, accessibility, and international competitiveness of Taiwanese HEIs. In this case, the problem represented by the HESP is the insufficient government funding that limits the multi-faceted development of universities. Therefore, enlarging the funding scale has been identified as an effective solution for enhancing the overall quality of Taiwanese universities.

In the second part of the HESP policy agenda, the improvements that are represented in the policy focus on two dimensions to facilitate the universities’ international competitiveness. For one thing, the Whole-School program has identified the need for universities to not only retain the existing strength of research capacity but also improve the international academic influence and global visibility on the university rankings. For another, the Featured Areas Research Centre Program has identified the need for universities to build world-class research centre through university-industry collaborations. It also highlights the importance of converting academic capital into long-term economic growth for island-building. In other words, the problems represented by the HESP are the dissatisfactory performance of Taiwanese universities in the global university rankings and the lack of international competitiveness of institutions and research centres. With those concerns, pursuing the “world-class” university status on rankings has been identified as an effective solution for universities to demonstrate their improvement of international competitiveness and the ability to lead economic growth to serve the purpose of island-building.

To fulfill the goals of improving international competitiveness of universities, the government has invested $5.3 billion NTD in total in eligible institutions and research centres. The eligibility criteria include research productivity, the performance of global university rankings, and research centres or projects that support nation-building. There are four selective, public research universities (shared $4 billion NTD) and 24 institutions (shared $1.3 billion NTD) with high-quality research centres that received government funding. In other words, the four subsidized universities have shared more than 75% of the funds. Unsurprisingly, the four public universities to receive these subsidies overlap with the top five public universities to receive the first subsidies outlined above. All of them are research-intensive, selective, higher-ranked with STEM-specialties institutions (MOE, 2018, February 13).

What’s left unproblematic in the educational improvement representation of the policy?

The needs for improvement being identified in the first part of the HESP policy agenda focuses on the issue of insufficient government funding. The Taiwanese government enlarged the scale of sponsorship to support more institutions in multi-faceted management improvement. Nevertheless, it is problematic to see similar eligibility criteria for evaluating and selecting subsidized institutions in both parts of the HESP policy agenda. On the one hand, the government’s merit-based qualification standards have disproportionately favoured higher-ranked, research-intensive public universities with strength in STEM fields. On the other hand, the purpose of government subsidization is to support universities in creating more inclusive and just campuses, as well as to address concerns of equality and improve the university’s social responsibility. However, the majority of governmental funding went to minority higher-ranked first-tier universities, such as Taiwan University and Cheng Kung University. Noticeably, the HESP report of subsidized institutions has illustrated that the same institutions are being subsidized in both parts of the project (MOE, 2018, February 13). To put it another way, the Taiwanese government has employed similar merit-based evaluation criteria to assess institutions’ achievement in global rankings/international competitiveness and their performance in enhancing equality and social responsibilities, all of which promoted and perpetuated the neoliberal ideology of higher education (MOE, 2019, April 12).

Moreover, the need for improvement being identified in the second part of the HESP policy agenda highlights the importance of improving universities’ global rankings performance and building world-class research centres/disciplines to serve the purpose of nation-building. The problem representation normalizes the assumption that “improving the ranking performance of Taiwanese universities” can “improve the international competitiveness” of Taiwan. Such an assumption can be problematic given that it unproblematized the current rankings schemes which favoured and benefitted institutions in the Global North countries, especially those wealthy, English-speaking universities in North American and Western European countries (Stack, 2016). From a critical perspective, university rankings need to be considered as a strong epistemic instrument that symbolizes the impact of a Western global imaginary in maintaining the privileged position of specific institutions and higher education models in the Global North (Ishikawa, 2014; Rhoades et al., 2019; Stein & de Oliveira Andreotti, 2017). Moreover, the problem representation has conceptualized the “world-class” identity as the alignment with higher-ranked institutions in the Global North Anglophone nations. Such conceptualization can be problematic given that it unproblematized the current global order of geopolitics and normalized the superior position of Western, English-speaking countries. In other words, in the global higher education settings, there appears to be an emerging trend toward isomorphism, with HEIs all over the world pursuing similar goals of aligning with the “world-class university” cohort.

Policy into practice: The case of Taiwan University

The Taiwan University (NTU) is one of the most selective public research universities in Taiwan. It is also one of the five main government funding recipients of the HESP. This section reviews the practices of NTU to explore how one public research university responded to a governmental IHE policy. Based on the university’s HESP Executive Office website, I found that most practices regarding higher education internationalization in NTU respond to and align with the agenda of the HESP. In other words, this study has not perceived disparities between governmental policy (i.e., HESP) and practices at the institutional level (NTU, 2018).

With the ambition to create a global campus with high-impact research, the goal of NTU is to support its competitive research fields to achieve a world-class level and exert greater influence in the global academic communities. Additionally, NTU has the desire and prospect to build a global campus that attracts and recruits more international talents and professionals, including outstanding international students and distinguished faculty members, to align with other top-ranked overseas institutions.

With the ambition to become a world-class university, NTU has set three goals to accomplish. The short- and medium-term goal of NTU is to align with the level of Kyoto University, which is ranked 38th in the 2021 QS World University Rankings in Asia regions (QS World University Rankings, 2020). To achieve the goal in this stage, NTU proposes to double the number of journal articles published in top international journals, as well as to improve the quality of all publications of NTU faculty members and researchers. Moreover, the university highlights the importance of integrating international teaching, learning, and research resources and promoting cooperation between university and industry.

The long-term goal of NTU is to align with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), which is ranked 5th in the 2021 QS World University Rankings in the U.S. region (QS World University Rankings, 2020). The achievements in this stage are to develop five to ten globally competitive research fields at the world-class level and to educate interdisciplinary international leadership teams and talents. Finally, the ultimate goal of NTU is to become a world-class university in Asia with high-impact research centres and strong global competitiveness (NTU, 2018).

Based on the Higher Education Sprout Project, there are two primary strategic frameworks that the NTU will use to meet these goals. One is building high-impact research centres and fields of study, the other one is establishing an international higher education talents ecosystem.

Building high-impact research centres and fields of study

There are five practical initiatives for NTU to build high-impact research centres and fields of study. The first initiative is to increase opportunities for PhD students to participate in the exchange and relocation research program. Promoting the institutional subsidized exchange and relocation research programs aims to encourage PhD students to study in top-ranked overseas institutions for relocation research, expanding international experiences, and enhancing the networking to cooperate with international research institutions. This practice responds to the goals of HESP that highlight the importance of nurturing outstanding academic talents to empower Taiwanese academic energy (MOE, 2019, April 12).

The second practice of NTU is to promote integrated core research groups and to support the career development of outstanding junior faculty members. The main purpose of promoting the core research groups is to enhance the academic international competitiveness of NTU and to cultivate distinguished academic new blood to lead the long-term development of the university. The university proposes to provide merit-based research grants to support the career development of junior faculty members in the research fields with potential and international competitiveness. This practice responds to the goals of HESP in supporting and facilitating faculty members to pursue the world-class status of teaching and research quality (MOE, 2019, April 12).

The third practice proposes to promote incentives and rewards to retain and recruit distinguished domestic/international faculty members by expanding the salary gap between full professors and other faculty members (Department of Higher Education, 2017). The fourth and fifth initiatives propose to deepen the international connections of teaching and research personnel to cultivate academic talents with international competitiveness, which also responds to the agenda of HESP to reinforce the academic international competitiveness of the institution (MOE, 2019, April 12).

Establishing international higher education talents ecosystem

There are four practices at NTU to establish an international higher education talent ecosystem. The first practice is to establish international colleges and special degree programs taught in English. The second practice is to integrate academic resources and interdisciplinary English degree programs to promote international education at NTU. The third and the fourth practices aim to deepen the connection of international partnerships with top-ranked overseas institutions. It is expected that in the first five-year evaluation circle, NTU will have world-class research infrastructures, and leading research centres, and effectively recruit, retain, and educate world-class academic talents to become a globally selective higher education institution with high research impact and strong international competitiveness (NTU, 2018).

The four main practices in terms of establishing the international higher education talents ecosystem respond to the policy agenda of the HESP. For one thing, the practices of establishing international colleges and English degree programs related to the agenda of internationalization in the HESP. This includes accelerating the internationalization of the institution by promoting international education at NTU to expand students’ global vision. For another, the practices to deepen the connection of international partnerships with top-ranked overseas institutions and to build world-class leading research centres also relate to the HESP’s policy agenda about enhancing excellence in specialized areas and research (Ministry of Education MOE, 2017, July 10; MOE, 2019, April 12).

Discussion and Conclusion

The “world-class” imaginary in Taiwan

The Global university rankings, especially the Big Three rankings, are recognized as significant indicators to represent the universities’ “world-class” status in Taiwan (Chou & Chan, 2016; Song & Tai, 2007; Stack, 2019). Nevertheless, there are debates regarding the ethics of rankings, particularly for their controversial indicators. For instance, the quantification of research productivity, citation rates, and institutional reputation survey have been instrumental in the colonization and dispossession of non-English speaking, non-Anglo-American dominated nations in Asia and other parts of the world (Estera & Shahjahan, 2018; Marginson, 2016).

Take the case of NTU in this study, for instance. The IHE practices at NTU have implied the soft power of the Western model of higher education being embedded in the rationale of internationalization. First, NTU has a strong desire to align with the top-ranked overseas institutions and to join the world-class cohort. Second, NTU proposes to develop a systematic and modular English curriculum and degree programs to promote international education, as well as to attract and recruit more international students. Third, NTU expands the sponsorship of study-abroad projects for graduate students to study in higher-ranked overseas institutions. Fourth, NTU provides merit-based competitive research grants for junior faculty members as incentives to encourage them to publish more articles in well-known international journals. Finally, NTU provides incentives (i.e., salary and research funding) to retain and attract distinguished domestic/international scholars (NTU, 2018). These practices implied the soft power of higher-ranked Western institutions which dominate the global consensus and isomorphism of the criteria of becoming a “world-class” university.

All in all, this study found that the rationales of the HESP as well as many other recent higher education policies in Taiwan have been primarily driven by economic and academic rationales (Knight, 2004). Nevertheless, these rationales cannot be delinked with the entrenched “world-class” global imaginary of higher education (Stein & de Oliveira Andreotti, 2017) given that the Taiwanese government and university administrators/leaders have considered the core value of internationalization to align with higher-ranked institutions, as well as to be acknowledged in the global academic community (NTU, 2018; Song & Tai, 2007).

“Internationalization” or “Westernization”: Ongoing logic of coloniality in higher education

I draw on Mignolo’s (2003) theory of coloniality to unfold a higher education policy in Taiwan, arguing that there is the ongoing logic of coloniality embedded into the current Western-dominated epistemic framework of the “internationalization” and the “world-class” imaginary.

The concept of coloniality moves beyond notions of postcolonialism and refers to an enduring logic of domination in the language of modernity and social progress, which is central in the justification and legitimization of the discourse that policy is constructed to benefit everyone (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Shahjahan, 2013). However, this policy discourse erases the ideological and power interests that shape it (Shahjahan, 2016). The coloniality perspective helps unpack the ongoing logic of domination, dispossession, and colonialism of mind within the existing policy discourses (Andreotti, 2015).

By reviewing the Higher Education Sprout Project and the institutional strategic plan of Taiwan University, I found that the policy offers competitive funding and research grants for institutions with better ranking performance and stronger research productivity. The rationales of the policy are based on the “catch-up” ideology (Lo & Hou, 2020) with the belief that it is vital to import Western knowledge and cutting-edge technology/skills to improve the quality of higher education and promote the international competitiveness and economic growth of Taiwan. However, it might be critical to unpack the ideological and power interests that shape these policies and practices, as well as to identify who benefits from these policies and who has been marginalized. For example, merit-based accountability in evaluating research outcomes and productivity may facilitate the formation of research field hierarchy and university stratification. Universities which are famous for the STEM-related disciplines are more likely to strive for competitive funding while the universities famous for the disciplines of social science and humanities are falling into the circle of reducing research funding and budget, eventually being coerced to participate in the competition of publication (Chou, 2014; Chou & Chan, 2016, 2017; Li, 2016). Moreover, recent higher education policies have facilitated the reconfiguration of institutional missions (Li, 2016), which impacted the academic freedom and autonomy of faculty members. In this case, the universities have become knowledge factories and the faculty members can be regarded as knowledge workers (Oleksiyenko, 2018). Universities are factories to compete through the productivity and quality of their products, such as scholarly publications, and the rewards are the improvement of ranking performance, academic reputation, and research grants/funding. Against this context, faculty members, particularly junior faculty members, are coerced into the circle of “publish or perish” (Chou, 2014; Munigal, 2017) to struggle with long-term job security and promotion opportunities.

Finally, to unpack the rationales of higher education policy in Taiwan from a coloniality perspective, it is critical to recognize that the “world-class” imaginary is the dominant representation of educational improvement in Taiwan. Nevertheless, it is important to also recognize that the so-called “world-class” imaginary has positioned Western higher education on a more privileged status over other models (Estera & Shahjahan, 2018). Notably, given the dominant global university rankings that disproportionately favours the wealthier, whiter, Anglophone institutions in Western Europe and North America, such a “world-class” imaginary has been produced and reproduced within and beyond the Global North countries and institutions (Stack, 2016; Stack & Mazawi, 2021). It also works to perpetuate Western/White supremacy by promoting and constructing the model of global higher education that is foregrounded on Western neoliberalism and capitalism. In this case, the current connotation of “internationalization” has been used to naturalize and legitimize the continuing Eurocentric colonial and imperial traditions across the global higher education settings.

In sum, given that the ideological underpinning of the HESP in Taiwan has been driven by the “world-class” imaginary, it might be fair to argue that the logic of coloniality has been reproduced and represented as an educational improvement by current governmental policies and initiatives of higher education internationalization in Taiwan. The “internationalization” that the Taiwanese government conceptualized has indeed been limited to “Westernization” that underestimated the influence of the Global South perspectives. In this case, “internationalization” has become the hypocritical buzzword to legitimize the logic of coloniality embedded in governmental education policies that help to perpetuate the privileged status of the Western countries and their knowledge economy (Stein & de Oliveira Andreotti, 2017).

Closing tought

I review one of the recent higher education policies, the Higher Education Sprout Project, which is an important higher education policy contributing to the transformative management strategies of Taiwanese HEIs to improve issues of equality and university internationalization. This study intends to provide alternative ways of thinking for reimagining the possibilities for future higher education policies in Taiwan. By bringing light to a coloniality perspective, I ask: what is the destination of higher education improvement in Taiwan, and whose images are recent Taiwanese higher education policies modeling for educational improvement? I argue that the image of a “world-class university” and the connotation of “internationalization” in recent higher education policies in Taiwan have systemically denied the dominant position of Western countries in the global knowledge economy and marginalized some participants in the less-developed countries/regions (i.e., the Global South countries) from the “accepted network of knowledge production” (Yang, 2002, p. 90).

The closing thoughts would like to reimagine the responsibility of higher education to provide some implications for future study and policymaking. In order to reframe the imaginary of higher education, it is crucial to define the function of higher education in the broader societal world. If we agree that the responsibility of higher education is to serve the “public good,” it is critical to unpack our understandings and interpretations regarding the “public good” that we expect from higher education.

Given the current neoliberal ideology, which strongly influenced the development trajectory of global higher education, to what extent university is the place to reproduce the Western colonial tradition and retain the existing asymmetry of global power hierarchy?

I hope this article both responds and questions how we improve education for a more equitable world. I aim to open a window for unpacking how the higher education development in an East Asian island economy is being communicated and represented through its policy, by what purposes, and why. We also need more critical thoughts and voices for higher education internationalization to further unpack the perceived asymmetrical power relationship between the Global North and Global South for reframing and reimagining the role of higher education in this global era.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Andreotti

V. O.

(2015). Postcolonial perspectives in research on higher education for sustainable development. In Barth

Michelsen

Rieckmann

Thomas

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development (pp.194−206). Routledge.

Broecke

(2015). University rankings: Do they matter in the UK? Education Economics, 23(2), 137−161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2012.729328

Cebolla-Boado

Soysal

Y. N.

(2018). Why study abroad? Sorting of Chinese students across British universities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(3), 365−380. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2017.1349649

Chou

C. P.

(2014). The SSCI syndrome in Taiwan’s Academia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n29.2014

Chou

C. P.

Chan

C. F.

(2016). Trends in publication in the race for world-class university: The case of Taiwan. Higher Education Policy, 29(4), 431−449. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0016-6

Chou

C. P.

Chan

C. F.

(2017). Governance and academic culture in higher education: Under the influence of the SSCI syndrome. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 6(2), 63−75. https://doi.org/10.14425/jice.2017.6.2.63

Department of Higher Education . (2017, August 2). “Jiaoyu bu guihua yushan ji hua qianghua yanlan ji liuren guonei wai dingjian rencai” 教育部規劃「玉山計畫」強化延攬及留任國內外頂尖人才. Ministry of Education. https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=FDB45CD165AA0A45

Estera

Shahjahan

R. A.

(2018). Globalizing whiteness? Visually re/presenting students in global university rankings websites. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(6), 930−945. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1453781

Ishikawa

(2014). Ranking regime and the future of vernacular scholarship. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 30. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n30.2014

10.

Khorsandi Taskoh

(2014). A critical policy analysis of internationalization in postsecondary education: An ontario case study. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Electronic thesis and dissertation repository. University of Western Ontario. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1933

11.

Knight

(2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5−31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832

12.

Larsen

M. A.

(2016). Global rankings: Reshaping the spatial landscape of higher education. In Larsen

M. A.

(Ed.), Internationalization of higher education: An analysis through spatial, network, and mobilities theories. Palgrave Macmillan US.

13.

(2016). The global ranking regime and the reconfiguration of higher education: Comparative case studies on research assessment exercises in China, Hong Kong and Japan. Higher Education Policy, 29(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0015-7

14.

W. Y. W.

(2014). The ranking phenomenon and the experience of academics in Taiwan. Higher Education Policy, 27(2), 259–277, https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.22

15.

W. Y. W.

Hou

A. Y. C.

(2020). A farewell to internationalisation? Striking a balance between global ambition and local needs in higher education in Taiwan. Higher Education, 80(3), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00495-0

16.

Marginson

(2016). The global construction of higher education reform. In Mundy

K. E.

Green

Lingard

(Eds.), Handbook of global education policy, 291. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NuwACgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA291&dq=%22university+ranking%22+and+%22Serbia%22&ots=t-IFSyJh-y&sig=6TWwXf0fbS_iBr7-_ZxpllvgdrQ

17.

Mignolo

(2003). Globalization and the geopolitics of knowledge: The role of the humanities in the corporate university. Nepantla: Views From South, 4(1), 97–119.

18.

Ministry of Education (MOE) . (2017, July 10). “Gao deng jiaoyu shengeng ji hua (xing zheng yuan heding)” 高等教育深耕計畫 (行政院核定). https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed2200/News_Content.aspxn=38E925417DBAF594&sms=A882C6AAB4E9A0CC&s=48B633D53D143A26

19.

Ministry of Education (MOE) . (2018, February 13). “Gao deng jiao yu shen geng ji hua shen cha jie guo gong bu” 高等教育深耕計畫審查結果公布. https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=8365C4C9ED53126D

20.

Ministry of Education (MOE) . (2019, April 12). Higher education SPROUT project. https://sprout.moe.edu.tw/SproutWeb/Home/Index/en

21.

Munigal . (2017). Scholarly communication and the publish or perish pressures of academia. IGI Global.

22.

National Taiwan University (NTU) . (2018). “Gao deng jiao yu shen geng ji hua: Ji hua zhai yao” 高等教育深耕計畫:計畫摘要. https://ord.ntu.edu.tw/sprout/list1-Tag1.asp

23.

Oleksiyenko

(2018). Zones of alienation in global higher education: Corporate abuse and leadership failures. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2018.1439095

24.

Pusser

Marginson

(2013). University rankings in critical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 544–568. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2013.0022

25.

QS World University Rankings . (2020). QS world university rankings 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.universityrankings.ch/results/QS/2021?ranking=QS&year=2021&region=&q=Japan

26.

Rhoades

Castiello-Gutierrez

Lee

J. J.

Marei

M. S.

O’Toole

L. C.

(2019). Marketing to international students: Presentation of university self in geopolitical space. The Review of Higher Education, 43(2), 519–551. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0109

27.

Rizvi

Lingard

(2010). Globalizing educational policy. Routledge.

28.

Shahjahan

R. A.

(2013). Coloniality and a global testing regime in higher education: Unpacking the OECD’s AHELO initiative. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 676–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.758831

29.

Shahjahan

R. A.

(2016). International organizations (IOs), epistemic tools of influence, and the colonial geopolitics of knowledge production in higher education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 31(6), 694–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1206623

30.

Song

M. M.

Tai

H. H.

(2007). Taiwan’s responses to globalisation: Internationalisation and questing for world class universities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(3), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790701594067

31.

Stack

(2016). Global university rankings and the mediatization of higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.

32.

Stack

(2019). Academic stars and university rankings in higher educational: Impacts on policy and practice. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 4(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2019.1667859

33.

Stack

Mazawi

A. E.

(2021). Beyond rankings and impact factors. In Stack

(Eds.), Global university rankings and the politics of knowledge (pp. 225–242). University of Toronto Press.

34.

Stein

de Oliveira Andreotti

(2017). Higher education and the modern/colonial global imaginary. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 17(3), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616672673

35.

Tan

Y. S.

Goh

S. K.

(2014). International students, academic publications and world university rankings: The impact of globalisation and responses of a Malaysian public university. Higher Education, 68(4), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9724-2

36.

Trahar

(2013). Globalization and internationalization in higher education: Theoretical, strategic and management perspectives. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1), 146–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2012.686873. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/full/10.1080/03057925.2012.686873

37.

Yang

(2002). University internationalisation: Its meanings, rationales and implications. Intercultural Education, 13(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980120112968. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/abs/10.1080/14675980120112968