A New Imperative for Area Studies in the Internationalization of Higher Education: Case Studies of Seoul National University and the National University of Singapore

Inditian Latifa
섬네일을 만드는 중 오류 발생: 섬네일 변수가 잘못되었습니다
Name in Latin Alphabet:	Inditian Latifa
Nationality:	Indonesia
Affiliation:	University of Indonesia, Adjunct Lecturer

Abstract

The new landscape of higher education is strongly influenced by the global context and neo-liberal reform. As such, governments and higher education institutions have issued various international initiatives in the attempt to recontextualize themselves in the increasingly border-transcending and market-oriented environment while concurrently attending to the needs and aspirations of regional and national contexts. The intention of this study is to investigate the relevance of area studies research in the process of internationalization at universities. Through an analysis of qualitative sources as well as existing academic literature, this study seeks a form of inter-referencing between South Korea and Singapore in order to identify the broad trends towards globalization at the spatial scale of the nation and how they affect higher education in the respective countries. A study of Seoul National University and the National University of Singapore provides examples of each government’s internationalization discourse in action exposing distinct approaches but suggesting that area studies research centres are pertinent to the process of internationalization at the universities. At a general level, this paper suggests that the establishment of area studies research centres should move from serendipitous and existing connections to a more structured approach that not only politically shapes and drives the university’s international orientation and outreach but also remains aligned to the university’s vision and mission.

• Keywords: new area studies, higher education, internationalization

Introduction

Globalization has been one of the most investigated and debated phenomenon of the past century. In all fairness, it means different things to different people. For scholars inspired by Marx, globalization is the later, albeit not the final, phase of the capitalist world-economy system that had developed in parts of Europe and the Americas in the sixteenth century (Wallerstein, 2004). For political scientists like Keohane and Nye (2001), globalization is a complementary framework that holds together a complex system of interdependent states in which non-state actors may participate directly in world politics. Whereas the cultural compression of globalization, as Appadurai (1996) argues, is characterized by a new level of complexity that can no longer be approached and fully understood through terms of center – periphery models.

In the face of these different dimensions, the scaling and re-scaling of spatial parameters continue to be a recurring theme within globalization research. Since the mid-twentieth century, traditional concepts of spatiality and previous understandings of the relationship between space and territory have encountered numerous criticisms engendered by a new wave of thinking referred to as the “spatial turn.” Conceptual spatial units, such as “space of flows,” “space of places,” “space-time compression,” “deterritorialization,” “supraterritoriality,” and “glocalization,” have been proposed and propounded all departing from the notion that spatiality and geographical scales are not as static and self-enclosed as they previously were conceived to be but fluid, “historically produced, reconfigured, and transformed” (Brenner, 1999, p. 40).

Scholars across disciplines intrigued in the spatial entanglements intensified by globalization have questioned the longstanding structural conception of space and argued instead for the simultaneity of various spatial frameworks all vying for legitimation and representation (Middell and Naumann, 2010). Despite differences here and there, there is common agreement that traditional concepts of space, which are characterized by some form of centrism and methodological nationalism, fail to cope with or make use of the groundswell of transnational flows of people, goods, capital and ideas. As a result, novel and often innovative patterns of control to drive, shape, resist, or absorb these flows have been initiated and developed by different actors and of different interests.

Within the academe, leading-edge research clusters have been introduced to focus on actors who experience changing patterns of territorialization and attempt to establish new means of controlling these flows. Research on these actors and the specific sites that they are entangled in have been organized into a research category known as ‘portals of globalization’ which Middell and Naumann (2010, p. 162) define as, “[…] entrance points for cultural transfer, and where institutions and practices for dealing with global connectedness have been developed.” Portals of globalization as a research category offers a perspective that allows us to conduct empirical research on the simultaneity and entanglement of different scales of space and the various patterns of control that new actors reinforce to “channel and therefore control the effects of global connectivity” (Middell and Naumann, 2010, p. 163).

The project “Universities as Portals of Globalization” at the Center of Area Studies (CAS) of the University of Leipzig in Germany “explores higher education institutions as arenas of global encounters, and the associated strategic development of managing the challenges of internationalization in today’s higher education landscape” (Baumann, 2014, p. 126). This line of investigation argues that universities too have become a place of contestation and application to the plethora of interests that regional, national and local actors, as well as individuals within faculty or student levels, wish to see represented.

In the same vein, this paper argues that globalisation’s increasing effects within higher education have not eliminated the relationship between states and state universities, nor has it left state universities to be subversed for private purposes through commercialisation. Instead, ‘new’ models of representation within state universities have been (re)invented to cater interests and aspirations of national and regional contexts in a manner that would still allude to the philosophical and social roles of the university as a site of knowledge production and at the same reinforce the internationalization of the university.

As the intention of this study is to investigate ‘new’ critical appropriations of area studies research, particularly in the internationalization of higher education, this paper will first seek to draw upon existing national policies and academic literature in order to explore the rhetorics and realities of globalization strategies in two Asian countries, i.e. South Korea and Singapore. Second of all, a brief investigation of two of the respective countries’ state universities, i.e. Seoul National University and the National University of Singapore, will be done to comprehend to what extend the respective governments’ globalizing discourses are reflected within the two universities internationalization processes and subsequently the role of area studies research centres within this equation.

The Changing Landscape of International Higher Education

Internationalisation is a highly-contested term within higher education that has no universal definition. Jane Knight’s definition is one of the few used consistently, in which defines she it as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions (primarily teaching/learning, research, service) or delivery of higher education” (Knight, 2004, p. 7). Integration of an international dimension into the purpose, functions, and delivery of higher education can in fact be traced to the early development of higher education in Europe during the Middle Ages and Renaissance with the “European space” and the presence of a common academic language, religion, and study and examination systems that is similar to European higher education after the Bologna process (Kerr, 1994). Since then, despite being closely bound with national policy, cooperation among universities have continued to cross regional and continental borders.

During the Cold-War era, the rationale for internationalization was further expanded as internationalisation became strongly politicised. The Soviet Union focused on cooperation with other socialist countries and the Third World and on its increased competition with the United States. The bi-polar world had a broadening effect on international education as now Asian, Latin American, and African nations became an ideological battle ground. By the end of the twentieth century, a number of radically different and ‘new’ phenomena emerged accelerated by globalization; they include the development of cutting-edge information and communication technologies, and the rise of the knowledge based economy. Higher education thus became “increasingly linked to capitalist expansion in a global economic context” (Deardorff, 2012, p. 54).

Consequently, the internationalisation of higher education began to include a strong economic competitiveness rationale, especially with the World Bank’s conviction in the early 1990s that higher education is more of a private than a public good. As a result, many scholars have been skeptical of the university arguing how commercialisation of higher education has taken place and it is the market which now shapes and drives the priorities in the functioning of a university. However, more positive voices have been sounded, among them arguing to see how the market can also be critically appropriated for public ends (Mamdani, 2009).

Upon examining the institutional strategies to infuse comparative, international, and global dimensions into the curriculum and research activity, the role of area studies cannot be discounted. Knowing that the term “area studies” is by no means fixed concept, not one which is used under that particular name in all higher education systems, within this study the term will be narrowed down to include, first of all, area studies research centres associated with the university. Szanton (2004) observes that within the higher education system area studies can be institutionalized either as a separate department or a research centre. He argues, at least in the case of the United States, area studies research centres do not usually grant degrees but focus on organizing multi-disciplinary lecture series, workshops, conferences, research, publications and a wide variety of public outreach activities. The institutionalization of area studies as centres have been argued to be more “successful” than the departments, as the multidisciplinary nature of area studies makes it incompatible with the disciplinary nature of the higher education system (Szanton, 2004, p. 7).

Second, in this study the area studies research centres refer to “the study of a region or a country […] bearing the geographical region under scrutiny in its name, such as African studies or Chinese studies” (Baumann, 2014, p. 9). As for the geographic region or country that will be the focus of this study when poring through area studies research centres affiliated with a university, the new model of area studies as a study of native areas instead of a study of foreign areas will be referred to. The latter is often subsumed under the term conventional area studies and is characterized by the “studying of the other,” which can in fact be historically traced to the Euro-American contexts where it was first institutionalized as a scientific method (Szanton, 2004).

The development of conventional area studies as a scientific research goes back before the wake of the Cold War to late 19th century Europe and the need for non-European validation to support the truth or value of early European universal theories on humanity. Non-European validation was necessary for the validation and construction of Europe’s self-image, particularly for identities related to European concepts of cultural, racial and moral superiorities. At that time, Europe was the single site of knowledge production during the Enlightenment days and functioned as the standard or point of reference against which things were compared or assessed. It was under this intellectual climate that area studies evolved within European universities.

The early 20th century saw the rise of an American empire and the superiority and universality of American materials and theories. The 1950s and the 1980s saw great support for area studies from the amount of funding received by universities to establish area studies study programmes and research centres for intelligence purposes. The strong triangular alliance among the universities, foundations as well as intelligence arms of the American state became a strong character of area studies during this period (Cummings, 2002). Szanton (2004, p. 1) defines the area studies that developed in the United States as “primarily an effort to make the assumptions, meanings, structures, and dynamics of another society and culture comprehensible to an outsider.” Hence, despite varying differences, the European and American conventional models of area studies share a common organizational approach of the “study of the other.”

Although this organizational culture of foreign scholars “burrowing into an exotic culture and explaining it to a home audience was free of neither late colonial nor geopolitcal overtones” (Schendel, 2012, p. 499), this model of area studies historically remains the cornerstone of area studies in many universities in European and North American countries (Baumann, 2013). The purpose may no longer be about supplying information about areas of the enemy and their allies for national interest and security, but the organizational approach continues to be towards the study of foreign areas many of which are today established due to development cooperation projects and development aid (Vito, 2013).

However, since the 1990s, a new imperative for area studies arouse in Asian countries with the rise of intellectual movements arguing for the deimperialization of knowledge production of Asia by emphasizing the importance of ‘nativity’ and the politics of space and remaking Asian knowledge production by Asians in Asia (Dirlik 2010; Chen, 2010). The wish to “speak to Europe,” integrate Asian insider’s opinions on Asian knowledge, and deimperialize knowledge production on Asia that was previously situated within Euro-American narratives and understood through Euro-American theories is carried out with the restructuring of area studies on Asia in Asia or known as “the Asianization of Asian Studies” (Dirlik, 2010).

The reasons behind this organizational restructuring of area studies from the study of the other to the study of the self varies. Nevertheless, many scholars have agreed that it is a response from Asian scholars to develop an alternative horizon and perspective about Asia. As critically argued by Chen (2010) in the preface of his book “Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization,”

[…] Asian studies in Asia […] proposes that Asia as method creates new possibilities for intellectual work. The implication of Asia as method is that using Asia as an imaginary anchoring point can allow societies in Asia to become one another’s reference points, so that the understanding of the self can be transformed, and subjectivity rebuilt.

Chen’s argument is realized with the creation of the Inter-Asia Cultural Studies (IACS) organization. Since then, there has been an emerging phenomenon of Asian studies in Asia and this according to Chen (2010, p. 2) suggests that “[…] the reintegration of Asia requires a different sort of knowledge production.”

From these specific European, American, and Asian contexts, one cannot help but notice how area studies have always and will continue to be tied to the politics of power with strong connections to the power elite in the ‘home’ countries. As such, area studies has always been politically saturated and contingent to the international climate as well as the needs of its ‘master,’ be it for imperial conquest or for regional integration. Thus, more often than not the establishment of area studies is as a means, or a method of political use than for knowledge itself. It is within this state of flexibility and mutability that questions regarding the political use of area studies, particularly the new area studies that promote the “study of the self,” within the internationalization of higher education in Asia today becomes even more intriguing.

Area Studies and the Internationalization of Higher Education

The 1980s was known as the golden days of area studies in terms of funding and establishments as universities across the globe, particularly in the United States, established area studies programs and research centres (Khalidi, 2003). However, as Knight (2012) points out, even in the 1960s there had already been a demand for area studies programs and research, as cross-border activities in those days were still ineffective and expensive making campus-based internationalization a top priority. In India, the imperative to establish area studies programs and centres in Indian universities was even reinforced from the state-level through Nehru’s new foreign policy in the 1950s when the decolonization of Africa and Asia dominated the world agenda. One of the rationales behind this is that area studies “epitomize[d] India’s desire to engage with the outside world by situating itself a new political entity in a global and historical context” (Sahni as cited in Baumann and Sangma, 2014, p. 112).

Nevertheless, today Koehn and Obamba (2012, p. 365) argue that the utilization of area studies as a means to internationalize has become outdated, as stated in the following excerpt,

The traditional ways that universities conceived of “internationalizing” their curriculums—by developing academic area studies and language training—may no longer be the best ways of producing broad-gauged professionals. Instrad, universities need to devise ways to give students a grounding in thinking and acting across cultures.

It is also interesting to note that particularly in countries where area studies initially flourished, particularly in the United States, there has been a shift with fundings for area studies being allocated for incorporating international, global, intercultural, and comparative perspectives into the program content of all disciplines and research activity all the establishment of new programs, such as global studies or maritime studies. Along with the heightened emphasis on cross-border initatives at present day, and arguments of the oriental and colonial legacies attached to area studies, fundings for area studies across the globe continue to be curtailed and allocated for infusing comparative, international, or global dimensions into the curriculum and research activity of all disciplines.

This attack of area studies, however, could not be at a more critical juncture in history when regional perspectives are gaining ground not only in Asia, but also in Africa and Latin America (Chen, 2010). The formal existence of area studies within universities have been argued to be vestiges of the past and part of a larger, historical development path of the university and their geographical orientation have often been to be shaped by individual intersts in certain areas or inspired by areas studies research centres at universities in the West and do not reflect any comprehensive thinking in terms of organizational and academic perspectives (Ramakant and Saori, 1997). The predisposition of the development of area studies within the university to external and internal influencing elements which are often serendipitous has thus made it difficult to determine a university’s international orientation based on the area studies. Nevertheless, the proposition that area studies have helped to shape, develop and drive the unviersity’s international orientation and outreach stands strong.

The urge to “go global” but at the same time remain rooted in the locale is relatively strong in the Asian higher education setting, as also asserted by Professor Anthony B. L. Cheung President of the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd, 2011) in a press release on the 4th World Universities Forum (WUF) held in 2011 in Hong Kong,

There is this need for Asian universities to reconnect to Asia’s scholarly traditions and to integrate the regional and local experiences with the global trends so that Asia will be able to contribute to the new wave of internationalization of higher education with a distinctive ‘Asian Experience.

The imperative for Asian universities to internationalize in a fashion that would reflect a certain Asian-ness has been perceived as a strategic model of internationalization that would draw a distinction with the older North American and European universities, thus providing them the flagship to compete within the global higher education landscape (Rumbley, Altbach, and Reisberg, 2012). Baumann (2014, p. 2) also propounds the idea of strategic profiling by concentrating on specific regions, and sees it as “a niche in a competitive higher education market.”

However, the quest to reconnect to “Asia’s scholarly traditions and to integrate the regional and local experiences with the global trends” goes beyond strategic profiling for a higher education market. For some time, research in international higher education has revealed that countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America have been for the most part focused on their traditional roles within the internationalization of higher education as “senders of students, recipients of capacity-building funds, and more recently as locations of franchise operations, branch campuses, and other forms of cross-border delivery (Deardorff, de Wit, and Heyl 2012, p. 457-8). The predominant nature of the research themes reflect some of the more colonialist tendencies between globalization and higher education and have raised concerns on the internationalization of higher education as a western construct or, in other words, a form of westernization, Americanization, Europeanization, or modernization (Dzulkifli, 2010; Odin & Mancias, 2004).

It is within this context that area studies research in Asia may shift focus from being an object of analysis into a method for restoring balance to forces of internationalization that has been for the most part in favor of the West. Inspired by Kuang-tsing “Asia as Method”, area studies research can be used as a method to balance out the uneven knowledge production of different areas in the world that were before a ‘prerogative’ of the West. As Chen (2010, p. 225-6) argues:

Though the situation is changing, direct academic interaction among the neighboring countries in Asia is still uncommon. Intellectual exchange in the region is lagging far behind the flow of capital and popular culture. In reality, we have already been doing comparative studies, but the comparison has been between Euro-American theory and our local experiences. This is by now a familiar complaint: the West is equipped with universalist theory; the rest of us have particularist empirical data; and eventually our writings become a footnote that either validates or invalidtes Western theoretical propositions. We serve as the native informant to the theoretically minded researcher.

Another reason, however, that is more linked to the practical purpose of area studies is as a means for cultural promotion and to create closer connections often for political and economic purposes. For instance, in the case of the postwar Japanese Studies promoted by the Japan Foundation in the United States. The cultural programs and funding for research on Japan served as a strategy to promote the culture of Japan towards Americans in order to establish a closer bond after the World War II. In addition, it can be a form of “second track diplomacy” as in today’s context the formal G to G interactions are no longer the most effective method for securing international cooperation. The term “second track diplomacy” was introduced by Joseph Montville (1982) as “a method of diplomacy that was outside governmental system” (Diamond and McDonald, 1996).

'The Paradox of Korean Globalization=

“The Paradox of Korean Globalization” is in taken from a book with the same title written by Gi-Wook Shin (2003) in which he presents historical and contemporary observations on the encounter between Korean nationalism and different forces of globalization seeing them as “a curious mixture of two seemingly contradictory forces.” One of the most interesting parts of the book is when Shin recounts his visit to the Korean Minjok Leadership Academy (KMLA), which is a high school located in the Kwangwon province that is also one of the underdeveloped regions in the area. Shin was surprised to find out that all the courses taught at KMLA school are delivered in English with the exception of Korean language and history. Nevertheless, what Shin finds even more interesting is that although the classes are taught in English, the curriculum’s main objective is to enhance Korean national identity; something which he argues is a larger trend that can easily be found in all aspects of life in South Korea.

Looking at Korean national identity, one cannot dismiss the pivotal role of ethnic identity during the periods of colonialism, war, and authoritarian politics. During Korea’s transition into a modern state, ethnic national identity has served as “a crucial source of pride and inspiration” (Shin, 2006) and it has furthered collective consciousness as well as internal solidarity against external threats. Thus, it has been argued that Korean nationalism did not originate entirely from indigenous sources and a shared bloodline and ancestry, but was also stimulated by outside forces, namely, the foreign challenge from the European powers and Japan. This model of ethnic nationalism is similar to other Asian countries. The development of an authentic nationalism in Asia began with the arrival of external forces in the latter half of the nineteenth century and is often referred to as “nationalism of resistance” (Kwang-rin, 1986).

Until today, ethnic nationalism remains an important organizing principle of Korean ethnic society and politics (Shin, 2006). Also, looking at the development of higher education in South Korea, particularly the process of internationalization, one cannot help seeing a strong South Korean cultural emphasis. The South Korean government has dedicated itself into promoting Korean ethnic language and culture through cultural programs, scholarships, as well as research centres. Prestigious universities in South Korea offer not only the language programs on campus, but also scholarships for their international students. One of the highest ranked higher education institutions in South Korea, Seoul National University (SNU), offers South Korean Won (KRW) 300,000 for the scholarship holders, this amount is close to the tuition fee for one semester regular course registration in the university. Other renowned higher education institutions also provide up to KRW 500,000 scholarship for the language learners. For those who are abroad, the Korea Society Language Study Award provides them opportunities to study in South Korea with language scholarships covering summer term and one semester.

Aside from these language scholarships, the Korean Cultural Centres in various countries hosts film festivals from time to time. Those who are lucky enough to be enrolled in the selected list could also receive Korean language instruction at the centre completely free of charge. Currently there are 27 Korean Cultural Centres around the world, out of which 15 of them were established after the year 2008 when South Korea’s government announced its determination in constructing the nation into an education hub. As cultural centres are often an assistance in promoting national image, culture, language, and general understanding of a nation, it is reasonable to see such growth around the time when the education hub policy started.

Unlike Japan that internationalized right after World War II alongside the United States, internationalization of Korea’s higher education took off around the 1980s. Contextualizing Korea in the East Asian sub-region, particularly with countries that have strong influence of Confucianism like Singapore, there is one shared charateristic in these countries internationalization process and that is the existence of a “purposeful government” (Mok 2003, p. 205). A purpose government means that the process of internationalization is almost exclusively initiated by the government. Programs, such as Korea’s BrainKorea21 and Singapore’s Global Schoolhouse, are introduced to evaluate the higher education systems and speed up their transition procedures. These programs all aim at raising the university’s competitiveness in the world education market and provide added funding for the university’s international cooperation schemes and more.

The first policy the South Korea government published regarding the development of the internationalization of higher education is believed to be the “Initial Plan for Opening the Higher Education Market to Foreign Countries”. Announced in 1996, South Korea opened up its market for international education institutions to enter through the aforementioned plan. With the guidelines around university management loosened and internationalization introduced into the nation, South Korea’s Internationalization of Higher Education sped up in the 2000s.

In 2004, University Restructuring Plan was published, wishing to increase the competitiveness of universities by restructuring the aspects with less social demands and supporting the strong ones. This plan is broadcasted to the society as well as HEIs, wishing to increase the public consensus in reforming. The content of this plan covers actors like public and private universities, graduate schools, and the private sector. The internationalization process introduced by this plan is also supported by various sub-plans specifically regarding different facets. The University Restructuring Plan raised distinct reforms for different types of universities. For the public ones, this plan aims to reduce their dependence on MOE, SK while increasing the transparency for private ones; the local universities, on the other hand, were developed to be the centre of industry-academic collaboration. More improvements in academic fields include expanding their research capacity and encouraging the establishment of professional graduate schools. The direct marker for internationalization in this plan pointed at student and faculty mobility, international partnership, promotion of Korea education abroad, and the recruitment of international students.

Looking at Korea’s neighbors, particularly the countries with strong Confucian influence, one cannot avoid noticing the same cultural emphasis. Confucian states have been identified to attribute more intense attention on their cultural aspect when promoting education internationally. Japan, for example, brought forward its unique culture and social orders to the world through the cultural programs initatied by the Japan Foundation and successfully altered its image from the post-war negative one through various cultural programs.

Regarding area studies research on Korea, since 2006 Korean studies have been under spotlight. Korean Studies include not only the language, but also Korean history, literature, tradition, and other cultural aspects. Co-funded by private and public sectors, the Korean Studies Promotion Service was established to meet the needs and direct the promotion works. The active projects include funding the establishment of Korean Studies units in universities abroad, translation of Korean classics, enhance infrastructure for related research, and more. The total budget for 2014 alone is around 20 million USD.

In 2007, the Academy of Korean studies was also established in light of active efforts made to foster and promote studies of national culture and history with the hope to help Korean Studies become a global academic discipline with the support of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The AKS was then renamed in 2009 into the Korean Studies Promotion Service and is in charge of reviewing and selecting Korean Studies research projects and overseeing post-project affairs. Efforts have been put forward to bring a new horizon of Korean Studies in the world. Thus, there is Education Enhancement Program for Korean Studies that seeks to train foreign researchers of Korean Studies and establish stable Korean Studies eduction infrastructure by setting up Korean Studies education environment and supporting education programs and in the long run to contribute to the globalization of Korean Studies by introducing Korean Studies education programs and supporting Korean Studies center.

National Underpinnings and the Role of Korean Studies at SNU

Ong highlights the role of education as “a technology of power involved in the construction of modern ethics and knowledges, the beliefs, attitudes, and skills that shape new kinds of knowledgeable subjects” (2007, p. 139). She also identifies how the policy trend in the United States for education at the primary, secondary, and tertiary level is no longer about creating national citizenship but also about fostering “borderless neoliberal citizenship” and as a result poised all major universities to become global institutions by seriously considering changing the curriculum to have “a special focus on Asian subjects and perspectives” (Ong, 2007, p. 139). One of the factors is due to the flow of Asian elites and middle classes to enroll in American universities that today represent a global standard of professional excellence.

With internationalization becoming more comprehensive, as it infuses global, international, and intercultural dimensions into institutional visions and missions, there have been concerns from governments regarding potential “disembedment” of universities from their national contexts (Taylor, 2012). Therefore, recently there have been calls for comprehensive models of internationalization that not only focus on global connections, but also consider and incorporate the different layers of place that the universities are embedded in. It in this sense that we realize the symbiotic relationship between the state and the university have not been eliminated even in light of globalization’s increasing effects, as “countries have continued to assert their authority over any education that occurs within their domestic borders” (Lane and Kinser, 2011, p. 84).

The formation of SNU in 1946, one year after winning independence from Japan, was evidently not a confluence of circumstances but a carefully developed and long-thought-out strategy. SNU faced many challenges in its formative years especially from the Korean War (1950-1953) in terms of campus facilities. Nevertheless, after the war the University immediately began restoration of campus facilities that were destroyed and set about to establish a “university of the nation” (SNU, 2007). Being a national university, the university was affected with the political turbulences that occurred within the state particularly regarding the transition from the military government to democratization.

After the country reached national stability marked with the “Civilian government,” SNU began its internationalization process by adopting the “Ten-Year University Development Program” that consisted of three ideal and essential characteristics for the University, i.e. a university of education, a university of the nation, and a global university (SNU, 2007). Since then the University has added its focus into becoming a world-class research university by 2025. SNU’s focus on research, particularly interdisciplinary research, makes the University a suitable case study to explore potentially new roles of area studies research in the University’s internationalization strategies.

Looking at SNU’s vision, or marketed on SNU’s official website as ‘the SNU Spirit,’ the connection between the University and the Korean state is strongly promoted from a historical perspective, as read in the following statement, “As South Korea’s first national university, Seoul National University has a tradition of standing up for democracy and peace on the Korean peninsula.” In addition, the SNU Spirit also higlights how the major employment sector of the graduates of SNU that have mostly continued to be public servants in key positions of the Korean government. Thus, in the Korean context, the role of the university continues to be in part an extension of the state’s hands, in this sense regarding national security. This is indeed within reason, as North Korea and South Korea relations have oscillated between reconciliation and antaganosim since 1945 until today.

SNU houses a number of area studies research centres that is in line with the Korean government’s design towards Korean ethnic nationalism. The first one is SNU’s Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies which is a national institute affiliated with the University. The origins of the Institute as a national institute can be traced to 1776 during the late Joseon Dynasty. Today, besides holding a collection of different types of texts, national treasures, and relics, the Institute also is active in research activities as well as holding exhibitions and international exchange.

As mentioned in the official website of the Institute, “the Kyujanggak archives have long been recognized as foundational materials for Korean studies.” Thus, the Institute facilitates and organizes requests for its collections for researchers in the discipline of Korean studies both within and outside Korea. The Institute is the manifestation of Korea’s pride towards its ethnic national culture as stated in the Institute’s website.” The institute is dedicated to remaining the pride of the nation as the repository of Korean culture and as an exciting research space for future researchers for centuries to come.”

Another centre promoting Korean ethnic culture at SNU is the Center for Korean Language and Literature which is institutionally located under the Institute for Humanities. The Center was founded to stimulate research related to Korean language and literature within SNU and to enhance academic exchange among fields of study related to the humanities, thereby supporting academic research and, further on, greater progress in humanities. The center conducts research in the areas of Korean linguistics, classical and modern Korean literature, and Korean literature in Chinese, but, more than that, it seeks to promote the joint research of Korean language and literature, the culture industry, writing, cutting-edge data-processing technology, and other applied fields.

Currently, the center is in the early stages of carrying out the research necessary for designing diverse cultural projects based on the field of Korean language and literature. This research activity stems from the understanding that the success of research does not rely solely on Korean language and literature, but that fields such as general linguistics, literature, and philosophy must be actively embraced. In addition, the center has been responding to the increasing attention paid to the Korean language and Korean literature by foreign scholars by supporting animated exchange, interaction, and cooperation between scholars from Korea and abroad.

Another new area studies research centres at SNU on Korea is the Institute of Korean Regional Studies which was established in 1990 to conduct comprehensive research on physical and human geographical phenomena of Korea using interdisciplinary approaches from social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities. The aim of the Institute is to conduct research that promotes better understanding of and solutions for various spatial, environmental and socioeconomic problems in Korean peninsula, caused by rapid industrialization and urbanization, and to develop effective geographic information technology. Research projects that analyze these problems and recommend policy alternatives are conducted at the Institute.

One of the Institute’s major contributions is the establishment of a sound and sustainable national development model, which was made possible by the collaborative interdisciplinary efforts among researchers in related fields.

Since its establishment, the Institute focused on regional issues such as regional policy, regional environment, and regional planning as well as national land information technology and geoinformatics. The Institute organizes international conferences and regular colloquiums on a wide range of topics. As an effort to understand the implications of unification on the Korean Peninsula and to promote a more balanced regional development, spatial research on the era of aging population, research on longevity regions, research on unified Korea, regional planning and development of local governments are current research interests at the Institute. The establishment of SNU’s Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies, Center for Korean Language and Literature, and the Institute of Korean Regional Studies, clearly is for national interests. To an extent, it serves as a means of extending the Korean cultural ethnic nationalism that has for long kept the nation united and strong.

An interesting development at SNU’s new area studies research centres is the establishment of the Seoul National University Asia Center (SNUAC) in 2013. SNUAC aims in its vision to become “a hub of Asia-related research by promoting integration between regional and thematic research” (SNUAC, 2014). Thus, unlike the previous centres and institutes that sought to advance research and promotion of Korea internationally, SNUAC promotes the development of Asia as a separate research category. SNUAC which focuses on Asian research explicitly states that it “[…] seeks to move beyond the Western model of modernity to create a new postmodernity that addresses the deficiencies of the Western model,” as further elaborated in “Words from the Director” in the official website (SNUAC, 2014):

[…] The accumulation of modern knowledge (e.g. Euro-American advances in sciences, humanities, and social sciences in the 20th century) has paved a new way […] However, such modern developments have also fostered imperialism, war, discrimination, and poverty.

In this sense, we may assume that the establishment of SNUAC to an extent is influenced by the new Asian consciousness of the 21st century. Saal and Szpilman (2011, p. 34) identify this passing down of “the common opposition against the West” as one of the features of the Asian consciousness in addition to “…a common geography and culture, historical connections, racial affiliations, civilizational unity through comon ‘values and spiritual character’.” The new Asian consciousness that is been said to be propelled by the region’s growing economic and political strength than the legacy of anti-colonial dissent, nevertheless in its discussion continues to be juxtaposed to the West. As Chanda (2011) writes,

For over three decades, supporters and critics of globalization considered it a synonym for Americanization... Today the new champions of globalization are yesterday’s poor developing countries especially Asia—led by China and India… It has not yet gained fashionable currency or become a vogue but soon globalization may be known as Asianization.

This use of the politics of location to gain a certain global equality and even superiority in the long run nevertheless has its own critics. Lo (2013, p. 31) writes about this “obsession” of Asian juxtaposition with the West and argues through the postwar Japanese thinker Yoshimi Takeuchi’s concept of “Asia as method” in which he argues against the formation of “a distinctive Asian paradigm” but more for a “’rollback’ of western values.”

Nevertheless, the role of Asianism in Asia at present day, as (Chen, 2010, p. vii) argues continue to function as a remedial space for the past that nationalism alone cannot cater to,

…nationalism is a comon element of three even more fundamental problems: colonialism, the structure of the world during the cold car, and the imperialist imaginary. Corresponding to this entangled problematic are the often combined movements for decolonization, deimperialization, and what I call “de-cold war.” The mediating site for these forces and movements is the imaginary Asia.

Thus, as Chen would argue Asia can indeed be the method in a way that it does not juxtapose itself against the West, which is an imperial legacy of a faulty binary in itself. Chen illuminates that Asianism does not necessarily be entrapped within an East and West competition and contestation. Quite the opposite, it sees Asia as a reference point in itself although not dismissing the manifested and latent problems that the countries need to address.

Singapore: the Global-Asia Hub

Talking about Asia, it is interesting to observe how there are some countries in the region that have made regional identity as a government project. Among them is Singapore. Since the past two decades, the Singapore government has persistently highlighted its Asian location as an advantage within the different sectors that the government oversees (Yat-sen, 1994). Although Singapore is a small city-state with an area size of 255 square miles that is inhabited by less than 4.5 million people (National Geographic Society, 2014), big plans have been set up by the government as the country undertakes the path to be “the global-Asian hub.” Singapore’s embarkation on this Asian regionalist paradigm can be traced to the former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who on behalf of the country actively spoke about “the Asian Way” and “the Asian Values” during the 1990s. Since then, the government have taken more comprehensive and strategic measures in all sectors to instill Asianness and revive the Pan-Asian movement.

It is, however, important to note that Asianism, which stems from the pan-Asianism ideology, is not a concept exclusive to Singapore. It is a regional consciousness has developed in different waves in the Asian countries at contrastive intensities and with different agendas. Retrospectively, the pan-Asian movement itself can be traced back to the end of the 19th century when it was used by Japan to engender regional solidarity against Western imperial expansion after defeating Russia in 1905 (Milner and Johnson, 2002, p. 67). To achieve this goal, Japan designed a number of strategies that relied on the country’s higher education strength, such as establishing Toyoshi (Eastern History) as a formal discipline within a number of Japanese universities (Yat-sen, 1994, p. 141). Accordingly, these universities then sought to facilitate and host students from various parts of the region to study Eastern History so as to create the intended regional solidarity that led to the creation of pan-Asiatic societies and networks.

The Interplay Between the Regional and the Global at NUS

At the outset, international orientations, characteristics, and programmatic offerings of a college or university may have only been perceived as an appealing component of an institution’s profile. Today, however, universities across the globe have adopted a key strategy for responding to the influence of globalization known as “internationalization” which in general is understood as a transformative strategy in which universities principally incorporate a perspective beyond the local and the national in their strategic development (Altbach, 2004). As a result, new concepts, programs, providers, and methods of delivery have been initiated and implemented in order for universities to internationalize in some fashion.

The oldest public university in Singapore, NUS was established in 1980 from a merger between the University of Singapore and Nanyang University (Office of Corporate Relations NUS, 2014). Regarding the situation of public higher education in Singapore, there are currently four public universities in this city-state, namely NUS, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore Management University (SMU), and Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD). Unlike NTU, SMU, and SUTD that are special focus universities, NUS is a comprehensive research university that provides enhanced access to a wider range of undergraduate and graduate programs as well as research institutes. At present day, NUS hosts 16 Faculties and Schools, 24 University-level Research Institutes and Centres, and 3 National-level Research Centres of Excellence (Office of Corporate Relations NUS, 2014).

NUS’s commitment to achieve world-class excellence and enhanced visibility on a global and regional level has been fairly successful, as the University is ranked 21st on the 2013/14 Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings and 2nd on the THE Regional Rankings with 94.3% for accomplishment in international outlook (TES Global, 2014). Hazelkorn (2011) points out how as rankings largely use quantification in the assessment of the performance of universities, the older universities, which are naturally more resourced, are demonstrably more privileged. Thus, NUS’ performance in the world rankings is indeed an accomplishment bearing in mind that the University can still be considered a fledgling in the higher education landscape.

For NUS, the internationalization process of becoming a ‘global university’ is indeed a process about being interconnected in the global network of knowledge that is constituted by universities worldwide. This is within reason, because international knowledge is best constructed through international dialogue. Thus, it is undeniable that international affiliations and linkages are “both key strategy and core philosophy for internationalization” (Sutton, Egginton, Favela, 2012, p. 151). For NUS, international partnerships are no longer perceived as freestanding activities or efforts to internationalize but have become closer to the center and have been embedded within the core vision and mission of universities.

There is indeed no single format or blueprint for internationalization. However, for comprehensive internationalization to fully take place so that the internationalization strategies do not appear as disparate programs and activities, it will begin with the formulation of a set of vision and mission that reflects or incorporates certain strategic global, international or intercultural dimensions. On this account, the imperative to perceive internationalization as “an organizing paradigm to think and act systematically and holistically about higher education internationalization” (Hudzik and Stohl, 2012, p. 66) appears to have been carried out to a substantial degree at NUS, as the University’s vision and mission do indeed reflect certain global and regional dimensions.

The interplay between global and international dimensions is reflected from NUS’ vision that is to become “a leading global university centred in Asia, influencing the future” (Office of Corporate Relations NUS, 2014). The vision to become a global university is an ideal spreading widely and pursued throughout all the world regions. Olson and Peacock (2012, p. 305), however, note that, “Key to addressing the global university is the understanding that the global is grounded in the local. Institutionally, universities depend on states, provinces, cities, regions, and international bureaucracies, which themselves are localized in headquarters and outposts or other locales.” This ‘glocale’ approach towards the global university is essential, as Peacock (2007, p. 9) through his concept of ‘grounded globalism’ elaborates that to strive for a global identity alone would be “insufficient, unbalanced, and insubstantial,” as it would cause future problems of disengagement and a lack of identity. Within the case of international higher education, these problems would not only affect the universities, but also to some extent the graduates and in due time the society at large.

Seen from the ‘grounded globalism’ concept, NUS’s strategic incorporation of the regional dimension into the University’s vision can be interpreted as an institutional effort to ground or provide territorial attachment to the University’s agenda to become a global university. The aspiration to meet global standards and visibility along with the need to build a distinctive university profile by reflecting on the Asian region has indeed been identified as one of the emerging trends within Asian higher education systems (Rumbley, Altbach, and Reisberg, 2012). For NUS, the global and regional synergy embodied in the vision also functions as the University’s niche or flagship which it strongly promotes not only on its official website, but also on the websites of World University Rankings. For instance, on the website of Times Higher Education University Rankings NUS presents its flagship as offering “a global approach to education and research with a focus on Asian perspectives and expertise” (TES Global, 2014).

On NUS’ official website, the University provides explanations relating to actualization of the vision. One of the explanations provides insights to how the University seeks to actualize the grounding of the internationalization process in the Asian region, which runs as follows, “A key node in global knowledge, NUS will have distinctive expertise and insights relating to Asia” (Office of Corporate Relations NUS, 2014). Thus, NUS does not simply play on its location being located in Asia merely as an act of international profiling, but it substantiates this Global-Asian profiling by emphasizing on knowledge production and knowledge dissemination of Asia.

NUS’ comprehensive and yet selective approach to internationalization is part of a manifesting trend in new managerialism within universities today, as observed by Taylor (, p. 99) in the following excerpt,

While a strategy for internationalization may be comprehensive, universities have also become more selective in their approach, often concentrating their efforts on a limited number of high-profile initiatives. In this respect, the strategy documents show characteristics of planning, target setting and central direction, all features of new managerialism. They have also been associated with new forms of organization and leadership.

Bearing in mind that NUS is a public university, managerialism at the University does indeed reflect a certain new professionalism and a corporate structure. The organizational structure of NUS can be viewed as a tripartite system consisting of the Board of Trustees, the Management and the University Administration (Office of Corporate Relations NUS, 2014). The NUS Board of Trustees comprise of 24 members that are annually elected by the Singapore Ministry of Education. The role of the Board in influencing the orchestration of the University’s direction and profile is significant, as reported in mentioned in the NUS Annual Report 2013 under the section regarding ‘Corporate Governance’: “the Board of Trustees works closely with the management and stakeholders of the University to shape the vision, chart the major directions, and develop programmes and initiatives” (Office of Corporate Relations NUS, 2014, p. 58).

Examining the profiles of the members of the Board of Trustees, a mixed variance can be observed. Members of the board are not only academicians, but also representatives of governmental departments and agencies, non-governmental and semi-governmental organizations, and private and public foundations with a number of them being foreign entities ((NUS Office of Corporate Relations, 2014, p. 6-12). Some examples include the Venture Corporation Limited, which is a global provider of technology services, products, and solutions, the Singaporean-German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the National Environment Agency, Ministry of Education, Shangri-La Hotel Limited and the Centre for Strategic Futures.

From the plethora of actors within NUS’ Board of Trustees it is clear that the rationales driving internationalization at the University are not only academic, but also economic, political, and social. The decision to ground the internationalization process at NUS is this a strategic decision that is not only bound to academic rationales related to international branding and profile and knowledge production, but also related to the economic, political, and social issues of the nation, for instance Singapore’s strategy for nation building as well as its strategic alliances. For this reason, the final section of this chapter will look into the national and regional dynamics in which Singapore is embedded in to comprehend to what extent the decision of the University to become an Asian knowledge hub is influenced by its external surroundings.

Despite the emphasis on cross-border education, there are also a number of new programs that a number of NUS’ faculties are introducing with contain global, international, or comparative dimensions within the courses, for instance the Undergraduate program Global Studies at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences that was launched in 2012 as a multidisciplinary approach to addressing global issues (Global Studies NUS, 2014). The module list of the program is categorized into thematic approaches and regional approaches with the prior encompassing a wide range of themes, such as global health and environment, global economics and development policy making, war and security, colonialism and post-colonialism, religion and ethnicity, and population and migration.

Nevertheless, the focus of the area studies research at NUS unlike SNU that invests intensively in Korean studies, NUS the amount of scholarship and resources devoted to area studies at the National University of Singapore is unparalleled within the Asian region. There are five university-level area studies research. Based on their year of establishment, they are the East Asian Institute (EAI), the Asia Research Institute (ARI), the Middle East Institute (MEI), the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), and the Global Asia Institute (GAI). The five research institutes are supervised and regulated under the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) division of the Office of the Deputy President (Research & Technology).

Based on the geographic areas that are scrutinized and named as the research institutes, with the exception of the Middle East Institute, also suggest an almost exclusive research on Asia. Unlike the alternative to establish an integrated Centre of Area Studies covering these five areas, which would evidently be more cost effective, the decision to have separate research institutions specializing on different sub-regions of Asia suggests how, despite their commonalities, the sub-regions of Asia cannot be simplified into one category. The establishment of a more all-encompassing Asian research through the Asia Research Institute (ARI) and the NUS Global Asia Institute (GAI) while not terminating the existing sub-regional Asian institutes further implies the importance of extensive research within each of these sub-regions in order to produce knowledge on Asia as a whole as well as address the challenges of Asia as a region.

The National University of Singapore (NUS) that within its management has the Office of the Deputy President for Research & Technology. At NUS, the Office of the Deputy President for Research & Technology sets policies for research, oversees the allocation of research funding and builds research excellence at NUS (Office of the Deputy President (Research & Technology) NUS, 2014). The centralized model of research management at NUS can be observed by looking at the Office’s focus on “developing areas of strength in Asia research” (Office of Vice President (Research & Technology) NUS, 2014) and the five university-level area studies research: the East Asian Institute (EAI), the Asia Research Institute (ARI), the Middle East Institute (MEI), the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), and the Global Asia Institute (GAI).

The Asia Research Institute (ARI) was established in July 2011 as the second university-level institute on Asia. The vision and mission of the institute as given in the ARI’s official website are “to be a world-leading hub for research on Asia” by “inspiring new knowledge and transforming insights into Asia.” As also informed in the Message from the Director of ARI on the website, ARI “is not directly committed to policy goals and imperatives; rather we seek to live up to the motto of our parent institution, the National University of Singapore: “A Global University centered in Asia.” Nevertheless, it appears that regarding the study of Asia, the nature of the research is not conducted by conceiving Asia as a container, but rather “connecting Asia” and the “geographies and pathways across the region that have shaped this small part (Asia).”

Looking into a number of official speeches that were read out by a number of prominent social scientists during the official opening of ARI, the significance of the institution to the region was indeed great. Anthony Reid (, 2011) emphasized the important of research centres within Asia, as follows,

In the half a life I have spent trying to understand this region, I have always hoped for the day when stronger academic institutions would arise within it, to play their part in the generation and testing of ideas that makes up our increasingly global discourse; and to restore balance to those exchanges.

In another opening speech by Craig Calhoun (2012) of the Social Science Research Council, the importance of ARI was related to the need to come up with methods and approaches that were not merely an extension of Euro-American concepts. As stated in the following excerpt,

In addition, it is vital to the future strength and usefulness of the humanities and social sciences that they be organized more internationally, and that the “international” not mean simply an extension of the ideas and methods of European or American researchers but the development of comparably high-quality research programs reflecting different settings, perspectives, and engagements. It is important thus for there to be major research centers in many places.

Regarding the existing research clusters promoted at ARI they are Asian migration, Asian urbanisms, changing family in Asia, cultural studies in Asia, meta-cluster: Asian connections, religion and globalisation in Asian contexts and science technology and society. Thus, from the research clusters promoted, one can see the strong strength within humanities and social science themes.

Established in 2013, the NUS Global Asia Institute (GAI) can be seen as the ‘nouveau arrive’ within the area-based research field at the University. Unlike the other area-based research institutes, GAI brings together not only the typical subjects that fall under the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Social Sciences. It brings multidisciplinary to a new level, which can be seen from its slogan “Transcending boundaries of geography and knowledge” as well as its research concern that includes critical issues for Asian cities in a globalizing world.

The social, economic, political and cultural knowledge of the region obtained from the other area-based research institutes is used as background knowledge to address problems such as education, public health, community building, water, waste management, energy and food, security and housing. GAI aims toward transformative research that brings about solution and public actions. Although GAI addresses questions that relate to the region, there is a particular focus on China and India, being the two giants of the region. GAI also aims to implement the use of advanced forms of information technology, such as data mining and map-based techniques, to support the data analyses of its research.

Research is indeed one of the key focuses at NUS. As also stated in the University’s mission that is “to transform the way people think and do things through education, research and service” (International Corporate Office NUS, 2014). The Office of the Deputy President (Research & Technology) is the Administration Office assigned to set policies for research, oversee the allocation of research funding and builds research excellence at NUS (Office of the Deputy President (Research & Technology) NUS, 2014). It would appear that NUS’ strategic decision to remain rooted in Asia as conceptualized in the University’s vision has been coordinated with the University’s decision to focus on research within the Asian realm, as indicated from the official NUS Office of Vice President (University & Global Relations) website that states the University’s focus on “developing areas of strength in Asia research” (Office of Vice President (Research & Technology) NUS, 2014).

Conclusion

The notion of the “global university” has become a pervasive ideal that is sought by universities throughout the world. Over the past decades, there has been a shift in the nature of internationalization models from activities and programs interdependent from the vision and mission of the universities to a more integrated and comprehensive model. Therefore, instead of remaining at the more traditional level of just becoming more international, deeper engagement has been pursued in order to create ‘better’ internationalization through adjustment of frames of reference. On that account, this paper argues for better internationalization through strategic and structured approaches in establishing a university’s international profile and aligning it with the university’s concentration on specific areas within its area studies research centres.

For both SNU and NUS, the internationalization process of becoming a ‘global university’ is indeed a process about being interconnected in the global network of knowledge that is constituted by universities worldwide. Nevertheless, after examining the international profiles constructed at SNU and NUS and juxtaposing them with the selection of area studies research centres at the respective universities, it would appear that the area studies centres are not merely results of individual interests or serendipitous connections, but they play a role in shaping and substantiating both universities’ international orientation. For NUS, the Asian orientation of the area studies research centres serve to substantiate the Asian regional identity that the University has embedded in its vision and mission to become a global-Asian hub. This is similar to SNU at its conception of becoming a global national university and the University’s dedication to promote knowledge on Korea through its new area studies research centres that are intensely focused on Korea.

Concentrating on certain disciplines or regions be it in its profile as well as research could in fact create a niche for the respective university that she identifies to be an important asset for competing with other universities across the world (Baumann, 2014). This is of course a promising endeavor within the internationalization process instead of the expansionary concept stemming from the belief that “more is better.” Nevertheless, with the commodification of higher education, these changes are not easy. Among them the impeding factors is a tight budget. Often international engagement, is endorsed or sponsored by international developmental projects and objectives. Thus, the university often does not have much say in deciding the international orientation of its area studies research centres, as it is contingent to existing connections and external fundings.

Second of all, it is interesting to note how the orientation of internationalization at SNU and NUS reflects the international strategies taken up by the respective governments. In his book entitled, “Scholars in the Marketplace: The Dilemmas of Neo-liberal Reform at Makerere University (1989-2005)” Mamdani (2007) argues for the need to explore “softer ways” to look at the relations between the state and the market instead of pitting one against the other. Unlike in the past, where the relationship between the state and the state university is more authoriative, today it has become more symbiotic. Through lifting procedural restrictions on higher education instituions and introducing policies that have “less emphasis on the traditional rule-oriented use of authority tools than previously and more emphasis on goal formulation and performance” (Bleiklie, 2000, p.57), the hope is so that universities can recontextualize to the global trends without bureaucratic works.

Thus, if in the past universities from Asia were examined regarding their role as recipients or consumers of the internationalization of higher education that took off in the Western world, for instance “as senders of students, recipients of capacity-building funds, and more recently as locations of franchise operations, branch campuses, or other forms of cross-border delivery” (Rumbley, Altbach & Reisberg, 2012, p. 13), today Asian universities have proven to be actively particpating in creating a distinctive character of internationalization that is grounded in area studies research both on the nation as well as the region. This emphasis on a cultural affinity based on the Asian region is important to build a foundation for future cooperation outside the academic realm. This use of area studies moves past the “origin” of area studies in the wake of the Cold War and opts to also go beyond, using Gayatri Spivak’s (2004) words, “interregional vigilance” which had spawned this early development of area studies.

Thus, it is also important to highlight the nature of the area studies research centres at the two case study universities that were previously discussed. First of all, although research at the centres continue to be organized by area rather than by discipline, they do not follow the conventional tradition of area studies being related to “foreign areas.” Also, the centres do not serve to advocate that the knowledge of the world needs to be first divided into self-contained “areas” before becoming objects of analysis. The model of area studies research continues to be tied to the politics of power, in this case being the state and the region, however the purposes has moved away from politics of hostility, fear, and vigilance. New area studies as promoted at these research centres is more in the spirit of strengthening and good international relations as well as provding alternative ‘Asian’ horizons of the world.

This study is aware that there is no single model of internationalization that may be used as a universal model in different kinds of contexts. There will always be similarities and differences emerging when examining the internationalization models of different universities, even those located within the same country. On that account, the case of SNU and NUS does not seek to be representative of internationalization in Asia but rather to highlight the range of responses that the University has made in light of the University’s resources as well as the external situations in which the university is embedded. While organizational theories and expanding literature on internationalization of higher education can provide to provide guidance for universities, it is as important to have more institutional stories to learn from. Finally, it is hoped that the findings within this study will give further credence to the relevance of new area studies today and open doors for its revival within universities.

발표문 목록

구분	제목
1	A New Imperative for Area Studies in the Internationalization of Higher Education: Case Studies of Seoul National University and the National University of Singapore
2	INDONESIA-KOREA PARTNERSHIP: TOWARDS EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION
3	THE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS OF KOREAN WAVE IN VIETNAM(IN COMPARISON WITH JAPANESE ONE)
4	Korea's National Image Through a Content Analysis of Articles about Korea on Vietnamese Online Newspapers
5	Middle Power Diplomacy: South Korea's Initiative in ASEAN and the Philippines
6	Malaysia-Korea Economic Relations: Trends and Developments
7	The Roles of Korean Development in the Mekong Region
8	Cambodia-South Korea Relations
9	Myanmar-Republic of Korea Economic Cooperation