The purpose of this paper is to examine globalization and higher education from a South Korean perspective. First, the paper reviews the concepts of globalization and internationalization, the rationale for globalization, and relations between globalization and higher education. Second, the author describes a historical synopsis regarding internationalization and higher education in South Korea. Third, Korean government policies on internationalization in education are discussed. Fourth, the paper illustrates the institutional approaches of internationalization in Korean higher education. Finally, the barriers and challenges of globalization in Korean higher education conclude the discussion.
At the outset of the 21st century, one of the most frequently utilized terms in academia is globalization regardless of nation, region, or race. This term is used extensively in various sectors, including politics, economics, culture, and education. The term “globalization” has been used as the meaning of “becoming global.” It refers to “the development of increasingly integrated systems and relations beyond the nation” (Marginson and Rhoades, 2002, p. 288). Such systems and relations are more than economic; they are also political, cultural, and technological (Appadurai, 1996; Held, et al., 1999). As a concept, globalization refers “both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (Robertson, 1993, p. 8). It simply connotes that “the world is rapidly being moulded into a shared social space by economic and technological forces and that developments in one region of the world can have profound consequences for the life chances of individuals or communities on the other side of the globe” (Held, et al., 1999, p. 1).
The argument regarding the globalization thesis is grounded on two major aspects: transnational and multinational 2 (Amin, 1998; Carnoy, 1993). The former depends on a nation’s economic policy, whereas the latter relies on many different countries’ economic policies (Carnoy, 1999). However, the essence of globalization is not limited to national economies and national states, but contained in a new way of thinking regarding economic and social space and time (Carnoy, 1999, p. 19). In addition, it is connected to political relations and cultural influence (Stromquist and Monkman, 2000).
Globalization is sometimes used interchangeably with internationalization, although both the definitions and the differences between the two terms are unclear. According to Knight’s (1997) assertion, “[g]lobalisation can be thought of as the catalyst while internationalisation is the response, albeit a response in a proactive way” (p. 6). In addition, Levin (2001) regards internationalization as one set of behaviors influenced by globalizing processes. These processes include not only political and economic globalization but also social and cultural, including educational globalization. Based on these assertions, globalization refers to no single or simple phenomenon, but to a world system incorporated with multi-phenomena such as political, economic, social, cultural, and technological forces (Dudley, 1998; Edwards and Usher, 2000; Marginson, 2002; Held, et al., 1999). On the other hand, internationalization may be understood as a response to the impact of globalization or a set of behaviors influenced by globalization processes (Knight, 1997; Levin, 2001).
The writer attempts to discuss globalization in terms of three major domains: politico-economic, socio-cultural, and educational. The politico-economic rationale has become more important since the beginning of this century. In particular, the economic rationale is more prevalent than political one, especially with regard to building an international labor market, as well as with growing information-communication technology (ICT) competitiveness. Globalization is a significant force that is reorganizing the world’s economy through new knowledge and technology (Carnoy and Rhoten, 2002). Owing to the intensive trend of economic globalization, as de Wit and Knight (1997) point out, socio-cultural and academic rationales seem to be secondary, and these rationales are inclined more to the institutional and individual level than the national level (p. 174).
From the viewpoint of human resource development, socio-cultural and educational rationales seem to be regarded as subsidiary factors to enhance and strengthen the economic rationale. In spite of this economic or commercially-oriented tendency, the socio-cultural rationale is of importance because a national identity and culture is considered as a core element not merely to maintaining the nation’s own culture but also to living in cooperation with other nations. If a nation loses its cultural identity, globalization may represent nothing more than homogenization.
Finally, the educational rationale is also an important domain because the globalization of higher education can provide people with an opportunity to meet international market demand and develop cooperative working environments. The writer specifically discusses the educational rationale of globalization in the next section.
Globalization has precipitated substantial influences on higher education. As Levin (2001) points out, “with emphasis upon international competitiveness, economic globalization is viewed as moving postsecondary institutions into a business-like orientation, with its attendant behaviors of efficiency and productivity” (p. 239). Higher education institutions are closely related to the marketplace, especially in the field of techno-science. With respect to the worldwide proliferation of neo-liberal policies, higher education institutions have played an important role not merely in maintaining and revolutionizing nation state and national systems but also in national marketplaces (Marginson and Rhodes, 2002). There are many scholars who have recently become interested in the former stress on changing relations between national ministries and postsecondary institutions (Gornitzka, 1999; Kogan and Hanney, 2000; Neave and van Vught, 1994; Salter and Tapper, 1994), whereas scholars who are connected to the latter have often focused on universities’ entrepreneurial activity and adaptation to external markets (Clark, 1998; Marginson and Considine, 2000; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Sporn, 1999; Subotzky, 1999).
In light of the structural changes that have transformed the global economy, higher education has also required structural adjustment and reform strategies. One such structural change has been to create entrepreneurial universities. In order to enhance international competitiveness in the world marketplace as well as to adjust new modes of knowledge production in a global society, several scholars argue that universities should adopt entrepreneurial structure, strategy, and culture (Clark, 1998; Levin, 2001; Marginson, 1997; Marginson and Considine, 2000; Rhoades and Smart, 1996; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Subotzky, 1999).
In keeping with these structural adjustments in higher education institutions, the global economy demands new national policies to promote academic capitalism. According to Slaughter and Leslie’s (1997) argument, the global economy facilitates academic capitalism in higher education, with an emphasis on national policies and funding patterns. On the contrary, Marginson and Rhoades (2002) point out the weaknesses of “academic capitalism” as the following:
The metaphor of academic capitalism reveals a powerful global trend but blinds us to the power of national traditions, agencies, and agents in shaping the work of higher education, as well as to the local agency exercised by students, faculty, non-faculty professionals, and administrators, pursuing prestige, knowledge, social critique, and social justice. (p. 287)
As described in the above, academic capitalism places emphasis on the global and national levels, while it disregards conceptual development at the local level and also neglects interactions of global, national, and local domains.
In consideration of the weaknesses of academic capitalism, Marginson and Rhoades (2002) suggest an alternative, “a glonacal agency heuristic, 3 ” to advance the importance of studying global phenomena (p. 288). They illustrate the merit of a glonacal agency heuristic as follows:
Our heuristic highlights the growing saliency of global agencies and relationships, including meta-national regions, in both the national and the local domains it emphasizes the continuing fecundity of local institutions and other agents at the national and global levels it takes us beyond nation states, national markets, and national systems and institutions of higher education to consider organizational agencies and human agency at various levels. (p. 305)
This heuristic approach presents the harmonious interactions of global, national, and local phenomena as well as reciprocal interrelationships between or among agencies or domains.
As reviewed in the above, recent trends in higher education have embraced innovative or reformative structural adjustment to cope with rapid global changes. In this vein, Korea also demands restructuring or reengineering of higher education in order to reach international standards and to improve academic quality
According to the source of The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2001 (Institutional Institute for Management Development [IMD], 2001), IMD evaluates that South Korea has a positive attitude toward globalization, but South Korea faces threats to her economy (p. 473). Although South Korea has developed world-class higher education institutions, the oveall quality of Korean higher education does not meet all the requirements of a competitive global economy (IMD, 2001). Considering the research result of IMD, globalization in higher education must become a key agenda item in South Korea.
In the light of the significance of globalization in Korea, the author first of all reviews the historical context and then describes governmental and institutional policies toward internationalization in order to weigh the development and condition of globalization in Korean higher education.
The origin of internationalization of higher education in Korea stems from the introduction of the first Western-type collegiate schools in the late Choson period (1880-1910). Until the late nineteenth century, the formal Korean elite/higher education system maintained the Chinese-type Confucian institutional design. According to the oldest Korean historic record, Samguk-sagi [The Historic Records of Three Kingdoms], the first formal institution of elite/higher education was known as Taehak (National Confucian Academy) established in AD 372. After opening the National Confucian Academy, several similar national institutions of Confucian elite/higher education were established as the primary or secondary key institutions with Buddhist schools until the late fourteenth century.
From the beginning of the Choson dynasty in 1392, Confucianism was a national ethical principle or religion. Thus, Confucian education was the primary institution not only to foster civilian bureaucrats but also to enable its people to follow Confucian ethics and values. The National Confucian Academy of Choson, Seongkyunkwan that succeeded the traditions of the former National Confucian institutions, was built in 1398. During the Choson Kingdom period (1392-1910), Confucian elite higher education was mainly regarded as an institution for training future bureaucrats who then rose to political positions after national examinations, Kwa-keo (Lee, 2001, p. 4). The Confucian education system was maintained until the late 19th century when the Choson Kingdom opened its doors to coercive foreign powers, and was influenced by the modern educational system from Western Christian missionaries (Lee, 2001, p. 5).
During the late 19th century (1880-1900), the rise of modern higher education, followed a Western-type pattern and occurred in the three principle phases: Confucian Choson royal government, Western Christian missionaries, and patriotic nationalists (Kim, 2000, pp. 21-24; Lee, 2001, p. 1). In particular, Christian missionary schools that were established under various Western Christian denominations and missions played an important part as seeds for the development of modern higher education in Korea. Christian missionaries who served as administrators or faculty were pioneers for the internationalization of higher education in Korea. In terms of the internationalization of modern Korean higher education, Western Christian missionary schools brought the first experience of internationalization to Korea.
During the Japanese colonial period (1910-1945), all tertiary institutes which were built by three principle bodies lost their college status and were degraded to non-degree granting schools. There was only one national-level university, Keijo Imperial University, opened by the Japanese in 1924. Korean collegiate schools under Japanese colonial rule lost the chance to pursue Western models that were better suited for Koreas’ needs. In the process of the internationalization of higher education, the Japanese colonial authority emphasized its nationalism more than internationalism due to the Japanese imperialists’ educational policy based on its imperialism.
The liberation of Korea from the Japanese in 1945 was a turning point in the history of Korean higher education. The U.S. Military government between 1945 and 1948 not only endeavored to eradicate the remnants of Japanese education, and introduced an American education system (Lee, 2000b). At that time, a number of Korean educators who studied abroad participated in radical education reforms. In addition, many collegiate schools including Christian-founded institutions became four-year, degree-granting universities. In light of the internationalization of higher education, Korea experienced a new wave of multinationalism during this term.
After the establishment of the Republic of Korea in 1948, the new South Korean government promulgated a far-reaching Education Law on December 31, 1949 (Lee, 2000b, p. 3). The Education Law included the concepts of internationalization as follows:
Development of a patriotic spirit for the preservation of national independence and enhancement of an ideal for the cause of world peace (Article 2: 2).
Succession and development of our national culture and contribution to the creation and growth of the world culture (Article 2: 3).
The period between the Korean War (1950-1953) and the early 1960s were marked by a huge advancement in the internationalization of Korean higher education. In particular, the active participation of foreign agencies for the development of tertiary institutions is worthy of close attention. The major contributing agencies were the United Nations Civil Assistance Command, Korea (UNCACK), the Korean Civil Assistance Corps (KCAC), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Co-operation Administration (ICA), the Agency for International Development (AID), and the United States Operations Mission to Korea (USOM) (Kim, 2000, p. 39; Lee, 2000a, p. 53). The various aid programs provided many Korean people with opportunities to gain American academic knowledge and advanced scientific skills in foreign countries (Lee, 2000a, p. 54). For example, the contract between ICA/The University of Minnesota and Korea offered graduate study and observation to 225 Koreans from 1954 to 1962 (Adams, 1965, p. 15).
After a military coup d’etat in 1961, the Korean government strongly recognized the need for educational reform to industrialize the country and to build the national identity. On December 5, 1968, the Korean government promulgated ‘The Charter of National Education’ as the guiding principle of Korean education.
…The love of the country and fellow countrymen together with the firm belief in democracy against communism is the way for our survival and the basis for realizing the ideals of the free world….(The Ministry of Education, 1976, p. 3)
In this document, the Korean government stressed not only national identity and culture but also the ideals of the world.
From the 1960s to the 1980s, higher education expanded to meet the national demand for manpower in Korean society (Suhr, 1987, p. 8). With the rapid growth of the Korean economy, the Korean government strengthened the education of overseas Koreans and tried to foster highly qualified manpower through overseas training and study (The Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development [MEHRD] and Korean Educational Development Institute [KEDI], 2000, p. 11). In the late 1980s, international exchange and cooperation in Korean higher education increased substantially (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, p. 148).
In the latter half of the 1990s, the Asian economic crisis enormously affected Korean society and higher education. The economic crisis “was precipitated by an unexpected drop in the value of Asian currencies that posed serious threats to economies throughout the region” (Weidman and Park, 2000, p. 1). With the epochal trend of globalization having a major effect on the severe economic crisis, the Korean government promulgated the Framework Act on Education in December 1997. In particular, Article 29 of the Education Act describes several objectives for the internationalization of education.
In 1998, 130 Korean universities out of 156 four-year institutions had implemented sisterhood relationships with 2,130 foreign universities in 110 countries (Korean Council for University Education, 1999). In addition, 154,219 Korean students were studying abroad, and there were 6,279 foreign students studying in Korea were from 108 countries in 1999 (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, p. 19).
In the wake of an epochal challenge, the Presidential Commission on Educational Reform [PCER] was organized in 1994. The Reform Proposal that was submitted to the President in May 1995 stated that globalization was one of the most notable challenges to which Korean higher education needed to respond (PCER Report, 1997). The First Reform Proposal describes globalization as holding several implications for the future direction of Korean educational system. These were as follows (Ibid., pp. 15-16):
In the Reform Proposal, four specific tasks regarding the internationalization of universities were suggested: fostering experts in international relations, increasing the number of foreign students in Korea, supporting Korean universities in their plans to build branch campuses abroad, and emphasizing Korean cultural identity through a variety of educational programs (PCER Report, 1997, p. 33).
Koreans have experienced the impacts of global financial systems since the “Economic Crisis of 1997.” In order to cope with urgent needs for globalization, the present government organized the Presidential Commission for New Education Committee (PCNEC) in July 1998. The PCNEC mostly adopted the policies of globalization and education established by the former government. The four policies of globalization are: education of overseas Koreans, overseas studies and training of Koreans, support for foreign students studying in Korea, and fostering experts of international relations. Under the present Kim administration, internationalization is one of core policies in current Korean higher education. The Korean government renamed the former Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development in January 2000, in order to cope with a new knowledge-based society, and with an emerging trend of internationalization.
In particular, under the Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development, the National Institute for International Education Development (NIIED) has performed not merely international education exchanges and cooperation but also education for overseas Koreans. The major functions of NIIED are: education of overseas Koreans, exchange and cooperation of international education, overseas training of teachers and university students, selection and management of government scholarship students, and support services for overseas study (http://niied. interedu.go.kr/).
The Korean government has also encouraged the promotion of international cooperation and education with international organizations and institutions such as United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), The World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO). The government has stressed education for international understanding in all school levels, and has also promoted Korean studies in domestic and foreign countries.
The Asia-Pacific Centre [Center] of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU) was opened in Seoul, Korea in accordance with the resolution of the 30th Session of the UNESCO General Conference in 1999 (Kim, 2001, p. 5). The Center’s main duty is “to promote and develop education for international understanding in the schools and civil society of the Asia-Pacific region” (Ibid., p. 3). In addition, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development [MEHRD] holds a Korea-OECD regular seminar every year and participates in a number of OECD cooperative research projects (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, pp. 63-64). In 2000, the Korea Foundation, which was established in 1991 so as to support Korean studies overseas, “supported the initiation and expansion of Korean studies courses at 22 universities in 20 countries.” (The Korea Foundation Annual Report, 2000, p. 8). In the same year, the Korean government selected 40 national scholarship students to study abroad from over 3.3 million Korean college/university students, and also invited 75 foreign students on Korean national scholarships from 40 different countries (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, pp. 125-126).
The Korean government has constantly endeavored to promote educational policies and approaches that support internationalization, so as not to fall behind the trend of globalization. In addition, the government has promoted the internationalization of education through several major government-funded research institutions such as Korean Educational Development Institute [KEDI] 4 , Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training [KRIVET] 5 , Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation [KICE] 6 , Korea Research Foundation [KRF] 7 , and The Korea Foundation [KF] 8 .
The main national policies of internationalization in Korean higher education are to enhance the quality of education in order to reach world standards, to focus on a nation’s cultural heritage so as to harmonize other ethnic cultures, and to become more market oriented, privatized, and diversified.
This section addresses the institutional approaches of internationalization in Korea. It focuses on the internationalization of academic staff and curriculum, the condition of study abroad by Korean students, and the situation of foreign students in South Korea.
The international academic exchange programs of Korean universities have rapidly expanded since the late 1980s. As mentioned in the previous section, 130 Korean universities of 156 four-year institutions had sister relationships with 2,130 foreign universities in 110 countries in 1998. The countries of universities having sister relationships were: the United States, 640 institutions; China, 326; Japan, 288; Russia, 123; Taiwan, 83; United Kingdom, 74; and other countries, 596 (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, p. 149). Academic exchanges in Korea have declined to a few developed countries and neighbor nations.
The main content of international programs concerning academic exchange are related to faculty and students, research activities, academic resources, and academic affairs. In recent years, a great number of national and private universities regardless of region appear in the international academic activities. For instance, Kyemyeong University that is a private institution in Kyungsang province had sisterhood relationship with 76 foreign universities of 17 countries in 2000. Between July 1999 and August 2000, the academic staff of Kyemyeong University visited approximately 50 foreign institutions 49 times in order to participate in international seminars or to interchange with faculty and academic programs (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, pp. 152-155). Choongnam National University [CNU] in Choongcheong province sent 5 professors to 3 foreign universities, and invited 4 foreign professors from three universities. In addition, 30 students of CNU went to 6 foreign universities of 3 countries, while 12 foreign students were invited from 7 foreign universities of 3 countries (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, p. 168).
In terms of the internationalization of higher education, the Korean government has supported 76 billion Won to 9 Graduate Schools of International Affairs of nine domestic universities between 1996 and 2000, so as to develop expertise in international relations (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, p. 19). In addition, in order to promote the internationalization of education, 5 universities opened a course of Education for International Understanding effective in 2000 (Chung, 2000, p. 138). Although courses in Education for International Understanding have commenced at the undergraduate or graduate level, the curricula are not yet standardized. In spite of this reality, the general purpose of these courses are to provide students with knowledge in the age of globalization, to possess a sense of appreciation and vision, and to participate in the tendency of globalism (Ibid., p. 139).
The expansion of study abroad by South Korean students clearly enhances the internationalization of Korean education. Between 1971 and 1999, Korean students who studied abroad increased approximately 20 times (7,632 to 154,219 persons). Among 154,219 Korean students including all school levels, 53,888 students studied in Canada, 42,890 in United States, 12,746 in Japan, and 9,204 in China. Only 39 of 154,219 were students on Korean national scholarships, and 186 were students invited from 16 different nations. The others were students financing their study from their own sources.
The number of foreign students who studied in South Korea, mostly universities, is much lower than the number of Korean students studying abroad. According to MEHRD & KEDI (2000), the total number of foreign students in 2000 was 6,160, only 0.18% of the total student enrollment. Of these non-Korean students, 75 students from 40 countries received Korean national scholarships (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, p. 126). 6,160 foreign students came from 100 countries, with the largest numbers from Japan (1,692 persons), China (1,601), and Taiwan (487) (MEHRD & KEDI, 2000, p. 124).
In contrast with the above information, over 70% of Korean students studying abroad went to English-speaking countries, whereas approximately 60% of foreign students studying in Korea were from neighboring Asian countries. Therefore, the interchange of students studying abroad in South Korea is out of balance nationally, regionally, and economically.
The Korean government and universities endeavor in various ways to promote the internationalization of higher education. In spite of this endeavor, several chronic problems represent barriers for academic globalization. First of all, Korean higher education is highly bureaucratic and rigidly centralized. This is because the Ministry of Education & Human Resouces Development not only has uniformly controlled all higher education institutions, but has also encouraged uniformity rather than diversity. Next, educational administrators in Korean colleges and universities still have authoritative attitudes and leadership styles that are obstacles for promoting university autonomy and diversity. Last, the closed organizational culture of Korean higher education based on personal connections and formal authoritarianism also hampers innovation and individualism.Furthermore, the internationalization of higher education creates a great number of threats or challenges such as commercialism, neo-colonialism, structural adjustment and educational reform, standardization and quality assurance, homogenization of national identity and culture, and information technology revolution (Carnoy, 1999; de Wit and Knight, 1997; Marginson and Rhoades, 2002; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997).
Major challenges for Korean higher education are the following:
First, to cope with commercialism from international markets, Korean higher education should take account into the establishment of entrepreneurial culture in postsecondary institutions.
Second, to defend academic neo-colonialism, the Korean government and universities should support services for overseas study, and to promote policies which support foreign students. The government should provide foreign students with financial aid, and universities should offer foreign students Korean language training to support their study in Korean colleges and universities.
Third, to practice structural adjustment and educational reform, the government should design policy-driven and finance-driven reformation to stimulate international competitiveness, whereas universities should change organizational structure centering on decentralization and privatization to cope with educational globalization.
Fourth, to reach international standards and academic quality, universities should be full autonomies. In addition, universities should improve their curricula and research activities to the level of global standards. Thus, Korean scholars should endeavor to raise the quality of research to meet the standards of international economy and academy.
Fifth, to prevent the homogenization of national identity and culture, school education should emphasize Korean cultural identity and pay attention to the teaching of cultural heritage (PECR Report, 1997).
Sixth, to build a new information-communication technology [ICT] society, information technology should be a means to develop both life-long education and distance education, as well as to enhance the internationalization of higher education. In addition, resources from Korean higher education infrastructure should be dedicated to developing an information-communication technology society.
Finally, to accelerate the internationalization of higher education, universities should foster experts in international relations and affairs. All students must be educated for international understanding.
Adams, D. K. (1965). Higher Educational Reforms in the Republic of Korea. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Education: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Amin, A. (1998). Globalization and Regional Development: A Relational Perspective, Competition and Change, Vol. 3, 145-165.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Carnoy, M. (1993). Multinationals in a Changing World Economy, In Carnoy, M. et al., The New Global Economy in the Information Age. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. 45-96.
Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and Educational Reform: What Planners Need to Know. Paris: UNESCO.
Carnoy, M. and Rhoten, D. (2002). What Does Globalization Mean for Education Change? A Comparative Approach, Comparative Education Review, 46 (1), 1-9.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Chung, D. Y. (2000). Hankuk Daehakeseoeui Kukje-ihae Gyoyuk [Education for International Understanding in Korean Colleges/Universities], Education for International Understanding, 1, 125-150.
de Wit, H. and Knight, J. (1997). Internationalisation of Higher Education in Asia Pacific Countries. Luna Negra, Amsterdam: EAIP.
Dudley, J. (1998). Globalization and Education Policy in Australia, In Currie, J. and Newson, J. (eds.), Universities and Globalization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 21-43.
Edwards, R. and Usher, R. (2000). Globalization and Pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Gornitzka, A. (1999). Governmental Policies and Organizational Change in Higher Education, Higher Education, 38 (1), 5-31.
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., and Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Institutional Institute for Management Development [IMD] (2001). The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2001. Lausanne, Switzerland: IMD.
Kim, J. (2000). Historical Development, In Weidman, J. C. and Park, N. (eds.), Higher Education in Korea: Tradition and Adaptation. New York, NY: Falmer Press. 7-53.
Kim, M. (2001). Introducing the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding, SangSaeng, Autumn 2001, 5.
Knight, J. (1997). Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Conceptual Framework, In Knight, J. and de Wit, H. (eds.), Internationalisation of Higher Education in Asia Pacific Countries. Luna Negra, Amsterdam: EAIP.
Kogan, M. and Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Korean Council for University Education (1999). Daehakgan Gyoryu Hwalseonghwa mit Godeungkyoyuk Kukje Bigyo Yeonku [Activation of University Exchange and International Comparative Studies of Higher Edcuation]. Seoul, Korea: KCUE.
Korean Educational Development Institute [KEDI] (2001) Brochure, Seoul, Korea.
Korea Institute of Curriculum and Evaluation [KICE] (2001) Brochure, Seoul, Korea.
Korea Research Foundation [KRF] (2001) Brochure, Seoul, Korea.
Korea Research Institute for Vocational education and Training [KRIVET] (2001) Brochure, Seoul, Korea.
Lee, J. K. (2000a). Historic Factors Influencing Korean Higher Education. Somerset, NJ: Jimoondang International.
Lee, J. K. (2000b). Main Reform on Higher Education Systems in Korea, Revista Electronica de Investigacion Educativa, 2 (2), http://redie.ens.uabc.mx/
Lee, J. K. (2001). The Establishment of Modern Universities in Korea and Their Implications for Korean Education Policies, Education Policy Analysis Archives [EPAA], 9 (27). http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v9n27.html
Levin, J. S. (2001). Public Policy, Community Colleges, and the Path to Globalization, Higher Education, 42 (2), 237-261.
Marginson, S. (1997). Markets and Education. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Marginson, S. (2002). Nation-Building Universities in a Global Environment: The Case of Australia, Higher Education, 43 (3), 409-428.
Marginson, S. and Considine, M. (2000). The Enterprise Universities: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marginson, S. and Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond National States, Markets, and Systems of Higher Education: A Glonacal Agency Heuristic, Higher Education, 43 (3), 281-309.
Neave, G. and van Vught, F. (1994). Government and Higher Education Relationships Across Three Continents. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Presidential Commission on Education Reform [PCER] Report (1997). Education Reform for the 21st Century. Seoul, Korea: PCER.
Rhoades, G. and Smart, D. (1996). The Political Economy of Entrepreneurial Culture in Higher Education: Policies towards Foreign Students in Australia and the United States, In Kempner, K. and Tierney, W. G. (eds.), The Social Role of Higher Education: Comparative Perspectives. New York, NY: Garland.
Robertson, R. (1993). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: SAGE Publications.
Salter, B. and Tapper, T. (1994). The State of Higher Education. London: Woburn Press.
Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive University Structures. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Stromquist, N. P. and Monkman, K. (eds.), (2000). Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation across Cultures. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Subotzky, G. (1999). Alternatives to the Entrepreneurial University: New Modes of Knowledge Production in Community Service Programs, Higher Education, 38 (4), 401-40.
Suhr, M. (1987). Some Reform Politics for Korean University Administration and Management. Seoul, Korea: Korean Council for University Education.
The Korea Foundation (2000) Annual Report, Seoul, Korea.
The Korea Foundation [KF] (2000) Brochure, Seoul, Korea.
The Ministry of Education (1976). Education in Korea. Seoul, Korea.
The Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development [MEHRD] and Korean Educational Development Institute [KEDI] (2000). 2000 Kukje Gyoyuk Baekseo [The 2000 White Papers of International Education]. Seoul, Korea.
Weidman, J. C. and Park, N. (eds.), (2000). Higher Education in Korea: Tradition and Adaptation. New York, NY: Falmer Press. http://niied.interedu.go.kr/
Copyright remains exclusively with the author.