INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION
16
Number 88: Winter 2017
development issues; 15 percent on trends and challenges;
12 percent on quality assurance; 10 percent addressed poli-
cies/regulations; 10 percent student issues; and only 5 per-
cent each faculty perspectives, outcomes and impact, peda-
gogy and curriculum, rationales, and definitions. While it
is encouraging to see the focus on management issues and
quality assurance, it is troubling that outcomes and impact,
as well as pedagogy and curriculum, receive such little at-
tention. When the themes are linked with TNE modes,
the quality assurance research focuses primarily on TNE
in general and is not specific to one of the four main TNE
modes. This raises the vexing question as to how quality
assurance practices and issues differ among the modes. For
example, with IBCs and franchise programs, the curricu-
lum, qualification offered, and external quality assurance
are the primary responsibility of the sending country. How-
ever, for partnership programs, the responsibility for these
three aspects involves both the sending and host countries.
Research Methods
The type of research methods (empirical, descriptive, con-
ceptual, and policy analysis) was noted for all references.
Overall, descriptive methods were used for 52 percent of the
references, empirical for 40 percent, conceptual for 8 per-
cent, and policy analysis for 1 percent. Interesting to note is
the very small percentage of research studies that are con-
ceptual or theoretical in approach. This may shed light on
why there is such inconsistency in the interpretation and
use of TNE terms.
Dates and Sources of References
It is promising to see the considerable increase in TNE
research references during the last 15 years. Of the total
references reviewed, only 7 percent were published from
2000 to 2005, but this increased substantially to 42 per-
cent between 2006 and 2010, and to 50 percent from 2011
to 2015. A deliberate choice for the review was to include
academic literature only, thereby excluding grey literature
such as newspaper/newsletter articles and blogs. With TNE
research still being a relatively young field, it is not surpris-
ing that there is more grey literature than academic litera-
ture. But because the analysis focused on TNE research, it
was necessary to focus on traditional sources. The analysis
shows that about 39 percent are book chapters, 39 percent
journal articles, 15 percent reports, usually from commis-
sioned research, and only 7 percent dissertations.
It is disappointing to find so few PhD dissertations, as
these researchers are critical to the future analysis of TNE.
TNE dissertations available on ProQuest appear in refer-
ences starting from 2005. The majority (61 percent) of the
18 dissertations focus on IBCs. This is interesting, as cur-
rently there are about 250 operating IBCs around the world,
while there are thousands of TNE partnership programs.
Furthermore, the emergence of joint universities (which
involves collaboration from both host and sending country
institutions to establish a new institution) is a relatively new
phenomenon and is worthy of more research, as they are
radically different from IBCs, which are essentially satel-
lite campuses of foreign parent institutions. All in all, TNE
studies would benefit from more PhD students, especial-
ly in host countries, doing their research on the different
modes and dimensions of TNE.
TNE is still a relatively young sector and certainly an
underresearched one. There are probably three to four
times more research publications on student mobility is-
sues than on program and provider mobility topics. How-
ever, a first key step is to develop a “Common TNE Classi-
fication Framework,” with terms and definitions which are
robust enough to differentiate the major modes of TNE, but
flexible enough to be used by the more than 100 host and
sending countries increasingly involved in TNE. This is a
fundamental step to improving TNE data collection and re-
search.
The Complex Diversity of
Southeast Asian Postsecond-
ary Education
Philip G. Altbach
Philip G. Altbach is research professor and founding director of the Cen-
ter for International Higher Education at Boston College, US. E-mail:
altbach@bc.edu.
A
re there common elements in the higher education re-
alities of Southeast Asia? In fact, the region may even
be more divergent than convergent. This can be seen in the
The purpose of this article is to pro-
vide highlights from a recent analysis
of more than 300 journal articles, book
chapters, reports, and dissertations on
TNE published since 2000.
INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION
17
responses that the countries in the region have made to
twenty-first century higher education challenges, and such
an examination yields some useful lessons and models.
Aspects of Diversity
The region is diverse in almost every respect. Religious
traditions include Muslim (Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei),
Christian (the Philippines), Confucian (Vietnam), Bud-
dhist (Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos), and mixed
(Singapore)—with religious minorities in most countries.
British, French, Spanish, American, and Dutch colonial-
ism have influenced the region. One country, Thailand, is
one of the few in the developing world that was never colo-
nized. Wealth varies dramatically from several high-income
countries (Brunei and Singapore), some middle-income
(Malaysia, Thailand), several that are close to middle-in-
come (Indonesia, Vietnam, and perhaps the Philippines),
and several that are still developing (Myanmar, Cambodia,
Laos). Thus, it is not surprising that the variations in high-
er education realities across the region are significant—in
many ways there are more differences than similarities.
This is understandable, as each country needs a different
approach to higher education development to meet specific
national needs.
Higher Education Realities
Access to postsecondary education varies considerably in
Southeast Asia—from approximately 10 percent in Myan-
mar to 87 percent of the relevant age group in Singapore.
No Southeast Asia country, except Singapore, enrolls post-
secondary students at the levels of the most advanced coun-
tries. Thailand (around half), Malaysia (37 percent), and
Indonesia (32 percent) come closest. The poorer countries,
such as Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos, are all under 20
percent gross enrollment ratios. The region, with one ex-
ception, still faces the overwhelming pressures of massifi-
cation—access to postsecondary education for large cohorts
of students.
It is not surprising that the region has very few glob-
ally recognized research universities. With the notable
exception of Singapore, which has two universities in the
top 100, none rank highly, and only 15 are listed in the top
800 of the Times Higher Education ranking of universities
worldwide. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand, along with
Singapore, are represented. While these rankings are im-
perfect measures, they do indicate generally the standing
of research universities globally. The fact that the region
has few research universities is a serious disadvantage if it
wants to participate at the top levels of global science, attract
students and scholars from overseas, and in general be a
serious player in the global knowledge economy.
Again, with the exception of Singapore and to some
extent Malaysia, investment in higher education in South-
east Asia has been modest—in general expenditure from
government sources has been under the support levels of
advanced countries. Only Singapore and Malaysia have
provided higher levels of state investment in higher edu-
cation—other countries, such as Indonesia and Vietnam,
spend well under 1 percent of GDP on postsecondary edu-
cation. These relatively low levels of investment have had
important implications. There are few research universi-
ties in Southeast Asia, as has been pointed out. It has also
meant governments’ response to the needs of massification
has been limited, and that the private sector has provided
much of the facilities to absorb the demands of mass ac-
cess.
The private sector has emerged as a key part of the post-
secondary structure in much of Southeast Asia. Singapore,
Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, Brunei, and Malaysia are partial
exceptions to this generalization, although all have active
and growing private institutions. In Thailand, Indonesia,
and Cambodia, private providers enroll more than half of
the student population. In the Philippines, more than 80
percent of students are in private universities. Even social-
ist Vietnam plans to have 40 percent of enrollments in the
private sector by 2020, although it is hard to see how that
could be achieved without significantly lowering quality. In
general, the private institutions are “demand absorbing,”
as countries transition to mass higher education—accept-
ing students with modest academic qualifications and of-
ten from families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Many of the private providers are for-profit, and very few
are high quality. In Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, and
Indonesia, there are a few prestigious private universities,
often affiliated with Christian religious organizations. Over-
all, little is known about the large and quite important pri-
vate higher education sector in Southeast Asia.
Few Southeast Asian countries have coherent and well-
designed academic systems that provide a range of academ-
ic opportunities. Few countries, in Southeast Asia or else-
where, have figured out how to integrate the private higher
education sector so that it can contribute coherently to the
public interest. Further, even within public postsecondary
Number 88: Winter 2017
Access to postsecondary education var-
ies considerably in Southeast Asia—
from approximately 10 percent in Myan-
mar to 87 percent of the relevant age
group in Singapore.
INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION
18
education, there are seldom systems in place that effective-
ly ensure that the various sectors intelligently interlock, so
that research universities, teaching-focused institutions, vo-
cational schools, and others work together and are logically
funded. Singapore, again, is perhaps an exception to this
trend. It has just recently appointed a cabinet minister with
a portfolio for higher education and skills.
Issues and Debates
Is there a “Southeast Asian model” for higher education de-
velopment? With the diversity described here, the answer
is negative. Yet, there are a range of higher education net-
works, including the Southeast Asian Ministers of Educa-
tion Organization (SEAMEO); the Association of Southeast
Asian Institutions of Higher Learning (ASAIHL), which
includes institutions from all over Asia; and the Associa-
tion of Southeast Asian Nations Plus Three (ASEAN+3),
that discuss common issues that may be considered in a
regional context, and aspects of cooperation that may be
useful. However, few lasting regional initiatives have been
developed, and the desire to retain national control tends to
override regional ambitions.
With few exceptions, and despite the existence of
ASEAN and several other regional organizations, there is
surprisingly little accurate information or analysis concern-
ing higher education in the region. Accurate and up-to-date
statistics and careful analysis of key themes and issues are
necessary prerequisites for effective policymaking. Without
good information, within countries and regionally, effective
benchmarking is impossible. No Southeast Asia nation has
an internationally visible higher education research center,
and there are very few higher education specialists, whether
in government or in the universities. A partial exception is
Malaysia’s IPPTN (National Higher Education Research In-
stitute Malaysia). There is an urgent need for a research and
policy community in higher education.
The language of higher education is a continuing issue
in Southeast Asia, as it is in much of the world. The role of
English, as the main world language of science and scholar-
ship, is a particular dilemma. In general, Southeast Asian
nations use their own indigenous languages for higher edu-
cation. Two major exceptions are Singapore and the Phil-
ippines, which use English—as does Myanmar—although
there is discussion in Myanmar concerning the appropri-
ate language. Multiethnic Singapore found English to be a
logical choice from the time of independence in 1965—a
choice that helped the country build the most successful
higher education system in Southeast Asia, and the only
one with high international standing. Malaysia chose to
jettison English and shift to the use of bahasa Malaysia, a
decision that prevented the country from becoming inter-
nationally prominent, and created other problems. In the
2000s, Malaysian policy swung back to English to some ex-
tent, but now seems to be shifting again—although private
sector institutions continue to offer instruction in English.
Indonesia moved from Dutch to bahasa Indonesia following
independence, although some English is now used.
The issue of language is discussed here not only be-
cause it is important in and of itself, but also because it is
symbolic of the complexities of policy in the region. Lan-
guage is, in some countries, a contentious political issue.
On the one hand, local languages are a repository of local
culture and history. On the other, English helps shape inter-
nationalization as well as regionalization, possibilities for
hiring talent and attracting students from abroad, links to
global science, prospects for access of local students, and
others.
Few Southeast Asian nations seem to be positioned in
the near future to join the ranks of the top leagues in higher
education. Most continue to be concerned with coping with
the continuing demands of massification, and thus pay
limited attention to the global knowledge economy—with
the significant exception of Singapore and to some extent
Malaysia. No Southeast Asia country has sponsored an “ex-
cellence initiative,” as have been initiated in such countries
as China, Germany, Japan, Russia, and others, as a way
of quickly building top research-focused universities—al-
though most of the countries in the region have provided at
least modest additional resources to their flagship univer-
sities. Malaysia, and particularly Singapore, have invested
significant resources in them.
Southeast Asia is clearly affected by international
trends. However, few countries have an international per-
spective or an internationalization policy. Malaysia, for ex-
ample, hosts several branch campuses of Australian uni-
versities—and has one local university, the International
Islamic University Malaysia, that was established to serve
students from abroad. And Singapore, through its Global
Schoolhouse initiative, has had an active internationaliza-
tion policy that includes attracting international students
and overseas academic institutions as well. But the region
in general lacks an international perspective.
Conclusion
While there is little that links Southeast Asia’s diverse na-
tions, there are common higher education realities that face
them. But rather than thinking of the region as a whole, it
may be more useful to think of groups of countries with
similar challenges. A first step is to develop effective data
and analysis, and then to consider carefully appropriate
development strategies. While problems are national, solu-
tions may be regional, and answers may be suggested by
the experiences of countries and institutions in the region.
Number 88: Winter 2017