Understanding regionalisation in Philippine higher education

2.1 Regionalisation: a general definition

Regionalisation is not new or uncommon, but it has earned increased attention as nations seek new ways and forms of working and living together. Kacowicz (1998) suggested a close interrelationship among the concepts of globalisation, regionalisation and nationalism where the first is seen as a more overarching term that refers to a “set of related changes” in the economic, ideological, technological and cultural spheres of the global society (para 4). Regionalisation, on the other hand, may be discussed in the context of a group of states, often defined by geography, but also by other criteria such as social and cultural homogeneity, similarities in political attitudes, and economic interdependence, and builds on the idea of regionalism (Kacowicz, 1998).

Mittelman (1996 as cited in Kacowicz, 1998) further suggested three lenses by which one can view the interrelationship between globalisation and regionalisation: regionalisation as a subset or component of globalisation; regionalisation as a response to globalisation; and regionalisation and globalisation as both parallel or overlapping processes. As a subset of globalisation, regionalisation promotes integration activities aimed at multi-lateral cooperation. As a response to globalisation, it is a counter alternative, an opposing response of nation-states to the idea of a “single universal culture” that is associated with the goals of globalisation (para 22). The third notion views the two as more than an economic process: the integration and creation of “megaregions” (Wyatt-Walter, 1995 as cited in Kacowicz, 1998, para 23).

2.2 Regionalisation in higher education

In higher education, the discourse on regionalisation seems to revolve around the appropriateness of terminologies to be used. Woldegiorgis (2013) and Yavaprabhas (2014) both underscored the term harmonisation in describing regionalisation. Compared to other associated terms like uniformity or standardisation, the former suggests a point of reference for comparability and compatibility. In this sense, harmonisation in education suggests that universities are able to retain their own identity, while ensuring that their quality of education is comparable and compatible with others, though not necessarily similar. Sirat et al. (2014) also emphasised that the conceptions and understanding of regionalisation in higher education vary depending on the actors involved in the process. Further, while there are several actors involved, much of the harmonisation actively takes place and stems from the educational institutions, further suggesting that the process is bottom-up. This is in contrast with Woldegiorgis’ (2013) suggestion that regionalisation in higher education, taking the Bologna Process as an example, is a top-down process where the initiative stems from regional organisations or supranational bodies.

Knight (2012) further adds that there are several lines of inquiry that can be used to view regionalisation, one of which is in terms of the relationships between and among HEI actors and systems, or what the author refers to as higher education regionalisation. This relational notion of regionalisation may be illustrated through a continuum of regionalisation terms where on one end, associated terms like cooperation and collaboration suggest more informal and open relationships, and on the other, terms like integration, interdependence and community connote more formalised and institutionalised relationships (Knight, 2012). The author further proffers a model of interrelated approaches – functional, organisational and political approaches (FOPA) – by which one may examine the pursuit of regionalisation. The functional approach looks at the practical activities of HEIs, including policies, strategies and programmes for alignment and collaboration. The organisational approach pertains to the structures, frameworks and agencies that facilitate regionalisation, and lastly, the political approach refers to strategies and the political will in decision making concerning regionalisation (Knight, 2013).

2.3 The impetus for regionalisation: ASEAN Integration and the Philippine higher education sector

The subject of education and more specifically, regionalisation of higher education are covered in the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) pillar, one of the three pillars of the ASEAN Integration. The ASCC’s goal of promoting a “people-centred and socially-responsible” ASEAN Community (ASEAN, 2009, p. 1) rests in part on human resource development, which in turn is grounded on education. In fact, higher education has been identified as a “core action line” to boost regional human resource development and the idea of a “Common Space of Higher Education in Southeast Asia” (Sirat et al., 2014, para 8). Indeed, the ASCC Blueprint identifies a number of actions in support of the objective of advancing and prioritising education in the region, including enhancing inter-institutional networking to increase academic exchange and professional interactions; creating research clusters; increasing university placements through year abroad or semester abroad programmes; and offering courses and degree programmes on ASEAN studies (ASEAN, 2009, pp. 2-3).

A closer look at these proposed actions suggests that these are largely institutional-based or initiated and operationalised at the institutional level. In the Philippines, these initiatives are not necessarily absent nor are they relatively new. Killingley and Ilieva’s (2015) research point to, for instance, the presence of outbound and inbound student mobility programmes in Philippine HEIs, although relatively lower in comparison to its Southeast Asian neighbours like Thailand and Malaysia. On the other hand, the country’s use of English as a medium of instruction in schools is one opportunity that can be maximised. This, coupled with the low cost of tuition and living, has led to a significant increase in international students, mainly non-native English speakers like Koreans, who come to the country to study English. The authors noted that such offers a potential for the country to develop itself into an education hub (Killingley and Ilieva, 2015). Full and active implementation of such initiatives is, however, hampered by a number of factors. At the national level, for example, there are unfriendly labour and immigration laws that serve as a disincentive for foreign students and faculty (Killingley and Ilieva, 2015). At the institutional level, there are policy gaps and standard operating procedures that must be addressed such as those that will encourage increased research productivity of faculty members (Rosaroso et al., 2015).

Recognising then the critical role of HEIs in forwarding regionalisation, it is at this level of the institution that the research is particularly invested in as it examines how regionalisation is understood and made evident in institutional initiatives and practices against the backdrop that is the ASEAN Integration. The next section details the design and methodology used to answer the research objectives.

3.1 Case selection

Given the extensive number of HEIs in the country, the study cases were selected following the general classification of Philippine HEIs based on ownership. Furthermore, the following criteria were used in the selection: should be a recognised autonomous HEI by the Commission on Higher Education; should have CHED Centres of Excellence and/or Development, an award given by the Commission to HEIs with notable degree programmes in particular academic disciplines; and at least one HEI should be based outside of the capital. HEI A is a public, state-funded university and is the second largest autonomous campus of the national university. HEI B is a private sectarian HEI and is one of the six main autonomous tertiary institutions established by a religious order of priests. Both HEIs A and B are outside of the capital but in semi-urbanised/urbanised communities. HEI C is a private non-sectarian institution in Manila (capital) founded by a family of architects. As mentioned, these HEIs differ in organisational nature and structure, and are representative of each of the three types of HEIs in the Philippines.

3.2 Data collection and analysis

As a form of triangulation and in order to provide for a comprehensive and richer discussion on the definitions and practices of regionalisation of the institutions, data were gathered from three sources: administrators involved in or undertaking regionalisation initiatives; selected faculty members and research and extension personnel (REPs); and documents/secondary sources (Figure 1).

Interviews with administrators sought to uncover their perceptions and understanding of regionalisation; the regionalisation initiatives of their office, including policies concerning regionalisation; and their views on the ASEAN Integration and how it is impacting institutional initiatives. A similar interview guide was also used for the REPs[1], but focused on their research and extension engagements that have a regionalisation focus. Semi-structured questionnaires were used to gather the insights of selected faculty members on their understanding of regionalisation; their knowledge of the regionalisation initiatives in their institution and their perception on their extent of implementation; and how the ASEAN Integration is shaping their work as faculty members. As the questionnaires were not designed for a survey but rather as a means to solicit representative answers from faculty members, convenience sampling was employed in determining faculty respondents. Lastly, a document review and analysis of publicly available documents was carried out. The documents were sourced from the institutions’ respective websites, and included institutional write-ups, news and feature articles on regionalisation and internationalisation activities, newsletters, downloadable reports and promotional materials (Table I).

A two-cycle coding process (Saldaña, 2009) was applied on the data gathered from the three data sources. A mix of descriptive, in vivo and initial coding methods were used in the first cycle coding to identify concepts, categories and loose themes, while the second cycle coding used pattern and axial coding methods to arrive at overarching themes and to note associations and thematic relationships. The themes emerged from the coding process served as discussion points in approaching the HEIs’ definitions and practices of regionalisation and the role of the ASEAN Integration as a push factor.

4.1 Definitions and constructions of regionalisation

Five themes were uncovered from the HEI constituents’ definitions and understanding of regionalisation in higher education. These definitional dimensions were: purpose, referring to the goals and objectives or the “whys” of regionalisation; spatial or notions relating to space, time and magnitude or coverage of regionalisation; outcome or the expected results or consequences of regionalisation; orientation, pertaining to ascribed beliefs and attitudes towards regionalisation; and activity or the modes by which regionalisation happens or proceeds. In all three HEIs, there was the prevailing idea of regionalisation as directed to or a precursor of a bigger, overarching notion such as internationalisation. This close association between these two concepts seems to support Mittelman’s (1996 as cited in Kacowicz, 1998) argument about regionalisation as a subset of globalisation. Regionalisation, very much like internationalisation (also a response to globalisation), is a venue for creating multi-lateral collaborations, an idea that constituents of the three HEIs also perceived to be its main purpose. Interviews and responses in the semi-structured questionnaire emerged the most commonly associated terms with regionalisation to be collaboration and partnership, and following Knight’s (2012) conceptual mapping of regionalisation terms, these words suggest a more informal and open relationship between partner universities, than a rigidly structured one. Likewise, for all three HEIs, regionalisation was equated with competitiveness as its perceived outcome. Regionalisation is meeting standards in order to become “at par with the others”. Through regionalisation or more specifically, the adherence to standards and accreditation, students of the HEIs are “acceptable” and “adaptable” anywhere, and their education comparable to the education of their foreign counterparts.

A clear differentiation between regionalisation and internationalisation was identified, however, in terms of the spatial and orientation dimensions. For the HEIs, regionalisation, in referring to the geo-political unit, is limited to those within the “immediate” and “neighbours” or those with whom the country or university shares commonalities with or similarities in interests and/or socio-economic background. They then automatically identified the region as Asia and more specific, Southeast Asia. Concurrent to this, regionalisation was associated with a more Asian/Southeast Asian-centric orientation where the study participants seemed to attach a protectionist lens to regionalisation, describing it as putting the region first (in this case, Asia/Southeast Asia), and using this geo-political unit as the frame of reference or operating context. As respondent HEI B-A1 expressed:

One aspect of regionalisation is, we’re able to protect our own region vis-à-vis the international community where we cannot compete as much because we are just a third world country and they are more.

Such view also lends support to another lens of inquiry by which one can view regionalisation: as a counter alternative to globalisation (Mittelman, 1996 as cited in Kacowicz, 1998). In this case, regionalisation is seen as a mechanism to elevate the region’s own culture and development and boost its ability to compete. As regionalisation brings together countries, the competitive advantage is enhanced when countries operate as a region rather than as individual nations. Initiatives directed to encourage higher education partnerships and collaborations, for instance, become a collective, regional effort that makes the region much more competitive, a feat that is achieved more easily as a group of nations rather than as individual countries.

4.2 Initiatives and approaches in regionalisation

The coding process also yielded three themes with regards the institutions’ regionalisation initiatives, namely: programmatic, resource-oriented and institutional leadership. Table II provides a summary list of the key regionalisation approaches and initiatives of the HEIs in these three areas.

4.3 Role of ASEAN Integration in shaping regionalisation initiatives

The ASEAN Integration is seen both as a consciousness and an opportunity that underpins the pursuit of regionalisation. Across all three HEIs, the ASEAN Integration seems to foster a positive consciousness that supports an increased Southeast Asian/Asian orientation or bias. Study participants in all three institutions attested that the Integration cultivates not just multi-cultural awareness, but also a more heightened awareness and focus on the region of Southeast Asia as the context to operate in. In addition to exposure gained from the interactions, albeit limited, with some foreign students and attendees in international conferences, the mention of the ASEAN Integration in institutional discussions, workshops, in-house conferences and events has prompted faculty and administrators to explore and use materials and literature that offer perspectives from other Southeast Asian nations. One illustration from HEI A-R2 is the increased use and recognition of templates, models and literature on best practices from Asia and Southeast Asia not just the West or the Philippines. Indeed, this Asian/Southeast Asian-centric mindset is seen as a way of elevating the region and veering away from the traditional impositions of western perspectives. Furthermore, this focus on regional development appears to also be closely intertwined with nation building as suggested by HEI A-F10:

I see more young Filipinos exposed to the socio-cultural realities of other ASEAN nations so they will deepen the appreciation of Asia’s cultural heritage and diversity, resist the cultural domination of the West, and use their exposure in enriching the cultural consciousness, appreciation and empowerment of Filipinos.

Another positive consciousness that the ASEAN Integration appears to foster is positional awareness. The Integration, as all administrator respondents and most faculty responses from the three HEIs noted, has encouraged an increased awareness of the need to look at the quality and comparability of their education, their position as an educational institution in the overall regional context, and what they should be doing to respond to the challenges of the Integration. It has encouraged questions among constituents, such as “Where are we?” or “What should we do?” HEI C-A1 explained:

The ASEAN Integration propelled us to revisit our internationalisation efforts and capitalised on its objectives to find valuable partners in the region. It helped us recognise the need to prepare the students to adapt to local/regional opportunities while being global in perspective.

On the other hand, there are also traces of negative and ambivalent consciousness wherein the Integration was noted as a “top-down” and forced initiative. As HEI A-F4 expressed:

It is more of a top-down-hands-down approach where we only follow what the focus of the top [administration] wanted without really understanding how to make use of the tools and practices of the integration.

Such view certainly seems to adds to Woldegiorgis’ (2013) suggestion that regionalisation is a top-down process. At the same time, there also appears to be certain ambivalence towards the ASEAN Integration. For instance, while administrator respondents of HEI B agreed that the Integration cultivates positional awareness of the institution, three also described it as “difficult to grasp” and the institution’s initiatives as “sporadic and fragmented”. In HEI C, two faculty respondents noted that the institution has been engaging in partnerships with foreign universities long before the Integration and thus, its introduction did not require much adjustment on their part, nor are its benefits distinctly felt or visible. The apparent lack of clarity of the Integration goals and how it specifically translates to higher education initiatives also echo Ratanawijitrasin’s (2015) critique of the ASEAN Integration’s Five-Year Work Plan on Education as not providing specific policies and measures for implementation. At the institutional level, these types of consciousness also reflect how the HEIs are translating the Integration’s goals into their respective initiatives and are contextualised in sector or constituency roles and responsibilities.

Likewise, the Integration is seen as a platform of opportunities. First, it serves as an opportunity for institutional review and redirection and the creation of mechanisms that will undertake regionalisation or internationalisation functions. Second, it provides the HEIs an opportunity to seek and pursue programmatic developments, particularly in the areas of curricular and degree programme innovations; and the establishment and strengthening of educational niches that will enhance the institutions’ track record, give them a comparative advantage, or cement their position as educational institutions in the region. Most administrator respondents noted that while foreign partnerships and linkages with universities were already in place even prior to the ASEAN Integration, the Integration has provided an added impetus for the institutions to further their initiatives and use Southeast Asia as their point of reference or operating context. For HEIs A and C, the Integration also seems to offer broader opportunities for research and industry collaborations that can also improve and deepen institutional relevance through knowledge sharing.

4.4 Issues and implications

The findings presented in the earlier section revealed a number of noteworthy issues relating to how regionalisation and the ASEAN Integration are approached and viewed at the institutional level, and how these relate to national and regional discourses on the Integration.

4.5 Raising awareness on the ASEAN Integration among relevant stakeholders

The negative and ambivalent consciousness of HEI constituents towards the ASEAN Integration also underscores the importance of communicating the broader goals of the Integration and how it can be translated to institutional and individual (sectoral) roles and actions. While the study found that there were efforts to communicate the Integration, these were minimal and in most cases, present only an overly broad discussion of the ASEAN Integration’s implications, such as job placement and employability of graduates. Little discussion has been made on the implications of the Integration on both the professional development and responsibilities of the constituents of the HEIs. There also appears to be little active discussion going on at the smaller units of the institutions (i.e. departmental or sectoral levels). The importance of targeted discourse and awareness-raising efforts that emphasise other issues of the Integration such as pedagogical innovations, teaching styles for multi-cultural classrooms, resource and facility-sharing and collaborative teaching/instruction should not be discounted.