Intertwining World Culturalist and Culturalist Perspectives:Developing a Regional Educational Hub in South Korea

Name: Zhe Wang (Wynn)

Student Number: 250872858

Instructor: Marianne Larsen

Education 9203 – Globalization and Education

Due: April 1, 2016

1

Student mobility has become a significant part of a global migration phenomenon

that corresponds to the influence of globalization. Spring (2015) argues that the largest

international migration patterns are associated with people moving from poorer to

wealthier nations. Traditionally, the predominant destinations for international migrants

have been English-speaking and western European countries, such as the U.S., the U.K., and

Australia (Lee & Sehoole, 2015). However, the number of international students has

decreased in these destinations, which indicates that international students are more

interested in seeking out less-developed countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development, 2014). This is because countries that were formerly primarily source

countries have begun to reform their internalization policies to attract foreign students and

prevent further brain drain. For instance, as one of the top student sending countries, South

Korea is now working towards its ambition to become a regional education hub. In order to

achieve this, the government is passing many pro-education policies to attract foreign

students, such as the Brain Korea 21 Project, the World-Class University Project, and the

Study Korea 2020 Project, which aims to double the number of foreign students studying in

Korea by 2020. Statistics from OECD (2013) illustrate that 71% of international students

who study in Korea are from neighbouring countries. This implies that international

mobility is no longer following a linear pattern in which people move from the developing

countries to the developed countries. Instead, migration is becoming more and more

complex because of the emergence of new regional hubs.

How is South Korea developing itself as a regional educational hub? How is

globalization contributing to the development of South Korea as a regional educational

hub? I would argue that the development of South Korea as a regional education hub is a

2

new hybrid product of globalization that intertwines the world culturalist and culturalist

perspective to bring positive changes to South Korean education, and to give South Korea a

better position in the competitive global education market by developing a Student Hub in

the Asian-Pacific region.

To begin to address these questions, this paper will present a brief overview of

different perspectives on globalization, which provides an analytical framework to help

track the formation of South Korea as a regional educational hub. Next, to conceptualize

and categorize educational hubs, the paper outlines the three models of educational hubs,

which are Student, Talent, and Knowledge-Innovation hubs. The body of the paper focuses

on analyzing several important educational reform policies and outcomes in South Korea

from the world culturalist perspective, including the development of English as a medium

of instruction, and to attract more international students by becoming more competitive in

global rankings. The paper also discusses educational policy in terms of the culturalist

perspective. From this view, Korean educational policies involve recontextualization, which

locally modifies and creates new characteristics that benefit developing South Korea as a

regional educational hub. Furthermore, the paper addresses South Korean educational

policies and briefly examines which of the three types of educational hubs are developing

in Korea.

Different Perspectives on Globalization

Globalization is a complex process that inspires intense debate. For example, world

culturalist theorists and culturalist theorists hold opposing views when interpreting

globalization. World cultural theorists focus on the development of a uniform global

education culture that shares similar goals, education practices, and organizations (Spring,

3

2015). According to these theorists, the homogenization and standardization of educational

policies and practices in the world is a result of adopting the western model of education.

This view of globalization refers to a ‘neo-liberal’ kind of globalization that prefers to

deregulate and privatize state functions and to promote the value of competition (Rizvi &

Lingard, 2010). In contrast, culturalist theorists reject the growing uniformity of global

policies and goals, although they acknowledge that local agencies have the ability to

culturally translate ideas borrowed from the global flow of educational ideas and practices

(Spring, 2015). From the culturalist perspective, culture is a fluid and continually

transforming process that is shaped by the integration of economic, political, and social

changes (Baker & LeTendre, 2005). Therefore, globalization is never a convergence

process, and national states have strong positions in shaping policies.

What Are Educational Hubs?

The increasing flow of ideas, technology, capital, and people brings countries closer

to each other. This has led to the emergence of educational hubs as a new international

landscape of higher education that corresponds to the complexity of international student

mobility. An educational hub is “a planned effort to build a critical mass of local and

international actors strategically engaged in education, training, knowledge production and

innovation initiatives” (Knight, 2011, p. 227). In order to understand the concept of the

educational hub, it is necessary to deconstruct and analyze some key components within

this definition. “Planned effort” implies that the establishment of a hub requires an

intensive amount of time to organize, and that it is actively strategically designed. For

instance, some policy frameworks are a product of the “planned efforts” that reflect the

rationality and intentionality of building educational hubs. In addition, “critical mass”

4

recognizes the variety of actors that work together to contribute to the establishment of an

educational hub. In particular, a single-branch campus does not form an educational hub.

Next, “local and international actors” clarifies that both domestic and foreign players must

participate in an educational hub. Lastly, “strategically engaged” emphasizes that the

interactions among different actors involved in building educational hubs is complex, and

new values are added when different actors collaborate together (Knight, 2014).

There is no “one size fits all” model of educational hub, but educational hubs do

share some common characteristics and can be identified in three major types: The Student

Hub, The Talent Hub, and The Knowledge Hub. The Student Hub focuses on educating and

training local and international students, and the recruitment and attracting of foreign

higher education institutions has significant meaning for increasing access to all types of

students (Knight, 2011). The Talent Hub is similar to the Student Hub in that it emphasizes

students’ education and training. However, Talent Hubs train students to be skilled

laborers, and encourage foreign students to remain in host countries for employment,

which benefits the developing nation’s economy (Knight, 2011). Lastly, Knowledge Hubs

focus on production and distribution of knowledge and innovation. For example,

universities and research institutes may collaborate with some local agencies to establish a

base to create applied research and knowledge (Knight, 2014).

Development of South Korea as a Regional Educational Hub: Policy Analysis from the World Culturalist Perspective

From the world culturalist perspective, ‘neo-liberal’ globalization promotes

competition, and standardization becomes a significant characteristic that influences

students’ choice of destinations. “Brain chain” can be a useful term in explaining the

5

pressure from which South Korea’s education system suffers. Countries that are at the

bottom of the chain are always net losers (Knight, 2014). South Korea needs to reform its

educational system to be more competitive in the standardized global ranking system.

Teaching, research, citations, industry income, and international outlook are five areas of

indicators for The World University Ranking. All of the top ten universities are in English-

speaking countries, which reinforces the global role of using English (Spring, 2015). One of

the reasons is because the ranking system counts only international journal publications as

part of the citation category, and most of these journals require articles to be written in

English (Shin, 2013). In addition, American-dominated hegemony has made English

become a global communication language. Now the use of English for teaching can be an

important indicator for measuring university competitiveness, and also acts as a means to

attract international students (Shin & Kehm, 2013).

The Korean government now has the ambitious goal to establish the country as a

regional educational hub. As a result, the government is making an effort to adopt the

westernized model of education, to put emphasis on using English as the language of

instruction, and to become a region with world-class universities. Strengthening South

Korean higher education is an important requirement for developing an educational hub.

The Brain Korea 21 Project, Study Korea Project, and The World-Class Universities (WCUs)

in Korea are three important policies that are influenced by the westernized model of

education, and which will help strengthen certain aspects of South Korean higher

education.

One of the areas needed for establishing a regional hub is increased productivity

and quality of research. The Brain Korea 21 Project was established in 1999, with a

6

primary focus to enhance the quality of research and strengthen graduate programs to

make Korea University globally competitive (Seong, Popper, Goldman, Evans & Grammich,

2008). Specifically, one objective was to establish 10 research-oriented universities by the

year 2012, and leap into the world’s top 10 nations in the Science Citation Index (SCI) after

2012 (Byun, Jon & Kim, 2013). The citation index is an important performance indicator

that counts for 30% of the World University Ranking (Spring, 2015). Korea’s government

believes that professors must gain international recognition of their research in order for

Korean universities to compete on an international level (Cho & Palmer, 2012). Given its

ambitious goals, South Korea is clearly in favour of the World University Ranking system

and recognizes the value of the westernized university ranking system. As a result, the

Brain Korea 21 Project has had tremendous direct influence on increasing publications in

international journals. For instance, articles published by Koreans in the Science Citation

Index increased from 9854 in 1999 to 25,494 in 2007(Kim, 2008).

The rationality for increasing Korean universities’ reputations and paying attention

to the global ranking is another important strength for developing South Korea as a

regional educational hub. As a global ranking system emerged, the establishment of World

Class Universities (WCU) became a hot issue that has had a huge impact on many nations’

educational policies as they try to reform universities to align with the WCU standard. In

South Korea, the World Class University Project was launched in 2008; it aims to import

foreign scholars to improve Korean universities’ teaching and research quality, and to

provide Korean students with the latest information to help them leap to an advantaged

position in the uniform international knowledge network (Byun & Kim, 2011). The process

of building a world-class research university reflects Korea’s ambition to establish a hub of

7

knowledge production in this competitive sector. The second step to building a World Class

University involves attracting talented Korean PHD students and training them as

competitive scholars in the world market (Shin & Jang, 2013). Similar to the Brain Korea 21

Project, the World Class University Project further promotes and attracts well-known

western scholars to increase research productivity and uses the westernized model of

education to train local Korea students. Again, this aim implies that the western model of

education has a higher position in the global education hierarchy, and that the Korean

education system has less power and needs to adopt the western model to survive.

Expanding the use of English as the language of instruction is an important part of

developing South Korea as a regional education hub. The Study Korea Project encourages

the use of English, which has reformed the structure of Korean higher education and

increased the enrolment of international students to study in South Korea. In addition to

boosting English course offerings, the Study Korea Project established English tracks in

strategic departments (Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013). Korean undergraduate students

are now also required to take five courses in English to fulfill graduation requirements, and

the government increased the ratio of classes taught in English up to 50% by 2010 (Jon &

Kim, 2011). In addition, several of Korea’s top private universities, such as Yonsei

University and Ewha Woman’s University, have established all English four-year liberal

institutions to attract international students (Byun & Kim, 2011). Moreover, the increasing

importance of English as the language of instruction has brought about many changes in

evaluating Korea University professors’ performance. For instance, a professor’s ability to

conduct classes entirely in English and to publish English-language articles in international

journals has become important criteria for reemployment and tenure (Byun & Kim, 2011).

8

Furthermore, the majority of universities in Korea have set rules that newly hired

professors must teach at least some courses in English (Byun & Kim, 2011). Lastly, using

English as the language of instruction brings curriculum materials at a “world-class” level

(Jon & Kim, 2011). As a result, students feel satisfied because the international dimension is

introduced into classrooms and they can learn the most advanced materials. Overall, using

English as the language of instruction in Korea is a core strategy that is closely related to

the World Class University project and the Brain Korea 21 project, and shares the same

philosophy of adopting westernized model of education. “Englishization,” or recognizing

English as a global language, has made Korea University become a standardized world

university.

Development of South Korea as a Regional Educational Hub: Policy Analysis from the Culturalist Perspective

It is clear that the westernized model of education has become an important

component in developing South Korea as a regional educational hub. However, from a

culturalist point of view, the country’s educational policies have also integrated some

unique Korean characteristics through recontextualization to develop South Korea as a

regional educational hub.

The Korean government’s involvement acts as a central agency in implementing

supporting policies to push the development of a regional educational hub in South Korea.

The Korean national state has a strong position and has provided enormous amounts of

funding for the Brain Korea 21 Project, World Class University Project, and the Study Korea

Project. The government gave US $3.5 billion to the Brain Korea 21 Project’s Phase 1 and

Phase 2 from 1999 to 2012, and plans to invest a total of US $750 million in the WCU

project in the first six years (Kang, 2015). According to the Study Korea 2020 Project

9

(2013), Korea’s government also supports expanding the Global Korea Scholarship

program by providing up to US $100 million annually by 2015. Korea’s educational policies

are government-sponsored projects, which highlights that governmental regulations

provide strong support for developing South Korea as a regional educational hub.

South Korea has also recontextualized and created localized supporting policies for

attracting international students. The Study Korea 2020 Project set a target of attracting

200,000 foreign students by 2020 (Green, 2015). In order to attract them, Study Korea

2020 highlights the implementation of customized international student recruitment

(Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013). Firstly, the Korean government has set up affordable

low-cost, better services for students who want to study in Korea. In South Korea, domestic

students and international students pay the same tuition fees (OECD, 2015). Incoming

international students live in new dormitories that serve only international students (Jon &

Kim, 2011). In addition, the Korean government tries to recruit international students from

“strategic countries,” such as India, Vietnam, and Mongolia, to encourage these students to

stay and complete engineering graduate school (Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013). These

countries have a strong passion for studying engineering and are geographically located

close to South Korea. For some colleges that specialize in engineering, university policies

are trying to ease Korean language requirements for engineering programs, and to support

job placement to overseas companies after graduation (Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013).

The Korean government also accurately analyzes its own marketing trends, and advertises

and promotes specialized engineering programs to attract international students from

these strategic countries. Moreover, according to the Study Korea 2020 Project 2020

(2013), one of the program’s main strategies is expanding its internalization base through

10

reinforcing Korean language education in and outside of Korea. In 2001, 83% of

international students enrolled in undergraduate programs in Korea were from China

(Study Korea 2020 Project, 2013). The majority of Chinese students do not favour English

as a medium of instruction (Green, 2015). However, many Chinese students are instead

infatuated with Korean culture, and are eager to learn the Korean language (SBS, 2001).

Korean culture and the Korean language might be an important reason for Chinese

international students to choose to study in Korea. As a result, Korean universities have

strengthened and expanded the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) and have made some

strategic expansions of bilingual classes (Study Korea Project 2020, 2013). Through

emphasizing Korean culture and language, Korean universities have branded themselves to

be part of a standout regional educational hub.

After analyzing Korea’s higher-education policies from the world culturalist

perspective and the culturalist perspective, it is clear that both approaches are working

together to make South Korea into a regional educational hub that is a new hybrid product

of globalization. On the one hand, world culturalist theory puts emphasis on the

homogenizing nature of globalizing forces that compel Korea to compete in the global

ranking systems and to expand the use of English as a global language to construct South

Korea’s education as highly internationalized. On the other hand, culturalist theorists draw

people’s attention to the heterogeneity of westernized education, and discuss South

Korea’s recontextualized policies for attracting foreign students through reforming

engineer programs and branding Korean culture and language. In the case of South Korea,

world culturalist theory and culturalist theory are bound together to develop South Korea

11

as a regional educational hub, and both approaches have undeniable power in shaping

South Korea’s higher educational policy.

Typology of the Education Hub in South Korea

Following the discussion above, it is clear that the Korean government is

subjectively making an effort to develop a regional educational hub. However, the

educational demands in the Asia-Pacific region are also a necessary consideration for

developing Korea as a regional educational hub. In 2011, close to half of the world’s

students studying abroad around the world came from Asia, with China, India, and South

Korea being the top three sending countries (Banks & Bhandari, 2012). This implies that

Asian students have a strong desire to pursue higher education outside of their own

countries, and that there is a huge market for education in the Asian region. In addition, the

massive growth of middle class families in Asia will drive the demand for tertiary education

in the future (Kharas, 2010). The development of personal wealth in Asia allows more

students to afford to study abroad, which ensures the stability of the educational market in

the Asia-Pacific region. South Korea is located in East Asia and is geographically close to

many countries, including China, Japan, Vietnam, and Mongolia, meaning Korea has the

potential to serve many Asian students who wish to study abroad.

As mentioned earlier, there is no “one size fits all” model of educational hub, and

there may be different rationales for developing a regional educational hub. Some countries

want to build a hub in order to distribute knowledge and innovation through foreign

investment, and to develop collaboration among key players to increase their international

economic or cultural influence. Other countries perceive a hub as a means to build a critical

12

mass of foreign students to enhance profit, to brand the country’s higher education, and to

benefit local students’ access to international education (Knight, 2013). Therefore, what is

the rationale behind South Korea developing its hub, and what are the hub’s unique

characteristics?

Given Korea’s three main wide-ranging educational policies, the Study Korea

Project, Brain Korea 21 Project, and World Class University Project, it seems that Korea’s

government aims to develop South Korea simultaneously as a regional Student Hub, Talent

Hub, and Knowledge and Innovation Hub in the long run. However, I would argue that

Korea’s main rationale for developing a hub is to create a Student Hub, because these

policies are too wide-ranging and evaluate whether or not it seems possible to develop all 3

over time. All of the country’s policies prioritize objectives for recruitment and education

for students. Knight (2013) argues that some objectives for developing student hubs

include providing wider access to higher education for local students, gaining profit from

international student fees, building capacity for local higher education, and

internationalizing domestic higher education to enhance ranking and branding among the

world’s universities.

In the case of South Korea, the Study Korea Project 2020 aims to establish a number

of international education environments in free economic and international education

zones, including the development of Incheon Global Campus (IGC) AND Jeju Global

Education City (JGEC). IGC is located in the Incheon Free Economic Zone one hour west of

Seoul. George Mason University, Ghent University, the State University of New York and the

University of Utah are currently members of the IGC. Six more international universities

are expected to join in the future (IGC Foundation, 2015). IGC serves as an umbrella

13

organization that contains all of these branch campuses, and helps facilitate collaboration

among all participating universities (Jin, 2015). As a result, students have more flexibility in

course selection because of some shared courses among participating universities.

Moreover, JGEC is located in the southwest region of Jeju, which aims to be the excellent

destination for both domestic and international students who wish to experience English

learning through K-12 and postsecondary education (Dou & Knight, 2014). The JGEC’s

ambitious plan clarifies that the university zone was modeled after the Dubai Knowledge

Village. JGEC plans to allow foreign education providers to rent lecture spaces, while

students will share residences, libraries, community halls, and other facilities (Dou &

Knight, 2014).

Both IGC and JGEC are unique ways of gathering international branch

campuses in one specific location. They also possess a brand focused on collaboration,

which aims to attract both domestic and international students. The development of these

international education zones indicates Korea’s strong will to position itself as a Student

Hub in Northeast Asia. However, based on its education policies, the Korean government

seems to be less concerned with developing a Talent Hub or a Knowledge Hub. In addition,

the country still has a long way to go because of the lack of a national plan to support the

sustainability of developing South Korea as a regional hub. The education sector may not

be the most significant sector in the development of a Talent Hub, and the immigration

sectors have more important influences on the development of a Talent Hub (Knight & Lee,

2014). In terms of the Knowledge Hub, “independent institutes, research and development

firms, and science and technology companies” are all important players in collaboratively

creating knowledge (Knight & Lee, 2014, p. 34).

14

The development of South Korea as a regional educational hub is a complex process

in practice that involves strong collaborations among different local and international

agencies. South Korea is at the beginning of the process of developing a regional hub in

Northeast Asian.

Conclusion

Through examining Korean higher educational policies, this paper provides a

comprehensive analysis of the complex process of developing South Korea as a regional

educational hub in Northeast Asia. I argue that both the world culturalist perspective and

the culturalist perspective are evident in how South Korea is shaping its higher educational

policy to support the country to be successful in developing and maintaining a regional

educational hub. On the one hand, the world culturalist perspective highlights the

importance of standardization and homogenization to the Korean model of education,

which intends to follow the latest trends of the western educational model. On the other

hand, the culturalist perspective puts emphasizes on recontextualization to further brand

some unique characteristics of Korean higher education, to create possibilities in

developing a regional educational hub. In addition, the theoretical framework of the three

types of educational hubs provides another lens to understanding the development of

South Korea as a regional educational hub. Although all three Korea education policies

want to expand in all 3 directions (Talent Hub, Student Hub, Knowledge Hub), but that

currently it’s actually focusing all of it’s funding on developing a student hub. This implies

that the government needs to clean up its policies and focus on 1 thing at a time in order to

15

succeed , or acknowledge that it has a very long way to go to make all 3 types of hubs

happen.

References

Baker, D. P., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). “The Global Environment of National School Systems” in National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the Future of Schooling. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12.

Banks, M., & Bhandari, R. (2012). Global student mobility. In D.K. Deardorff et al. (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education. (p. 379-397). SAGE Publications.

Byun, K., & Kim, M. (2011). Shifting patterns of the government’s policies for the internationalization of Korea higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5), 467-486.

Cho, Y. H., & Palmer, J. D.(2012). Stakeholders’ views of South Korea’s higher education internationalization policy. Higher Education, 65(3), 291-308.

Dou, L., & Knight, J. (2014). Emerging hubs: South Korea, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, and Bahrain. In J. Knight (Eds.) International Education Hubs: Student, Talent, Knowledge-Innovation Models (p. 165-182). Dordrecht: Springer.

Green, C. (2015). Internationalization, deregulation and the expansion of higher education in Korea: An historical overview. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(3), 1-13.

IGC Foundation. (2015). Incheon Global Campus Foundation. Retrieved from http:// www.igc.or.kr/en/intro/about.do

Jin, J. C. (2015). Internalization, deregulation and the extension of higher education in Korea: A further note. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(3), 156-160.

Jon, J.-E., & Kim, E.-Y.(2011). What it takes to internationalize higher education in Korea and Japan: English –mediated courses and international students. In J.D. Palmer et

16

al. (Eds.). The Internationalization of East Asian Higher Education: Globalization’s Impact. (p. 147-171). Palgrave Macmillan US.

Jon, J.-E., Lee, J. J., & Byun K. (2014). The emergence of a regional hub: Comparing international student choices and experiences in South Korea. Higher Education, 67(5), 691-710.

Kang, J. S. (2015). Initiatives for change in Korea higher education: Quest for excellence of World-Class Universities. International Education Studies,8(7), 169-180.

Kharas, H. (2010). The emerging middle class in developing countries. Paris, France: OECD.

Kim, Y. C. (2008). Understanding Korean Educational Policy: Universalization of tertiary education. Korea Educational Development Institute, 1-102.

Knight, J. (2011). Three types of education hubs: Student, talent and knowledge. Are indicators useful or feasible? The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education, 1-29.

Knight, J. (2013). Education hubs: international, regional and local dimensions of scale and scope. Comparative Education, 49(3), 374-387.

Knight, J. (2014). International education hubs: Collaboration for competitiveness and sustainability. In B. Barefoot & J. L. Kinzie (Eds.) In New Directions for Higher Education (p. 83-96). San Francisco, California: Willey.

Knight, J., & Lee, J. (2014). An analytical framework for education hubs. In J. Knight (Eds.) International Education Hubs: Student, Talent, Knowledge-Innovation Models (p. 29-42). Dordrecht:Springer.

Lee, J. J., & Sehoole, C. (2015). Regional, continental, and global mobility to an emerging economy: the case of South Africa. Higher Education, 70(5), 827-843.

Minister of Education (2013). Study Korea Project 2020.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). Education at a glance. Paris, France.

Rizvi, F. & Lingard, R. (2010). Perspectives on Globalization (pp. 22-43). In Globalizing Educational Policy. Routledge: Milton Park, Abingdon

Seong, S., Popper, S. W., Goldman, C. A., Evans, D. K., & Grammich, W. C. (2008). Brain Korea 21 phase II: A new evolution model. Rand Education, 1-243.

Seoul Broadcasting System (SBS). (2001). Special report on ‘Korean pop culture fever that sweep Asia’, broadcast as a segment in ‘I Want to Know That’, 21 July.

Shin, J. C. (2013). The World-Class University: Concept and policy initiatives. In J. C. Shin & B. M. Kehm (Eds.) Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. (p.17-32). Spring Dordercht Heidelberg London New York.

17

Shin, J. C., & Jang, Y. S. (2013). World-Class University in Korea: Proactive government, responsive university, and procrastinating academics. In J. C. Shin & B. M. Kehm (Eds.) Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. (p.147-163). Spring Dordercht Heidelberg London New York.

Shin, J. C., & Kehm, B. M. (2013). The World-Class University in different systems and contexts. In J. C. Shin & B. M. Kehm (Eds.) Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. (p.1-16). Spring Dordercht Heidelberg London New York.

Spring, J. (2015). Global of Education. In Globalization of Education: An Introduction (p. 1-31). New York, NY: Routledge.

Spring, J. (2015). The world trade organization and the global culture of higher education. In Globalization of Education: An Introduction (p. 93-123). New York, NY: Routledge.

Spring, J. (2015). A global workforce: Migration and the talent auction. In Globalization of Education: An Introduction (p. 188-211). New York, NY: Routledge.

18