This was a particular issue at one of the researched institutions, with interviews eliciting ambiguous responses from residents and local political actors: A residents' association highlighted the changing demographics of their area, noting that houses were often empty for long periods in vacation time and complaining that some traditional shops had gone to be replaced by others more focused on the student market; in the central area of the city, the local authority was more positive, highlighting the extent to which a more exciting (24 hour) economy was being generated, which made the city more attractive to visitors and potential campus investors. Instead of a reputation for industrial decline it was possible to call on a series of images from a more vibrant youth culture (for a more critical view, see Chatterton, 1999). Matters were less clear-cut in other cases where the student body was more local and often part-time, living at home. Even here, however, there was some evidence in two of the cases that new consumption activities were being enabled around the university.

During the period of research, one of the most actively pursued policies linking higher education to a wider social mission, which also had an implicit and sometimes explicit regional focus related to widening participation, and in their different ways all of the institutions had their own widening participation strategies. These strategies varied significantly between institutions. For the university most clearly identifiable as an "elite" institution (in the wannabe global region), widening participation was seen in terms of a responsibility to raise aspirations in local schools, in a sense inspiring pupils by fostering an engagement with education, showing what was possible. There was no particular expectation that the students inspired in this way would attend the university, since the emphasis was on recruiting across the United Kingdom and was focused on applicants with high entry qualifications. A similar approach was taken by another elite university that had a campus in the same subregion as the institution identified as local of necessity. It too saw its job as being to bring ideas from outside into the local context, without any expectation that local young people would necessarily become its students, although they might be inspired to pursue routes into higher education.

The other three universities were far more oriented toward the recruitment of students previously at risk of exclusion from higher education, with partnerships with local schools being oriented toward that recruitment. In a sense recruitment of students with lower educational qualifications was a central aspect of their business plans as much as it was a social mission. Within the project's four subregions, widening participation activities tended to provide social mobility opportunities for the few without necessarily altering patterns of inequality that affect the many, as one of our respondents commented. And in the subregions with several higher education providers, the implicit stratification of institutions mapped onto and reinforced wider patterns of inequality. One of our (private sector) respondents commented that by playing the "local" card in developing its curriculum, the university identified as local of necessity was effectively positioning its students in ways that left them disadvantaged, even as others commented that those with qualifications tended to use them to find employment outside the region.

#### Conclusions: The Many Spatialities of Higher Education

From different perspectives, although sometimes in the same strategic plans, universities can be understood to be everywhere, nowhere, and somewhere. The language of globalized higher education tends to focus on their ubiquity—they can be accessed virtually through MOOCs or otherwise; or by more traditional face-toface means through an increasingly wide range of distributed campuses and partnerships associated with home institutions mainly based in the United Kingdom, the United States, or Australia; and, of course, the transnational mobility of students means that institutions stretch their connections far beyond any territorial or national borders. Alongside this form of globalized language, an older tradition survives that emphasizes the existence of a global academy, in which it is ideas and key thinkers or thinking that straddle the globe. In principle, institutional location is secondary to the networks of globalized academics meeting in conferences and workshops, writing for international journals, and sometimes even enjoying global reputations of their own.

And yet, universities are generally (even if not always) more or less fixed in place. This means that they always have a relationship with their regions, even if that is not what frames university strategies. Their day-to-day activities often have significant local and localized impacts. Their images and brands can help to define the places within which they are located, just as those locations can help to define the universities and the student markets on which they are able to draw. In other words, universities shape and are shaped by the places within which they find themselves. So, even as they are always necessarily connected to elsewhere, stretching out for students, funding, ideas, and academic networks, they are also necessarily located in place by the practices of everyday institutional life, often including significant sunk investment in infrastructure, in addition to any formal civic commitment they may espouse. In that sense, not only are they both global and local, but their local presence is formed through their global ambitions or global positioning, while the versions of globalization they help to construct are also formed through practices of local emplacement.

#### References

The Open University. (n.d.). Mission. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/mission

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Chapter 20 The University Unbound: How Roots and Routes Intersect

Jane Kenway

Around the world considerable numbers of students are on the move to study undergraduate and postgraduate courses in universities outside their home country. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 4.5 million students studied abroad in 2012, in contrast to 4.1 million in 2010, 2.01 million in 2000, and 1.03 million in 1990 (OECD, 2014). Clearly the numbers have increased steadily over the last three decades. My main purpose in this chapter is to consider some consequences of such student mobility and the university practices associated with it. I argue that these have implications for both conventional geographical understandings of the university and for contemporary geographies of knowledge. Meusburger (2015) observes that the geography of higher education recognizes that:

The generation and diffusion of scientific knowledge is influenced by local milieus and spatial relations; that scientific practices vary from place to place; that social environments have an impact not only on generating, evaluating, and legitimizing new scientific knowledge, but also on the reading and interpretation of texts; that universities are not simply locations but social spaces, epistemic venues, and knots of scientific networks. (p. 169)

This chapter speaks to these themes and points to the complex politics that exist at the microscopic and telescopic nexus of knowledge, place, student mobility, and academic territoriality—and indeed the books we read.

J. Kenway (\*)

Thank you to Hongzhi Zhang for producing the tables, to Hongzhi and Philip Wing Keung Chan for inviting me to be so centrally involved in the Asia as Method in Education Studies project and to all the other participants. The process was deeply educative for me. I also acknowledge that the inspiration for this chapter arose from this project and that I draw from different parts of our book, Zhang, Wing Keung Chan, and Kenway (2015). Permissions have been granted.

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Victoria, Australia e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### The Reconfigured University

Global student mobilities, and the technologies that facilitate them, have changed the configuration of the university itself. In many ways it has become unbound. It can no longer be understood as unambiguously bounded with an obvious in and outside, with self-evident insiders and outsiders, or as having a clear-cut community. As a place it is being remade, with the links between place and institutional identity and identification being reworked.

The notion that place is socially and politically produced and contested invites a consideration of the manner in which the university is "made" or "performed" in the contemporary asymmetrical global context. The university is now a place where various expressions of globalization intersect and conflict. Indeed, as Goddard (this volume) points out, the civic university navigates globalization as it is expressed in the city. His analysis and mine here suggest that contemporary universities are involved in various new place- and scale-making projects. This involves them instigating global connections and imaginations while also attempting to remain connected to place. In geographical terms, then, the university, as an institution, now needs to be understood not just as territorial, as a place of institutional, national, and subnational roots, but also as a place of global, regional, and transnational routes.

I offer an illustration of what this reconfigured university of "routes and roots" (Clifford, 1997) looks like up close for particular sets of students and for the types of knowledge they are exposed to and seek. I show some ways that roots and routes intersect. In so doing I point to certain related "power geometries" (Massey, 1993, p. 59) and "emotional geographies" (Bondi, Davidson, & Smith, 2005) on different scales. A myriad of microscopic realignments occur as intertwined institutional, subnational, and national cultures adjust.

Such complexity needs to be made comprehensible, and Williams (1977) is helpful here. He talks about culture involving dominant, residual, and emergent elements. Dominant elements are those that are sanctified. They need to be understood in terms of the unequal power relationships that underpin them. Emergent elements are those that are in the process of being developed. They are coming into view; they may start from the margins but are establishing a presence. They are essentially different from the dominant and arise out of new sets of social and economic conditions. They may or may not become dominant. Residual elements arise from earlier times and social formations and usually represent earlier stages in a spatial entity's biography. They tend to be subordinate. Indeed, residual elements may persist even when the conditions that initially made them powerful have passed. Dominant elements may incorporate, reinterpret, or dilute both emergent and residual elements. They may also marginalize them, particularly if they are uncomfortable and/or oppositional. When linked to roots and routes these notions speak to the dynamic and contradictory quality of today's university unbound.

#### Patterns of Student Mobility

Let me offer a brief indication of the numbers associated with student mobility and draw attention to the related asymmetrical patterns of global power. The international agencies UNESCO and the OECD and the U.S.-funded Project Atlas, among others, statistically document mobile students' movements over time, place, and institution. The involved researchers show how and where the numbers rise and fall and speculate about why. The data records such things as the total numbers globally, regionally, and nationally. For example, UNESCO documents the main countries that students travel to (see Table 20.1) and depart from (see Table 20.2). Invariably national comparisons are made. For example, in Australia and the United Kingdom international students comprised 20% of total higher education enrollment in 2014. In comparison, the proportion in France and Canada was 12%, in Germany 11%, in the United States and Japan 4%, and in China 1% (Project Atlas, 2014). In comparison, for France and Canada the proportion was 12%, for Germany 11%, for the United States and Japan 4%, and for China 1% (Project Atlas, 2014).

Regional comparisons are also drawn. UNESCO (2015) shows that in 2012 the regions hosting the most mobile students were "North America and Western Europe (57% of total mobile students), East Asia and the Pacific (20%), Central and Eastern Europe (10%)." UNESCO also points out, however, that increasingly the rise of regional hubs has led to a shift in such region flows. The agency says, for example, "Australia and Japan, traditional destinations in East Asia and the Pacific, are rivaled by newcomers China, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and New Zealand, which hosted 6% of the global share of mobile students in 2012" (UNESCO, 2015). The global, regional, and national picture of flows is both patterned and fluid. Exit and entry numbers go up and down, locations fluctuate somewhat in popularity, new patterns emerge, and older patterns adjust, but, to date, remain dominant.

National reporting agencies, Australian in the examples used here, focus on such things as total numbers and income. The number of overseas students in Australia was 249,990 in 2014, 225,720 in 2009, and 164,044 in 2004. For 20142015 income generated by their presence in Australia was AU\$18.1 billion (Universities Australia, 2014). Such agencies also focus on student load by university (see Table 20.3), overseas students by country of birth and gender (see Table 20.4), and, of course, a wide array of other matters.

Such matters include what is often called transnational education. This involves offshore programs delivered in partnership with an international institution or through offshore national university campuses. As Universities Australia (2014) points out it also involves "formal institution-to-institution agreements between Australian universities and overseas higher education institutions. Agreements include cooperation facilitating student exchanges, study abroad arrangements, staff exchanges and academic/research collaboration" (p. 21).

Regions, countries, and institutions have their own distinctive histories of flows. For instance, student mobility in Europe has been significantly boosted as result of

620 J. Kenway

20 The University Unbound: How Roots and Routes Intersect 621

Table 20.3 Equivalent full-time student load (EFSL) for commencing and all overseas students by higher education institution and gender, 2014

Note. Adapted from Australian Government (2014). Copyright 2016 by Department of Education and Training. EFSL ¼ Equivalent full-time student load (EFSL) is a measure of a student's study load. An EFSL of 1.0 is the standard annual study load of a student undertaking a program on a fulltime basis. Equivalent full-time student load (EFSL) is a measure of a student's study load. An EFSL of 1.0 is the standard annual study load of a student undertaking a program on a full-time basis.

Table 20.4 Overseas students by country of birth and gender, 2014

Note. SAR ¼ special administrative area. Adapted from Australian Government (2014). Copyright 2016 by Department of Education and Training.

the Erasmus Program and the Bologna Process in higher education. The European Commission regards such mobility as one way to integrate the European region. Australia is distinctively tied to Asia, but the Asian Region has no imperatives similar to Europe.

Although certain policy bodies and institutes mention the quality of the education offered and the advantages to the parties involved, the primary concern is invariably the trade in education services, competition, and market share. Typically the OECD points to the individual, social, and cultural benefits but appears to give greater priority to economics. It says: "Studying abroad has considerable economic impact. For host countries enrolling international students can not only help raise revenues for higher education, but also can be part of broader strategy to recruit highly skilled immigrants" (OECD, 2014, p. 32). The following remark from Universities Australia (2014) is also typical.

An international education contributes to the development of global citizens, regional leaders and strong global relationships that are so critical for facilitating diplomacy, business and trade. This is the case whether it is overseas students studying in Australia or Australian students completing at least part of their degree overseas. There is great potential to further expand the international reach of the Australian university sector. With global demand for higher education set to grow significantly in coming decades, even maintaining or marginally increasing Australia's market share could deliver major export growth.1

Such policy-oriented comments about the benefits rarely involve a close-up examination of what actually happens to students on the ground. I will return to this matter. But despite such intense coverage, insufficient attention is drawn to the asymmetrical patterns of power and wealth connected with such student mobility. In contrast, UNESCO's 2012 Global Flow of Tertiary-Level Students interactive map enables such an understanding of student flows in relation to the rich and poor nations of the global South and North, West and East. For example, it points out that

the Arab states of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) are popular destinations for high-level studies for Arab students, and South Africa received 17% of mobile students from Sub-Saharan Africa in 2010.

France remains the top destination for Arab and Sub-Saharan African students, receiving 29% and 19% of these students respectively. Germany and Russia are the top destinations for students from Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, receiving 16% and 46% of these regions' students respectively.

The US is the top destination for East Asia and the Pacific, South and West Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, receiving 28%, 38% and 33% respectively of their mobile students. And North America and Western Europe's top destination is the UK at 23%. (UNESCO, 2015)

Such figures indicate that these flows of students are primarily from the "third" world to the "first" or, what is better referred to as the majority and minority worlds. But interestingly and most importantly for this chapter, these student flows are often either from formerly colonized countries to former colonizing countries, or to the globally imperialist power of the United States with its Cold War history in Asia, and to these countries' satellites. As Table 20.4 shows for Australia, for example, nine of the top ten sending countries are from different parts of Asia.

As some governments in the magnet countries reduce their financial support for university education, the global market in tertiary education has stepped into the

<sup>1</sup> https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/global-engagement.

vacuum. Mobile students' fees now increasingly underwrite the survival of their university sector and thus students from poorer countries help to underwrite university education systems in the richer countries. This is a contemporary echo of colonialism.

This echo resonates even more strongly when the flows of knowledge are taken into account. These too are usually from the global North to the global South (e.g., Chakrabarty, 2000; Connell, 2007). Plainly, the current global university system has its own "geographies of centrality and marginality" (Sassen, 1998, p. XXIV), its own integrating and fragmenting tendencies.

Transnational education complicates such geographies. Offshore campuses allow students to study "abroad" while remaining in their home countries. Mixed modes of study, which combine online and face-to-face teaching, may involve no, or little, physical presence on the campus of origin. This virtual and embodied mobility of people (students, staff) and knowledge (curriculum and research) is accompanied by other mobility—the mobility of ideologies, images, and imaginations; of finance, feelings, and fantasies. Such mobilities have been facilitated by the space-and-timealtering technologies of cheap transport and instantaneous information communication technologies. Hence university relationships that would otherwise have been stretched out over extended literal space have been both compressed and reconfigured with great consequence for the geography of the university.

#### The Unequal Geographies of Traveling Ideas

The following case is but one example of the complicated intersections of roots and routes in the contemporary university. It shows how they are entangled with dominant, residual, and emergent elements in relation to various spatial entities.

I begin with a book as it traveled to the hands, hearts, and minds of a group of doctoral students at Monash University, Australia. As Table 20.3 indicates, Monash had the second highest number of international students of any Australian university, with enrollment of 19,634 in 2014. All the doctoral students involved in the project were from Asia and as a result of this book sought to decolonize knowledge and themselves. In telling their story I foreground the dominant, residual, and emergent power, knowledge, and emotional geographies involved. While the notion of emotional geographies is widely evoked in geographical studies, the emotional geographies of education, particularly of universities, have attracted much less attention (Kenway & Youdell, 2011a, b) 2 .

The book is called Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization (Chen, 2010). It was written by Kuan-Hsing Chen, a well recognized cultural studies scholar. I found it in Singapore, and given that Australia generally, and Monash specifically, draws

<sup>2</sup> Our edited collection (Kenway & Youdell, 2011) is dedicated to the emotional geographies of various educational settings.

most international students from Asia, I took it back to Monash's Faculty of Education for a graduate student reading group. It provoked a great deal of interest from the students. This resulted in a multicountry reading, discussion and reflection, writing, and public presentations project that lasted several years (20102013) and eventually led to the edited book Asia as Method in Education Studies (Zhang, Wing Keung Chan, & Kenway, 2015), in which the students wrote chapters and, after each, shared their reflections on their experiences of trying to decolonize knowledge.

In 2010, when the project started, in total 34 people were involved; 7 academics and 20 PhD students. Also there were 10 observers who did not join the project but attended some seminars and workshops. Those involved were from 13 countries—Australia, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mongolia, Pakistan, New Zealand, Saudi Arabs, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. Many different religions and native languages were represented in the group, with the students coming from different social class backgrounds. Twenty-two students were involved in the final book. They came from Australia, Bangladesh, China (including mainland and Hong Kong), Indonesia, Japan, and Vietnam.

Collectively the project involved people connected to 13 other universities. Many were staff on leave undertaking their PhDs who planned to return to their universities once they had completed their doctorates. These universities were the University of Hong Kong, Monash University, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, RMIT University Vietnam, Universidad de Valparaíso Chile, Sanata Dharma University Indonesia, Indonesia University of Education Indonesia, State Polytechnic of Malang Indonesia, Hanoi National University of Education Vietnam, Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies Vietnam, University of Dhaka Bangladesh, BRAC University Bangladesh, and the University of Western Sydney, Australia.

These details alone indicate some ways Monash, at least, is a place of flows; one at which different people's Asian routes intersect. But more interestingly it is also a place where geographies of knowledge, power, and emotion are entangled with regard to Asia. Chen's book starts to explain the geopolitics involved. The West, he says, has understood and portrayed itself, to itself and to "the rest," as "the best." It has presented itself as the most modern, mature, developed, progressive, scientific, rational, enlightened, and civilized. Such views traveled to colonized countries and peoples and impacted how they felt about themselves as well as about their colonizers. Consequently, knowledge production in Asia, Chen (2010) argues, is constantly either positively or negatively referencing the West. It has been an opposing entity, a system of reference, an object from which to learn, a point of measurement, a goal to catch up with, an intimate enemy, and sometimes an alibi for serious discussion and action (p. 216). He makes similar arguments about the conceptual frameworks that arose out of the Cold War and are connected to North American imperialism in Asia.

Previous and current generations of postcolonial scholars have, of course, been critical of this. Chen identifies various types of postcolonial response. For example, one body of such scholarship identifies and challenges Eurocentric and/or North America-centric thinking, by, among other things, highlighting the binary and hierarchical logics deployed when the West constructs its Others. These logics, the argument runs, create global hierarchies of knowledge and modernity. They also involve implicit claims that "Western" knowledge is universal, when in fact it is provincial or regional. Such postcolonial critiques ask, rhetorically, whether the analytical frameworks that have been developed in Europe or North America are suitable for understanding Asia. And they are highly critical of the ready absorption of such frameworks into research about, on, and in Asia.

According to Chen, new scholarship in Asia needs to be in a dialogue with such postcolonial responses to the West. He also insists, however, that from an "Asia as Method" perspective, certain postcolonial studies should stop the West as their primary referent (2010, p. 222). Otherwise, he says, they may contribute to the use of new unhelpful binary reversals, the "East is best" for example. Problems also occur around three other approaches to knowledge that may arise in newly independent nations in their attempts to shake off the shackles of the colonizer. Chen names these as nationalism, nativism (notions of ancient wisdoms, for example), and civilizationism (competing claims about whose civilization is the more civilized).

Overall, Chen pleads for habitual practices of thought to change. He argues for "alternative mappings" that move "the point of reference" (2010, p. 212). An essential ingredient is to shift this point of reference toward Asia and other third world locations—to those places with greater resemblances to each other, to those that share and address similar problems. This point leads him to emphasize Asian studies in Asia, as opposed to Asian studies through European and North American theorizing about Asia. Such theories do not usually, he claims, help people in Asia to properly understand or address local conditions or issues.

He proposes, instead, "international localism" (p. 223). This is local, but also transborder and regional. The main point though is that it involves "interreferencing" (p. 223). Here Asian countries become each other's reference point; they provide each other with new opportunities for comparison other than the constant comparison with the West. The purpose of the inter-referencing approach is to avoid judging any country, region, or culture as superior or inferior to any other and to tease out historical transformations within the base entity of each country so that the differences can be properly explained (p. 250). New intellectual alliances and solidarities need to be built, Chen claims.

In terms of emotional geographies and their implications for knowledge, Chen focuses on three things: structures of sentiment, the psyche, and subjectivity (p. 74). He draws from postcolonial psychoanalytic theory to help explain various paradoxes. First, Chen explains the psychology of colonization from the perspective of the colonizer. For instance, this way of thinking includes the practice of regarding people in the colonies as at an immature stage of development and, thus, as needing guidance from the colonizing country to enable them to reach maturity (p. 74). Secondly, against such deficit thinking alternative postcolonial analytics arose and existing psychoanalytic theory was rewritten in support of decolonizing movements. These analyses were regarded as a "weapon in the anti-colonial struggle" (p. 74). Such postcolonial theorists sought to analyze the psychology of the colonized and pointed to such things as colonial identification, the unconscious yearning (desire) for the colonizer's recognition, and the accompanying psychic suffering and resentment (p. 78). They focused, too, on the manner in which colonizer and colonized constitute each other's subjectivity. And, they examined the psychology of decolonization and national independence, pointing to the unfortunate continuation of earlier subjectivities (pp. 78–79).

One methodological implication of this line of analysis is that the researcher's subjectivity and identifications must come under scrutiny. Not least, the research community's "structural flow of desire" (Chen, 2010, p. 225) towards the United States and Europe needs to be challenged. Chen calls for a ruthless self-questioning, a process of self-critique, self-negation, and self-rediscovery (p. 3). Alternative cultural practices of identification are required. In the first instance, this involves acknowledging that the psyche may still be framed in such deleterious ways and that moving beyond the limits of such framings is crucial.

#### Dominant and Emergent Institutional and National Roots

Chen's ideas traveled to Australia though the work of the students. I explain how and also deploy his ideas to analyze the students' responses, and in so doing ask if, and how, his work on the geopolitics of knowledge spoke to the students and their situation. But also, as I have indicated, in the contemporary university global routes invariably meet institutional and national roots. So I also explore the character of the dominant, residual, and emergent roots the students encountered and their implications for these mobile PhD students and moving ideas.

First, to a consideration of some dominant roots: Universities potentially constrain international students' engagements in the geopolitics of knowledge through time, money, and language. These students paid exorbitant fees, and felt an intense pressure to complete on time. Additional time pressure was often due to scholarship and visa requirements. For those seeking work and/or permanent resident status in Australia more intensity arose. The requirement to write and talk in the English language was very demanding and required high levels of linguistic and cultural translation. While these did not prevent students' engagement with Chen's ideas, they did impinge on it.

The manner in which these students' identities and research imaginations were constructed at Monash, during their time there, was deeply rooted in a residual colonial imagination. Practices of infantalization and deficit models were subtly present. First, the knowledge the students brought with them was often downplayed or ignored, thus involving a denial of their full selfhood. Secondly, they were not usually encouraged to use research sources from their own countries or region, especially those not written in English. Thirdly, they were usually steered toward the knowledge and theory that their supervisors were most familiar with. This was almost inevitably knowledge from what might be called empires of English-language-knowledge—particularly the United States or the United Kingdom. Such knowledge has long been sanctified in this education faculty.

The students brought with them national attachments that, in some instances, intensified during their overseas studies as they struggled for self-differentiation in the Faculty (Chen, 2010, p. 87). They did not necessarily have an unconscious yearning (desire) for the knowledge colonizer's recognition as might their forebears. But in some ways the academic culture into which they came required of them some forms of self-negation and mimicry.

Postcolonial psychoanalytic theory makes it clear that imperial centers and colonies were mutually constituted. Each shaped the other. For the colony to be constituted as inferior, the center has to constitute itself as superior. Such sentiments linger. Plainly, the students and the institution constituted each other's subjectivity in asymmetrical ways.

Chen draws attention to the importance of deimperializing knowledge and this call is directed toward those at the centers of empires of knowledge. These are the peoples who most benefit from Eurocentric and North America-centric epistemologies and ontologies. Thus an important ingredient of Asia as Method is the deimperialization of knowledge by those who are or have been imperial powers in different parts of Asia. This includes England, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United States. It also includes those countries within Asia that have been colonizers as well as colonized. Chen (2010) says that deimperializing research starts with rethinking the wrongs and pains of past imperialist interventions.

This must be performed by the colonizer first and then on the colonizers' relation with its former colonies. The task is for the colonizing or imperializing population to examine the conduct, motives, desires and consequences of imperialist history that has formed its own subjectivity. (p. 4)

The students were mindful of Chen's arguments about the importance of deimperializing knowledge. And, in terms of education studies they found succor in Lin's (2012) assertion that "Knowledge production (e.g., textbook/curriculum production, university research and publication, teacher preparation) and knowledge circulation (e.g. schooling, curriculum, and pedagogy) constitute the major sites in which imperialism operates and exercises its power" (p. 164).

Clearly, according to this logic, those living and working at the centers of various empires of knowledge must move beyond what Hall calls "the West as Method" (1992). This meant that the students' non-Asian academic colleagues in the education faculty needed to engage with the sorts of issues they were raising and attend to the emergent knowledge they were working with. The students did not subscribe to the hard-to-justify essentialism that leads to the view that only Asians can do Asia as Method and that white, non-Asian scholars should be excluded. Their view was that such scholars should be seriously involved in order to deimperialize their own supervision practices as well as their own scholarly enquiries. They thus invited others in the faculty to join this project.

But within the wider faculty little such deimperializaton occurred. The dominant roots mentioned above were too deeply entrenched. Few members of academic staff became involved and explored, with students, the implications of Asia as Method for curriculum and educational inquiry and practice, let alone for their post graduate pedagogies. More widely, at conferences and seminars it was mostly Asian staff and students who attended students' papers and symposia. The education main stream seemed to remain pretty much untouched and unchanged.

That said, emergent potentially decolonizing knowledges were available. Some PhD supervisors encouraged their students to engage with postcolonial theory, with debates about the geopolitics of globalization and the implications for education. Some also encouraged them to draw on the research and theorizing of scholars from their home country and region. However that was relatively rare.

Of course all international students are subject to their host country's policies and practices with regard to them. Australia has been in the "industry" since the 1980s, so these policy roots are well established and overriding. Australia's higher education system is dependent on international students from Asia, so it has high policy priority. But also emergent elements in relation to Asia came from Australia's national polity during the time of the project, ones that might have been expected to elevate the students' institutional status.

These involved the Australian national government's attempts to reimagine its relationships with Asia. At the time, Asia was strongly on the agenda in Australian political circles and Australia was thinking hard about its place in the Asian region. Australia is geographically located in Asia but it is not of Asia. It is a wealthy, "first" world country surrounded by many countries that are considered "third world." It has strong historical links with Britain and the Commonwealth of Nations but its political and military alignments are, primarily, with the United States and Europe. That said, Australia is, as Takayama (2016, p. 70) points out, a "rich peripheral country" plagued by a sense of ambivalence about its own identity internally and on the world and regional stages (see, further, Kenway & Fahey, 2011).

Australia has strong trade links with South Korea, Japan, and, particularly, China and India. And, it is because of the increasing dependency of Australia on these trade links that it has become much more conscious of its need to better attend to its Asian neighbors. This impulse is signaled in the policy document Australia in the Asian Century (Australian Government, 2012) that says:

The Asian century is an Australian opportunity. As the global centre of gravity shifts to our region, the tyranny of distance is being replaced by the prospects of proximity. Australia is located in the right place at the right time—in the Asian region in the Asian century. (p. 1)

And, in terms of school education, the Australian Curriculum named "Asia and Australia's engagement with Asia" as one of only three cross-curriculum priorities (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2014). It seeks to ensure that Australian students learn about and recognize the diversity within and among the countries in the Asian region. It, also, aims to develop students' knowledge and understanding of Asian societies, cultures, beliefs, and environments and the connections between the peoples of Asia, Australia, and the rest of the world.

Chen notes that capital's globalization has led to "economic and cultural regionalization" and along with this has come "the rise of Asia as a pervasive structure of sentiment" (2010, p. 214). It might be added however, as Rizvi (2012) notes, the nottoo-subtle subtext to such policy mantra is usually instrumental and economically opportunistic. Understanding Asia in the manner Chen proposed, as a shifting historical, political, cultural, as well as economic entity, was not what this was about.

But even though Asia was strongly on the agenda in Australian political and national curriculum circles at the time and even though the time seemed ripe for deimperializing knowledge in the faculty, the institutional roots attached to empires of English-language-knowledge were too deep.

#### Routes that Settle and Unsettle

The graduate students traveled to Australia with much highly contradictory, even split, emotional baggage. This was not just about the "flow of desire" to the West, according to Asia as Method; although as one of my former graduate students made clear in her doctoral thesis (Nguyen, 2013), students in Asia are sold "Western dreams" via the intense marketing practices of Australian universities in Asia.

Most of the graduate students from Asia tended to focus their research on educational issues in their home country, yet were usually encouraged to draw on Western perspectives to study their own country's educational practices and systems. They often, therefore, utilized Western concepts and theories to interpret the issues involved. The emotional geographies involved were complicated.

Some appeared to readily accept this situation and were eager for knowledge from the West. Others were uneasy. Of the uneasy some saw this as under-valuing Asian intellectual traditions and practices and as unsuitable for Asian circumstances. Their typical counter-response was to turn to their local knowledge to interpret local educational issues in their home country. My conversations with them concerned the dilemmas they faced about the relationships between knowledge and location, universalism and specificity. Yet others found it quite difficult to specify why they felt uncomfortable—they just did.

The students' Asian-ness was affirmed through the project. International students who come from "other/othered" countries often develop affinities across nation states that they may not otherwise feel. And the project contributed to such new communities of affect, to new solidarities. The following remarks from our group's final reflective session illustrate the point.

For me, the way I perceive myself in a different context is slightly different. I don't perceive myself as Vietnamese, but I perceive myself in the broader spectrum with other Asians. When I was in the United States, I didn't think of myself as Vietnamese, I thought of myself as Asian. So when I see a Chinese, I feel close to the Chinese person. When I'm in Vietnam, if a Chinese person came and visited, I would think, "He's so different."

When you're somewhere else, you tend to draw on who you're not. So for example, back home, I never think of myself as Indonesian-Muslim. That's something you take for granted. But here, it's like the religion is being foregrounded and my skin colour as well.

As an international student away from home . . . you may not find a lot of international students from the same country in the same subject, in the same faculty, so you just think, "It's a student from an Asian country, we can form a community so we support each other. But the project also exemplified some of the knowledge problems that Chen identifies. Early on, the students organized themselves into small subgroups to develop papers for a half-day faculty seminar. The groups were all nation-state based. They later presented papers at national peer-refereed conferences. The feedback required them to deepen their understandings of Chen and they then began to undertake the ruthless self-questioning, and process of self-critique, self-negation, and self-rediscovery that Chen calls for. This was necessary but difficult intellectual and psychic work. The reasons were manifold.

As time went on, there was some worry around the politics of the project. Various concerns surfaced about the publication and what it might mean politically when students returned home. It is not uncommon for students who become politicized in certain ways in the West to face the prospect that such politics may not be welcome at home. But these anxieties were not just about the possible problems of return.

They were also concerned about disciplinary territories and borders, about, for example, whether ideas from cultural studies should travel into education studies were they too political, were they useful for teachers, they asked. For such students the project unsettled firmly installed and held disciplinary identities. They sought to reconfigure their own intellectual horizons and to try to reimagine the discipline of education and its methodologies. They came to acknowledge, for instance, that the discipline of education is not simply apolitical and practical. But they also raised for discussion the many problems of translation across disciplines and political standpoints.

Of knowledge and decolonization the project did not do as much as Chen would have liked. The papers for the book did not do the necessary "inter-referencing" (p. 223) that Chen (2010) calls for. But some spatial unsettling occurred. At the project's start, the students were quite ignorant about each other's countries. But they developed a curiosity where little was there before. They wanted to know more. This shifted their points of reference to some extent and, in this sense, the project was a space of emergence wherein routes challenged roots.

The project raised question about the geopolitics of students own knowledge horizons. It led them to ask why they knew so much about some countries in Asia and so little about others or why was it that some issues had prominence and others did not? Why, for example, was religion always in the forefront with regard to Indonesia? This led some to the view that Chen did not actually go far enough with regard to certain issues, such as the power of religion and its implications for knowledge. As Roshid, Siddique, Sarkar, Mojumder, and Begum (2015) said in the reflective section of their chapter:

Chen emphasizes freeing our minds from the influence of colonization, imperialization, and Cold War as they are deeply rooted in many Asian contexts, eventually posing challenges for Asian scholars when they move forward in knowledge generation. In the context of Bangladesh, we would argue for considering other aspects to liberate our minds and move forward. In particular, the influence of religious ideology plays a vital part in shaping people's mindset. For example, a considerable part of the population neither accepts Western knowledge nor tries to generate local knowledge. Instead, it relies on Islamic knowledge and continues a solely Islam-based education system in Bangladesh, adding another dimension to Chen's critique. (2010, pp. 141142)

All that said, throughout the students held strong, spatially organized knowledge disposition and in many ways continued to think through the prism of the nation state. Chen claims that "if critiques remain within the limits of the nationalist framework, it will not be possible to work towards regional reconciliation" (2010, p. 159). As indicated, he points to the importance of affect (feeling) when it comes to the national, the colonial, and the postcolonial and to the fact that the affective investments and attachments of all three need to be acknowledged.

To understand the moods suffusing a nation-state, it is necessary to have a comprehension of its global situated-ness currently and over time. For instance, being positioned as tangential in global power formations has the potential to negatively impact the national self-image and mood. So too can the historical conditions of a nation-state, particularly if it has been on the receiving end of colonization and imperialism. These links became manifest in the collective national character and consciousness and in the national unconscious and can result in what is sometimes called a "colonial mentality," which may also involve a dependant culture. The emotional archive of the nation-state then, includes a collection of feelings and susceptibilities stored over time in both the body politic and the national culture. It includes the nation-state's underlying desires and defenses.

There were many barriers to undertaking the type of transnational imagining proposed by Chen. But nationalism was a major barrier. Nationalism and its affective registers remained an issue as our reflection sessions made clear. As one student explained, when inviting us to talk about

the nation as the basic defining unit. How come we know that it's problematic, but we always come back to it? How do we escape from this idea? We know it's very problematic and lots of stereotyping and prejudice stems from it, essentialism and all such negative connotations are attached to it. But it's just hard to escape from the notion of taking national entity as the basic defining unit. How do we deal with this?

Making one of their aspirations clear, it was proclaimed, "We need to change this. We can't move on if we don't, if we keep doing things with the same mindset as we had yesterday". But changing was difficult. The politics of knowledge is transnational, regional, national, and subnational. These politics intersect and are hard to untangle.

Students recounted stories, not just of Western colonialism and American imperialism, but also of wars and international tensions within Asia itself. Some arose from a history of war and intra-Asian colonialism. Within Asia, the major powers of China and Japan have been involved in various colonizing projects. Even less powerful countries have had their own imperial fantasies, seeking to move from being colonized to become neo-colonialists. Such national tensions led to some strains within the group. Raw emotions were exposed. For example, we discussed the tense relationships within Indonesia in relation to West Papua. Chen's idea that we could rise above such rifts though reflections, conversations, and dialogues was seen as, simply, too utopian. Even so, there were glimmers here of what Chen calls "Asian studies in Asia" (2010, p. 2).

We also pondered those rivalries between Asians that do not seem to be connected to the matters Chen raised. "Why is it that Asians felt more threatened by other Asians, than by Western influences?" one person wondered. Another put is more colorfully, "Why are we so allergic to other Asians?" saying "When I think back to when I was a student, as a Vietnamese scholar, I didn't quote Chinese scholars. And Chinese scholars, in the same class, didn't quote Japanese. We all quoted Western people". For example, the question was raised: Why are mainland Chinese regarded by Singaporeans as more of a danger than the West?

I think we are threatened by fellow Asians more than by the West. I just came back from Singapore and that sentiment is everywhere in Singapore. . . . European culture pervades every aspect of culture there, theatre, architecture, everyday conversation, Starbucks and everything, and people just don't care. All of a sudden, a few Chinese brands came in, "What is this brand? I don't like that.

But the tensions can also be on a much more personal scale, as the following comment indicates:

Suppose I work with you for a long time and I listen to you a lot, and I have no problem. . . . And one day Philip is better than me, he's published more, he gets a rise in salary. I'm threatened. Why? . . . I feel threatened because he's so similar to me, he's yellow, he's male, he's studying in the West, he's so similar. Suddenly, one day he's being valued by the system and I feel threatened.

Interestingly it was the emotional geographies involved that led to these various practices of "inter-referencing" and "international localism" in Chen's terms (2010, p. 223).

#### Concluding Thoughts

Now back to the contemporary university as a place of roots and routes. Admittedly this chapter has a particularity to it, as it's only one small project in one university, in a rich country that is a British and U.S. satellite. But it offers an example of the manner in which the flows of people, knowledge, and emotion intersect. It shows how such flows can come up against the dominant roots of the grounded university itself and those nation-bound roots that exist in the students' psyches. And it illustrates how power and knowledge relationships can be implicated.

More abstractly, I have suggested some benefits of bringing Chen's theorizing to studies of global flows in the contemporary university in Australia in relation to its mobile students from Asia. And I surmise that his approach could be usefully deployed in other locations in Asia and in the universities around the world to which Asian students travel. Chen not only highlights the links between colonial, postcolonial, and imperialist history and geography, power, and knowledge, but also claims that that these links live on in certain ways. I have offered an example of how they live on not just in the directions of student movement but also in the direction of knowledge flows.

Chen's framework, with the assistance of Williams's (1977) cultural categories, provide a way of interpreting the knowledge politics of the territorial university into which Asian students travel and within which they temporarily settle. It helps to explain why they are implicitly constructed as deficit by a "Western" university. I have intimated that this is probably because a residual element in such universities involves colonial and racist views of students from Asia. And, in turn, this helps to explain at least some of the barriers that arose in relation to the emergent knowledges, which the students sought to engage. Along with the time, money, and language issues they and many international students face, such elements make the deimperialization of knowledge difficult.

Notions about the mutual constitution of colonizer and colonized are also helpful in unpacking the relationships between students from former colonies in countries that have a history of colonization, even if by association, as in the case of Australia, a former colony of the British Empire, but one with an enduring sense of its British connections. Through this notion it is possible to see the ways in which the mobile students' "desire" for a Western education and recognition potentially confirms the knowledge rooted in the dominant power relations of the university and the global university system. Equally, the argument that certain versions of postcolonialism may inadvertently confirm the colonial script provides a further explanation of the knowledge problems students might face. This happens if they try to challenge the knowledge politics of their host university by the most obvious route of binary reversal—the "East" is best.

But this study also points to some limitations of Chen's mode of analysis. One example is its restricted reading of the emotional geographies of the encounter, along the resentment or desire spectrum, and in relation to recognition though mimicry. As these students unpacked their emotional baggage it became clear that their emotional investments were more nuanced and also arose from such things as disciplinary territoriality, a rather defensive nationalism, and an emergent comparative national, not so much international, sensibility. This defensive nationalism was aimed less against the so-called West than at other forces in Asia itself. Such nationalism is a force for stasis in this space of flows, one that makes the forging of new intellectual alliances and solidarities through an Asia as Method approach improbable, but not impossible.

Finally, to suggest, as I have, that the contemporary university is unbound is not to suggest it is without roots. As indicated, in this one university at least, dominant and residual knowledge can be so deeply rooted in the institution that it is inhospitable to the emergent knowledges that flow in—particularly those knowledges that are subversive and oppositional. The existing power geometries can actually harden even when the university and the country are involved in a range of activities designed to attract and cater to international students. In short, the unbound university may also, in certain ways, be rather root-bound.

#### References

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Zhang, H., Wing Keung Chan, P., & Kenway, J. (Eds.). (2015). Asia as method in education studies: Towards a defiant research imagination. Abingdon: Routledge.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Chapter 21 International Education Hubs

Jane Knight

The forces and opportunities of globalization have dramatically impacted higher education, especially cross-border education. The term cross-border education is often used interchangeably with the terms transnational education, borderless education, and international academic mobility. Cross-border education is the preferred term for this chapter and refers to the mobility of people, programs, providers, projects, and policies between and among countries. Studies of higher education shows that international academic mobility is fundamental to the mission of universities (Altbach, 2013). Scholars and knowledge have been moving around the world for centuries. The fact that the notion of universe is the root concept for university is strong evidence of the internationality of higher education.

There is no question that the landscape of cross-border higher education has changed significantly in the past three decades. It is no longer just students and scholars who are moving to other countries for education opportunities. Academic programs, education institutions, and new providers are moving across borders to deliver education and training programs in foreign countries. New actors, new international partnerships, new binational universities, and new modes of program delivery characterize the dynamic and expanding area of cross-border higher education.

International education hubs are the latest development. Labeled the third generation of cross-border education, they build on the first generation of student mobility and the second generation of program and provider mobility. Education hubs can be at the country, zone, or city level and involve a critical mass of and collaboration between international-local universities, students, research institutes, and private

J. Knight (\*)

Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ali Mazrui Centre for Higher Education Studies, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

P. Meusburger et al. (eds.), Geographies of the University, Knowledge and Space 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75593-9\_21

industry. This chapter will focus on the country level hubs, of which there are six in the world—Botswana, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates (Knight, 2014b).

Important to recognize is that an education hub reflects a country's plan and priority to serve and be recognized as a center of education expertise, excellence, and economic activity in the region and beyond. Education hub countries have different objectives and characteristics, but in general the term education hub is used by countries seeking to position themselves as centers for student recruitment, education and training, research, and innovation. A variety of factors are driving these efforts and include modernizing the domestic tertiary education system, generating income, creating a skilled work force, remaining or becoming economically competitive, developing a regional profile, promoting knowledge diplomacy, and transitioning to a knowledge- and service-based economy (Knight, 2011).

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the phenomenon of education hubs within the context of three generations of cross-border education1 . Framing education hubs as the third generation makes it possible to analyze the evolution of education hubs in respect to both the growing numbers of students moving to another country for their academic studies and the more recent boom in the number and types of programs and in provider mobility, including twinning programs, international joint-, double-, or multiple-degree programs, branch campuses, internationally cofounded institutions, and franchise universities (Knight, 2015a).

This chapter has four objectives. The first is to position and analyze education hubs within the frame of three generations of cross-border higher education. The second objective is to conceptually analyze the phenomenon by proposing a definition and a typology of the three major types of education hubs—student, talent, and knowledge–innovation. The third is to identify highlights of six current education hub countries in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Gulf states by using the proposed typology to categorize them. Finally, the fourth is to examine how education hubs relate to the two previous generations of cross-border education activities in terms of geographic outreach and impact.

#### Three Generations of Cross-border Education

Numerous studies of higher education show that international academic mobility has been happening for a very long time and has evolved in diverse ways. To provide a brief overview of the evolution of cross-border education Table 21.1 summarizes the highlights of each of the three generations. Worth noting is that these generations are not mutually exclusive. In fact, education hubs build on and extend first and second generation activities.

<sup>1</sup> Sections of this chapter have been taken from Knight (2011, 2014a).

Table 21.1 Three generations of cross-border education

Note. Adapted from Knight (2014c, pp. 43–58). Reprinted with permission of Symposium Books.

In the following section, each generation is examined in more detail to illustrate the differences and similarities among them and to raise related issues and challenges.

#### The First Generation: Student Mobility

Nobody could have predicted the meteoric rise in all forms of student mobility in the last 50 years. The increase in mobile students from about 238,000 in the 1960s (Chen & Barnett, 2000) to 4 million in 2012 (UNESCO, 2014) is staggering. If forecasts are correct, this number will almost double in another 10 to 15 years. In the past four decades, the numbers of students, the types of mobility experiences, the driving rationales, and the destination countries have changed substantially.

When the term student mobility is used in a comprehensive sense, it usually refers to students who are taking a full degree in a foreign country or students who are participating in a semester or year abroad program as part of their academic studies at their home university. More recently, it also involves students enrolled in collaborative degree programs, such as joint, double, or multiple degree programs or franchise and twinning arrangements. Student mobility involves more than enrolling in academic courses abroad; it can include research or field work, internships or practicums. Given the importance of understanding foreign cultures and languages, students, especially those who cannot afford the time or costs of semester abroad, are participating in short-term cultural workshops, tours, and activities.

New forms of virtual mobility are emerging. Virtual mobility involves the use of information communication technologies to encourage cross-border collaboration for teaching and learning and eliminates the necessity of international travel. Working together virtually with counterpart teachers and students helps to enrich the learning experience and enhance intercultural understanding and the exchange of knowledge. Virtual mobility should not be confused with online or distance education, for it involves direct collaboration and exchange in a virtual learning environment and not merely access to learning opportunities or programs through electronic means. Virtual classrooms are yet another form of extending the internationality and geographic reach of universities and merit further attention and research.

Table 21.2 identifies the top 20 destination countries for students wishing to take their degree in a country different than their residence. According to the 2012 data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, five destination countries hosted nearly one-half of the total mobile student population: the United States (hosting 18%), United Kingdom (11%), France (7%), Australia (6%), and Germany (5%) (UNESCO, 2014). But the top five also saw their share of international enrollment decline from 55% in 2000 to 47% in 2012. There are new serious players in the field of international student recruitment, especially those from Asia.

In East Asia and Pacific region the traditional destinations of Australia and Japan are rivaled by newcomers China, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and New Zealand, which collectively hosted 6% of the global share of mobile students in 2012. Among the Arab States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates are making efforts to recruit students from abroad. These three countries hosted 4% of the global share of mobile students (UNESCO, 2014). Although these numbers may be small, it is anticipated that they will increase substantially in the coming years.

Just as no one anticipated the growth in student mobility, no one predicted that international student recruitment campaigns would be linked to national innovation, science, and technology strategies or to trade and immigration policies, all in the quest for human talent to serve the knowledge economy. The brain train, or circulation concept, is the current term used to describe the trek of students and young professionals from country to country for study and employment reasons. But the notion of circulation masks the reality that there is net brain drain for some countries, usually smaller developing countries, and net brain gain for more economically advanced countries (Knight, 2008). By 2025, it is estimated that 7.8 million students will be enrolled in foreign countries for their tertiary education

Table 21.2 Top destination countries for international students in 2012

Note. Adapted from UNESCO (2014). Copyright 2014 by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Reprinted with permission. These statistics refer to students who crossed a national border to study or were enrolled in a distance-learning program abroad. These students were not residents or citizens of the country where they studied. Part-time, full-time, undergraduate, and postgraduate students are included. Exchange students are not included.

(Boehm, Davis, Meares, & Pearce, 2002), indicating that the first-generation crossborder education activities will continue to expand in scope and scale. The rationales and impact of student mobility will change as countries look to attract and retain students to fulfill their need for knowledge workers and skilled labor.

#### The Second Generation: Program and Provider Mobility

In the early 1990s the movement of programs and providers across borders began to increase substantially, raising the number of students able to access foreign higher education programs and qualifications without leaving home. Examples of crossborder program mobility include twinning and franchise programs as well as ones offering joint, double, and multiple degrees, with branch campuses, internationally cofounded institutions, franchise universities, and virtual universities being examples of cross-border institution and provider mobility (Knight, 2015b). Both program and provider mobility have become more popular, creating opportunities for large numbers of students wanting a foreign academic program and qualification. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive and reliable database on program and provider mobility. Many countries do not collect this data at the national level. More challenging is the reality that countries do not use the same definition or set of criteria to identify the different modes of program and provider mobility. Although the definitional issue has existed for collecting international student statistics, it is even more problematic to capture reliable data on program mobility (McNamara & Knight, 2015).

Provider mobility, in the form of branch campuses, presents a different scenario. Universities have been setting up campuses in foreign countries for decades, albeit in very small numbers and often without accreditation or licensing from the host country. Factors driving this growth include the increased demand for tertiary education arising from larger secondary school cohorts and the knowledge economy's need for a skilled labor force. Many countries found it more attractive to host branch campuses of foreign public and private universities than to invest in the physical and human infrastructure needed for an expanded domestic higher education sector (Verbik & Merkley, 2006). At the same time, regional and world trade agreements now include education as a tradable service, leading private and public education providers to explore new commercial opportunities in cross-border education. Clearly, large numbers of students have found it more attractive and economical to study at home at international branch campuses or internationally cofounded universities than to go abroad.

An international branch campus is defined as a "satellite operation of a recognized higher education institution or provider which offers academic programs and credentials in a different country than the home institution" (Knight, 2008, p. 181). According to the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (Lawton & Katsomitros, 2012) there were just 24 branch campuses in 2002. But 13 years later there were 249 operating in all regions of the world. It is revealing to see the distribution and growth of these new initiatives by region. Table 21.3 shows that as of 2015, Asia was home to 83 of the 249 branch campuses around the world. This represented the largest number in a single region, with the forecast indicating continual growth. Of particular interest is that the number of receiving or host countries of branch campuses doubled from 36 in 2006 to 76 in 2015. In that period there were also some branch campus closings: 5 from 2006 to 2009, 12 between 2009 and 2011, and 15 from 2012 to 2015.

Overall, this unanticipated increase in branch campuses highlighted the second generation of cross-border education and strongly influenced the emergence of the third generation.

#### The Third Generation: Education Hubs

Education hubs are the most recent development and constitute the third wave of cross-border education initiatives. Education hubs build on and can include first and second generation cross-border activities, but they represent a wider and more

Table 21.3 Increase in the number of branch campuses, 20022015

Note. Data from Garrett, Kinser, Lane, & Merola (2016, pp. 51–52) and Lawton & Katsomitros (2012). Copyright by Observatory on Borderless Education and C-BERT.

strategic configuration of actors and activities. An education hub is a concerted and planned effort by a country, zone, or city to assemble a critical mass of local and international actors to support its efforts to build the higher education sector, expand the talent pool, or contribute to the knowledge economy.

There are only a handful of countries around the world seriously attempting to develop themselves as education hubs. These include Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Botswana (Knight, 2014b). Others still in initial or perhaps "stalled" stages are Bahrain, Mauritius, Korea, and Sri Lanka. The economic crisis of 2008–2010 impacted plans by Botswana and Hong Kong to invest in hub development and slowed their progress considerably. And there are other countries that seem to be using the term education hub only as a branding label to attract more international students and providers.

In addition, there are cities around the world, for instance Panama City, Bangalore in India, and Monterey in Mexico, that have been seeking to brand themselves as education or knowledge cities. Some city-level initiatives, Panama being a prime example, are trying to be international in scale, while others are local level initiatives. The diversity of approaches to and motives for developing an education hub raises the questions of what, exactly, an education hub is and what it involves.

There is no single model of an international education hub or any one-size-fits-all approach to establishing one. Each country or jurisdiction has its own set of drivers, strategies, and expected outcomes. A new feature of the third generation of crossborder education is the emphasis on knowledge production and innovation. Education and training initiatives have been traditionally associated with the first two generations of cross-border education, so the addition of knowledge generation and application is a noteworthy development and feature of education hubs.

#### The Definition and Types of International Education Hubs

With countries, scholars, and policy makers defining education hubs differently, it is important to have a common understanding of the term. The purpose of this section is to examine the proposed working definition and typology of three different types of education hubs.

#### Key Concepts of an Education Hub<sup>2</sup>

Given the diversity of education hub models, plus the lack of any systematic study of the phenomenon to date, an analysis of the common characteristics of education hubs is warranted. On the assumption that the number and types of education hubs will increase, any working definition needs to be generic enough to apply to all levels of education hubs as well as to their scope of engagement and impact. A proposed definition, regardless of the level of the hub (country, zone, or city) or the region of the world where it is located, is, "an education hub is a planned effort to build a critical mass of local and international actors strategically engaged in cross-border education, training, knowledge production and innovation initiatives" (Knight, 2011, p. 227). The identification of driving rationales, expected outcomes, sponsors, major actors, and specific types of activities is intentionally omitted to allow the definition to apply to the emerging diversity of hubs. To fully understand the meaning and dimensions of the proposed definition, it is helpful to examine each core concept.

The concept of a planned effort indicates that a hub is an intentional or deliberate project that normally involves a strategy, policy framework, and some public and private investment. In other words, a hub is more than a coincidental interaction or colocation of actors working in the education and knowledge sectors. The notion of being planned helps to decrease the chances that it is merely a fad, a branding exercise, or a serendipitous set of temporary interactions among key players.

The notion of critical mass suggests that there is more than one actor and set of activities involved. This means that a single branch campus, franchise program, science and technology park, or internationally engaged institution does not constitute a hub. A hub is different from individual first and second generation crossborder activities because it brings these kinds of initiatives together in some kind of planned or coordinated project. The concept of critical mass intentionally goes beyond a random collection of cross-border activities by denoting the presence of a key combination of actors. The term colocation was considered and deliberately excluded from the definition even though it is significant to the meaning of a hub. Colocation can mean different things at the city, zone, or national levels. Actors can be colocated in a single location or multiple ones because of complementarities of

<sup>2</sup> The definition discussion is based on Knight (2011).

services, but this does not imply that all actors must be colocated in one designated area. Larger countries such as Malaysia and United Arab Emirates are good examples of multiple activities and multiple colocation sites, while Hong Kong and Singapore are small enough that the notion of one colocation site can apply.

The mention of local and international actors indicates that an international education hub involves both domestic and foreign players. These can include local, regional, and international students, scholars, institutions, companies, organizations, research centers, and knowledge industries. The term actor is used in an inclusive manner to cover providers, producers, and users of the education, training, and knowledge services and products. The diversity of actors will vary from hub to hub, depending on the rationales and functions of the hub, so different types of actors are intentionally not specified in the definition.

The idea of engaging strategically is central to the definition because it emphasizes a deliberate sense of interaction or relationship among the actors. While the nature of the engagement will differ from hub to hub, a fundamental principle is that there is added value when the actors connect, collaborate, or share common facilities and resources. This does not deny that there will be competition among actors offering similar services or products, but the pros of being part of a strategic and interactive initiative appear to outweigh the cons. The nature and number of interactions is unlimited, given the diversity of local and international actors and users. In addition, an education hub normally involves a master plan or overall strategy that is augmented by aligned policies and regulations, a match-up that enhances the chances of success and sustainability, as well as substantiating the importance of a strategic approach laid out in the definition.

Cross-border education, training, and knowledge and innovation initiatives depict the broad categories of activities and outputs of hubs. There is a wide selection of initiatives and services available, depending on the type of hub, priorities of the individual actors, and strategic plan of the sponsor.

Worth noting is that the definition does not refer to the level (zone, city, or country) of the hub because that quality is determined by the hub sponsors, as are the reach or engagement of its actors and the spread of its impact and influence. For example, a zone-, city-, or country-level education hub can aim to attract actors from its immediate vicinity or beyond, with its impact being local, national, regional, or global. The level and scope of a hub's activities are, therefore, not specified in the generic definition, although these elements would normally be part of the description of a specific education hub.

Finally, an education hub has not been defined in physical or spatial terms, for instance, as a designated area, because this could be too limiting. Rather, the central concept involves connectedness or a network of interactions among engaged local and international actors who undertake cross-border education activities to achieve their individual objectives as well as the collective goals and outcomes of the sponsoring body, whether it is a city, zone, or country.

#### The Types of Education Hubs: Student, Talent, and Knowledge-Innovation

As indicated, different rationales, actors, and activities characterize education hubs. Some countries see hubs as a means to build a critical mass of foreign students and providers to generate income as well as modernize and internationalize their domestic higher education. Other sponsors want to become hubs in order to train foreign and local students and employees to become part of a skilled labor force. And other countries focus on attracting foreign students and labor, institutions, and companies to build a vibrant research, knowledge, and innovation sector to lead them into the knowledge economy.

In order to capture the differences among various hub approaches and allow for a more nuanced understanding and exploration of education hubs, a typology of three categories of hubs is suggested (Knight, 2011). The typology is based on the rationales driving hub development, not on the location or level of hubs.

The Student Hub is the most focused type of education hub. Its key activity is educating and training local, expatriate, and international students. In addition to recruiting students, this model also seeks to increase access for all types of students by attracting foreign higher education institutions offering franchised and twinning programs or establishing branch campuses. The primary objectives of student hubs are a) to provide increased access to higher education for local students, b) to generate revenue from international student fees, c) to expand the capacity of local higher education institutions (HEIs), d) to internationalize the domestic higher education system, and e) to enhance the profile, branding, and ranking of local HEIs and the host country.

In the student hub scenario, both local HEIs and foreign providers recruit local and international students to their programs and campuses. A student hub often gives priority to foreign student enrollment even though there is an interest in providing wider access for local students. A student hub may intend to attract students from all parts of the world, but in many cases the majority of students come from neighboring countries. In a student hub model, foreign students are recruited to complete their studies in the host country and then return home or move to a third county. Generally, they are not encouraged or provided incentives to stay in the host country.

The Talent Hub (Skilled Workforce) model focuses on student education and training but differs from the student hub because its overarching goal is human resource development for a skilled work force. Foreign students are therefore encouraged to remain in the host country for employment purposes. Retention of foreign students (and workers) is central to the talent hub model. International HEIs, as well as private training and education companies, are encouraged to offer academic programs and professional development opportunities aimed at international, expatriate, and national students, as well as local employees. The overall goal is human resource development. The driving objectives are to a) expand talent pool of skilled workers, b) build a service or knowledge based economy, c) increase economic competiveness and influence in region and beyond, and d) strengthen the quality and relevance of labor. Education and training institutions and providers are often colocated in a common zone to facilitate the use of shared facilities and promote collaboration among them and with industry. In order to develop a critical mass there can be more than one colocation site in a country.

The Knowledge–Innovation Hub broadens its mandate beyond education and training to include the production and distribution of knowledge and innovation. Foreign actors, including universities, research institutes, companies with major research and development activities are persuaded through favorable business incentives to establish a base in the country and to collaborate with local partners in developing applied research, knowledge, and innovation. The model's primary objectives are to a) to build a knowledge- and innovation-based economy, b) to attract foreign direct investment, c) to expand the capacity of local research and development centers, d) to increase competitiveness in specialized fields, and e) to enhance soft power. Collaboration among the key players—foreign and local education institutions, industries, research centers, and companies—is a key factor in establishing a knowledge and innovation hub and providing added value for the major actors.

#### Highlights of Six International Education Hubs

As of 2015, the six international country-level education hubs of Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Botswana were in different stages of implementation. They are located in three different regions of the world the Middle East, South East Asia, and Africa. While the six countries or jurisdictions are very different, all are relatively small and committed to moving their economies from a dependence on national resources or manufacturing to being based on knowledge and service industries.

The term education hub is a subjective and self-ascribed label. There is no exclusive set of indicators or official body that determines whether a country meets stated requirements to be called an education hub. As the popularity and branding value of the concept increases, so does the number of countries seeking to become education hubs.

Singapore is one of the more serious and successful hubs. It has moved over the last 15 years from its Global Schoolhouse project, which concentrated on recruiting foreign students and prestigious universities, to its current strategy emphasizing investing in major research initiatives and facilities to establish sustainable international research partnerships (Sidhu, Ho, & Yeoh, 2014). Its current focus is on research, knowledge production, and innovation, with the Singapore government's investment of considerable financial, human, and structural resources in the project underlining its belief that knowledge and innovation are the cornerstones of its shift to the knowledge economy. Based on the previously described typology, Singapore can be categorized a Knowledge–Innovation education hub and is, interestingly, the only one of the six country level education hubs in this category.

Qatar has taken another approach by developing itself as a Student-Talent education hub with aspirations of becoming a Knowledge-Innovation education hub. Its centerpiece is Education City, a site housing 10 prestigious universities from the United States and United Kingdom invited there and generously supported by the Qatar Foundation, which oversees the strategy and development of the country's hub plans. Another core element is a science and technology park that Qatar established in a free zone, which is special jurisdiction offering tax and financial incentives to attract international branch campuses. Forming international research partnerships, building research facilities, developing a research culture, training researchers, and providing major research grant programs are all key components of the Qatar approach (Ibnouf, Dou, & Knight, 2014).

United Arab Emirates, a neighbor of Qatar, can also be labeled a Student–Talent education hub, although it has chosen a very different model. Four of the country's seven emirates have recruited international branch campuses (IBCs) to provide increased access for expatriate and domestic students. The Knowledge Village in Dubai and the Dubai International Academic City are the best known free zones in United Arab Emirates and together host about 25 of its 37 IBCs. Using a different approach, Abu Dhabi, the wealthiest emirate, has invited and generously supported elite universities from the United States and France and has invested in research partnerships with foreign universities to develop centers of excellence, such as Masdar City. Abu Dhabi's approach of investing in and supporting foreign branch campuses differs markedly from the commercial approach used by the other emirates, especially Dubai. There is no overall country-level strategy for developing United Arab Emirates as an education hub. This has led to the diversity of approaches, which seem to have been successfully used to date (Fox & Al Shamisi, 2014).

Malaysia is a country with a long history of international education. It has developed a comprehensive but diversified approach to positioning itself as a Student education hub with long-term aspirations of becoming a Knowledge education hub. Over the last decade, seven international branch campuses have been established throughout the country and there are more in the pipeline for approval. Malaysia has doubled its number of international students, using its attractiveness to Muslim students as a key feature. Iskandar, an ambitious new Malaysian free zone abutting Singapore, is also under development and already home to several branch campuses of major international universities. Other policies and programs have also been established that aim to increase Malaysia's attractiveness and competitiveness as an education hub. The country's efforts to date have focused on education and training rather than research (Aziz & Abdullah, 2014).

Hong Kong's intentions to position itself as an education hub and its related policy statements have been clear, but plans to move forward are less visible (Mok & Bodycott, 2014). Troubled by the economic downturn in 2008, Hong Kong's efforts have focused on offering scholarships and recruiting more "non-local students"—a term used to describe students from the region and Mainland China who officially cannot be classified as foreign or international students (Cheng, Cheung, & Yeun, 2011). Given its priority of recruiting students, Hong Kong sees itself as a Student education hub, but seeks to become more of a Talent education hub as immigration policies change and more students stay and work in the city. Aspirations are high but progress has been slow, so Hong Kong is probably best described as an education hub in the making.

Botswana has taken a rather innovative approach to planning its development as a Talent education hub. To broaden its economic base, Botswana identified and prioritized five different industrial hub sectors and areas for investment. With all of them requiring competent and trained professionals, the country envisions the education hub as serving to educate, train, and supply the required labor. While Botswana has taken steps to attract more foreign students and international branch campuses, progress has been moderated by financial challenges. The extensive consultation and planning process has provided a firm foundation for achieving its goal of becoming a Talent education hub, but finding resources to implement the plan is taking longer than the government anticipated and Botswana's progress fulfilling its plan has been limited (John, Wilmoth, & Mokopakgosi, 2014).

#### The Relationship of Education Hubs to First and Second Generation Cross-border Education Activities<sup>3</sup>

As I have discussed, education hubs have built on first and second generation crossborder education activities. It is useful, therefore, to explore whether there is any correlation between education hub locations and the most popular international student destinations and countries hosting international branch campuses. A geographic lens is used to examine these potential relationships.

#### Destination Countries for International Students

Table 21.2 lists the top 20 destination countries for international students (UNESCO, 2014). Interestingly, none of the six education hub countries rank among the top 10 destination countries for international students, with Malaysia in 12th place, followed by United Arab Emirates and Singapore in the 17th and 18th positions, respectively. This raises the question as to why education hub countries are not preferred destinations for larger numbers of international students.

Worth noting is that the six hub countries have reasonably well developed higher education systems but are relatively small in size, which makes them unable to host large numbers of international students. Most hubs, especially the student and talent hubs, aim to increase the number of education providers and programs, and hence the number of students. In contrast, the giants of international student recruitment

<sup>3</sup> This section is based on the discussion in Knight (2014a).

like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia are already popular destination countries and not moving toward establishing themselves as education hubs. The international education actors and activities in these countries are so diverse and numerous that trying to develop an education hub master plan would be a daunting challenge.

Economic development plans, international education engagement, and size are all factors at play in determining the desirability and potential of becoming an education hub. It appears that if an education hub is to be anything more than a branding label or status symbol, it will probably continue to be the smaller and more developed countries that are able to strategically invest considerable effort and funding in planning and developing a critical mass of local and international actors working collaboratively on cross-border teaching, training, and research activities. Thus, it will likely not be the large countries now leading international student recruitment that transition into education hubs, but these smaller countries. This may be counterintuitive but the reality of the cited student data supports the conclusion.

#### Zone- and City-Level Hubs

A possible alternative scenario involves these large countries so successful in international student recruitment establishing education hubs at the city or zone level. These kinds of education hubs are characterized by colocation of key actors in a specific geographic area. Boston is often referred to as an education hub because of its concentration of universities and research institutes. Interestingly, Boston did not start out with a master plan to develop itself as an education hub, but it may be the best example of a city-level education hub in the world (Crabtree, 2006). India has announced its plan to establish 12 city-level education hubs, but close examination of those plans reveals an aim to foster closer links between local HEIs and private industry. Thus, the country does not plan, at least at this stage, to make the cities a center of local and foreign actors working collaboratively on cross-border education activities. Monterrey in Mexico is an example of a city that actually did work on a strategic plan to develop and market itself as a knowledge city (Engardio, 2009). Plans, investments, and actors were on board but Monterrey's early progress stalled because of political and economic problems associated with the growing drug cartels in the region.

Panama City is another interesting example of an urban center attempting to become an education hub. Over the last ten or fifteen years, Panama's City of Knowledge has undertaken several bold initiatives (Vonortas, 2002), including the establishment of a "Techno Park" that provides infrastructure and services to research and technology companies, houses many regional offices of international government organizations, manages international cooperation projects, and hosts foreign universities' international programs and one branch campus. Although the city has yet to achieve its goal of being a preferred destination for international

Note. Data from Garrett et al. (2016, pp. 48–51).

students and foreign branch campuses, it has developed an interesting model catering to the needs of the country and the demands of the market.

Silicon Valley in California is a well-known example of a successful zone-level research and innovation hub. Other countries are trying to emulate this successful initiative, with, for example, Bangalore in India often being referred to as the Silicon Valley of India (Collato, 2010). Korea is another interesting case. Given its strategy of developing two special education zones, the Songdo Global University Campus and Jeju Global Education Campus, it is still unclear whether Korea will become a comprehensive country-level education hub, integrating the two zones and other international education projects, such as Brain Korea 21, or a nation with two independent, zone-level education hubs.

#### International Branch Campus Host Countries

It is equally interesting to discover if there is any relationship between the location of international branch campuses around the world and the location of education hubs. As of 2011 there were about 200 international branch campuses operational in more than 67 countries around the world (Lawton & Katsomitros, 2012). Unlike the lack of correspondence seen in regard to destination countries for international students, there seems to be a direct correlation between international branch campuses and education hubs. The evidence is clear and convincing, with four of the five top host countries of branch campuses being country-level education hubs. As presented in Table 21.4, the top receiving countries in 2011 were United Arab Emirates, Singapore, China, Qatar, and Malaysia. Counting the six established country-level education hubs and four emerging ones (Korea, Mauritius, Bahrain, Sri Lanka), education hub countries hosted 40% of the total branch campuses in 2015 and were also home to the highest concentration of education hubs in individual countries (except for China).

In conclusion, it appears that the education hub countries are not necessarily the most popular destination for international students, although they do host the largest concentration of international branch campuses. There are many factors that influence a country's decision to position itself as a hub, and size appears to be one them. Smaller countries that are relatively politically and economically stable have the capacity to make and attract public and private investment, support a reasonably adequate tertiary education system, and undertake the planning and policy preparation necessary to develop themselves as education hubs. It is the countries importing international branch campuses that are hubs, not the large countries exporting them. As of 2015, the majority of hub countries were focused on attracting students and education providers for economic reasons or for developing a skilled work force. Only Singapore can be described as a knowledge and innovation type education hub building on its reputation for excellence in its higher education system and its long history of strategic international engagement with top universities around the world.

#### Regional Engagement of Education Hubs

The regionalization of higher education is an increasingly important trend, not only in Europe, but also in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Aphijanyathan, 2010; de Prado Yepes, 2006; Knight, 2013). It is therefore interesting to look at the issue of regionality with respect to the geographical reach and engagement of education hubs. Reach and engagement refer to the extent to which an education hub reaches out to other countries to attract and involve key actors and participants in crossborder education activities. Given that international branch campuses are key players in hubs, the location of their home or source institutions is relevant to the question of regionality. Table 21.5 summarizes the total number of international branch campuses per hub country and indicates how many are linked to universities within the same region and how many are sourced from countries outside the region. Only three countries—United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, and Singapore—have a handful of branch campuses from universities located within the region, representing about 17% of the total. This demonstrates that the reach and engagement of education hubs in terms of branch campuses is primarily beyond the region. For some, this is an unexpected finding, for education hubs are often promoted as being regionally based.

Table 21.5 Regional source of international branch campuses (IBCs) in education hub countries

Note. Data from Garrett et al. (2016, pp. 48–51).

Unfortunately, reliable data is not available on whether the international students enrolled at branch campuses or local HEIs originate from countries internal or external to the region. A best guess is that overall more students come from countries outside the region, but this is not true for all countries, with Hong Kong and Qatar being two examples where this does not apply. Furthermore, United Arab Emirates is a difficult situation to assess because many of the students at branch campuses there are the children of expatriates and though born and brought up in United Arab Emirates hold the citizenship of their parents' home country. In this case, what is their country of origin—the one where they have lived all of their lives or their country of citizenship? The situation is murky.

#### Looking to the Future of Education Hubs

It is fascinating and at times bewildering to imagine the evolution of education hubs over the next decade. If the pace of change continues at the rate seen in the last ten years, the education hub phenomenon is bound to experience fundamental transformations. Will one model of education hub dominant? Will the demand for international education remain strong enough to support student-type hubs dependent on physical mobility or will student hubs become virtual entities? Is the term education hub anything more than a branding exercise or marketing strategy? Will talent hubs become a powerful and sustainable strategy for brain gain? Will education hubs evolve into strong and effective agents of knowledge diplomacy? Education hubs are not static entities; they evolve in reactive and proactive ways to external exigencies, unintended consequences, and new opportunities. Are binational or multinational hubs on the horizon? Will education cities become more popular and ubiquitous? Will education hubs morph into a fourth generation or be replaced by a new cross-border education development? These kinds of questions and speculations have no immediate answers, but they do serve to stimulate more lateral thinking about the future of cross-border education and how HEIs work collaboratively and internationally with other domestic and foreign actors.

#### References

Altbach, P. G. (2013). The international imperative in higher education. Rotterdam: Sense.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# The Klaus Tschira Stiftung

The Klaus Tschira Stiftung was created in 1995 by the physicist Klaus Tschira (1940–2015). It is one of Europe's largest privately funded non-profit foundations. The Foundation promotes the advancement of natural sciences, mathematics, and computer science and strives to raise appreciation of these fields. The focal points of the foundation are "Natural Sciences – Right from the Beginning," "Research," and "Science Communication." The involvement of the Klaus Tschira Stiftung begins in kindergartens and continues in primary and secondary schools, universities, and research facilities. The foundation champions new methods in the transfer of scientific knowledge, and supports both the development and intelligible presentation of research findings. The Klaus Tschira Stiftung pursues its objectives by conducting projects of its own but also awards subsidies after approval of applications. To foster and sustain work on selected topics, the Stiftung has also founded its own affiliates. Klaus Tschira's commitment to this objective was honored in 1999 with the "Deutscher Stifterpreis," the award conferred by the National Association of German Foundations.

The Klaus Tschira Stiftung is located in Heidelberg and has its head office in the Villa Bosch (Fig. 2), once the residence of Carl Bosch, a Nobel laureate in chemistry. www.klaus-tschira-stiftung.de

Fig. 1 Participants of the symposium "Geographies of the University" at the Studio Villa Bosch in Heidelberg, Germany. © Peter Meusburger, Heidelberg.

Fig. 2 Villa Bosch, the head office of the Klaus Tschira Stiftung, Heidelberg, Germany. © Peter Meusburger, Heidelberg.

## Index

#### A

	- achievements, 274
	- assistants, 319, 320, 322
	- capitalism, 517
	- career(s), 99, 253–257, 262, 263, 269, 274, 275 (see also Scientific careers)
	- communities, 143, 301, 357, 446
	- discourse, 378
	- education, 25, 416
	- migration, 74, 140, 164, 180
	- mobility, 13, 64, 164, 376, 637, 638 (see also Mobility of academics)
	- Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), 588
	- reputation, 45, 83, 157, 255, 256, 267, 276
	- staff, 224, 244, 319, 320, 570, 580, 590,
		- 606, 628 (see also University personnel)
	- territoriality, 617
	- travel, 2, 13
	- village, 412, 415, 434

273, 293, 330, 332, 337, 340, 367, 369, 370, 543, 585, 608, 625 Actor-network theory, 342 Administration, 1, 65, 66, 72, 75, 86, 97, 146, 171, 198, 200, 202, 209, 231, 260, 263, 264, 295, 298, 306, 309, 313, 318, 319, 323, 325, 375, 386, 388, 405, 416, 427, 431, 433, 442, 465, 472, 483, 488, 491, 493, 499, 517, 526, 530, 545, 555, 568, 582, 583, 590, 622 Advanced Technology Program (ATP), 306, 308 Africa, 2, 4, 11, 12, 44, 212, 425, 511–520, 526, 533–535, 557, 623, 638, 643, 647, 652, BNF–544 African universities, 12, 512, 514–516, 520, 527, 534, 535, BNF–561 Agnosis, 330, 332, 335, 337, 339, 343, 346 Agnotology, 8, 329–347 Alexander von Humboldt, 111, 386 Altdorf University, 64, 154, 160, 166, 388, 390, 392 Alternative mapping, 626 American campus universities, 381, 412–415, 428 engaged university, 511 research universities, 10 Amsterdam, 73, 171, 299, 431, 450 Anchor institutions, 9, 356, 357 Anderson report, 246 Anglo–American universities, 9, 412, 434 Anthropology, 331, 469, 515

© The Author(s) 2018

P. Meusburger et al. (eds.), Geographies of the University, Knowledge and Space 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75593-9

B

463, 518, 569 Archiginnasio Bologna, 387 Architectural concepts of university buildings, 9, 375 design, 427–430 Architecture, 9, 10, 242, 248, 375, 376, 378–380, 382, 383, 386–388, 402, 406, 411–413, 415–418, 420–422, 424–429, 431, 433, 434, 461–469, 472, 568, 580, 581, 586, 593 Aristotle, 71, 107 Arts, 25, 51, 52, 66, 84, 94, 100–105, 108, 139, 199, 200, 206, 228, 234, 241, 248, 258, 261, 267, 368, 383, 386, 396, 404, 405, 415, 416, 421, 424, 426, 428, 433, 462– 464, 469, 470, 515, 517, 522, 530, 531, 583, 584 ASEAN Universities Network (AUN), 571, 581, 585, 586, 588 Asia, 2, 11, 14, 44, 425, 443, 512, 531, 533, 567, 569–576, 579, 581, 584, 585, 588, 619, 622–626, 628–634, 638, 640, 642, 643, 652 Asia as method, 624, 626, 628, 630, 634 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), 584, 585 Asian Development Bank, 581, 588 Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), 573 Assisted linear model, 292, 303, 309, 310 Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU), 586, 588 Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), 12, 567 Astronomy, 25, 386, 575 Atlas of Scholars (Gelehrtenatlas), 4, 25, 30–31 Augsburg, 26, 29, 54 Australia, 449, 512, 581, 582, 614, 619, 620, 622–625, 627, 629, 630, 633, 634, 640, 641, 650, 651 Austria, 26, 32, 82, 101, 103, 143, 162, 171, 175, 196, 384, 469, 620, 641 Autonomous campus development, 456 Ayr, 223, 226, 228, 232–238, 240–242, 246, 247 Baden-Württemberg (BW), 11, 315, 399, 481, 484 Bahrain, 643, 651

Appropriation, 67, 99, 203, 226, 227, 248, 259, 260, 269, 273, 277, 293, 298, 304, 457,

	- university expansion, 245

Index 661

Budapest, 79, 81, 84, 86, 91, 93, 94, 97, 100–109, 111, 112 Buddhists, 339, 575, 576 Buea, 513, 519–522, 524–530, 532–534, 552, 557 Bumiputras, 579 Burundi, 591 Business communities, 203, 446, 451, 454, 456 innovation, 306, 357, 371 knowledge, 11 models of the university, 361–363, 371 studies, 254, 265, 522, 533

#### C

California, 2, 304, 449, 467, 651 Calvinism, 47–51, 58–61, 64 Calvinist church, 63, 66 Calvinist students, 55, 58 Cambodia, 591 Cambridge, 3, 6, 110, 137, 138, 140, 219, 221, 227, 231, 248, 255, 376, 378, 380, 381, 398, 402, 403, 430, 449, 467, 473, 607 Cameralism, 386, 405 Cameroon, 11, 12, 513, 544 Campus city relations, 442 decisions, 454, 455 development, 9, 427, 451, 455, 456 management, 454 managers, 445 planning, 413, 445, 457 university(ies), 381, 412–415, 423, 428, 432, 433, 449 Canada, 270, 619, 641 Capacity building, 12, 541, 544, 560 Capitalism, 296, 479, 517 Caribbean, 3, 4, 196, 623 Carpathian Basin, 4, 44–47, 54, 77, 81 Cartography, 50, 55, 68, 76, 197, 199, 344, 567 Catchment area(s), 2, 4, 32–39, 45, 46, 135–137, 139, 140, 142–146, 148, 149, 151–155, 157–163, 165–172, 174–177, 179–182, 210, 229, 243, 268, 480, 481, 498, 610 Catholic church, 51, 200, 375 Catholic League, 65, 72, 146 Catholic universities, 63, 77, 82, 146–154, 163, 165, 166, 168, 169, 177 Cavalier's tour, 66–72, 75 See also Grand tour

Centers of excellence, 648 Central African Republic, 519, 524, 591 Central Europe, 49, 136, 140, 146, 162, 164, 169, 171, 173–175, 405, 406 Chad, 519, 524 Change agents, 335, 543, 609 Charlottesville, 413, 414, 434 Charlottesville university, 413, 414, 434 Cheikh Anta Diop University (Dakar), 512 Chełmno, 33 Chemistry, 71, 97, 105–109, 261, 262, 277, 386, 552, 554 Chicago, 418, 422, 424, 425 China, 3, 299, 415, 449, 516, 543, 567, 619, 640 China–ASEAN regionalism, 12, 567, 569, 571–580, 594 relations, 567, 569, 570, 581 relations in Higher Education, 12, 567, 569, 571, 578, 581 China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, 587 China-ASEAN Free Trade Area (CAFTA), 572 China's southern borderlands, 12, 567 Chinese higher education, 582, 583, 589, 590 regional diaspora, 569 universities, 415, 572, 574, 581, 584, 586–589 Chronicity, 8, 331–333, 337, 341, 345 Circulation concept, 640 Citation index, 279 City, 369 center based universities, 364 development, 369, 371, 432, 433, 456, 585 (see also Urban development) planning, 456, 461 university partnerships, 439, 440 Civic engagement, 357, 365 university, 9, 248, 355, 606, 618 Civil society, 9, 296, 299, 300, 302, 335, 358, 360, 361, 366, 480, 531, 534 Civilizationism, 626 Cleveland, 110 Clusters, 8, 10, 11, 32, 149, 151, 159, 163, 165, 179, 181, 264, 272, 299, 304, 309, 443, 464, 516, 583 Clusters of universities, 149, 163, 181 Co-evolution of university and city, 466 Cognitive science, 330 Coimbra, 378, 393, 397 Cold War, 111, 113, 623, 625, 631 Coleraine, 225

Colleges of Advanced Technology (CAT), 225 of Education (CAT), 225 Cologne, 23, 26, 29, 33, 35–39, 97, 145, 147, 152, 153, 165, 166, 173, 179, 416–419 Colonial history, 519 Colonialism, 568, 571, 624, 632 Columbia University, 415, 422, 424 Commercialization, 13, 303, 307, 359, 513, 514, 516–518, 532, 533, 535 Communicative constructivism, 273 interaction, 272 Community boards, 467 Community(ies), 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 45, 47, 103, 113, 143, 174, 195, 198, 203, 204, 209, 220, 224, 228, 233, 254, 266, 269, 270, 272, 293, 301, 333, 356, 357, 361, 362, 367–371, 375, 378, 415, 446, 451, 453, 454, 456, 467, 470, 480, 492, 518, 531, 534, 541, 545, 561, 574, 576, 584, 605, 606, 608, 618, 627, 630 Community-services, 12, 561 Composite state, 193–196, 198, 211 Comprehensive university(ies), 428, 481 Conference spaces, 31 Confessio Augustana, 54 Confessions, 45–47, 50, 54, 58, 60, 61, 63, 67, 74, 83, 91–97, 112, 136, 137, 140–142, 146, 152, 158, 163–169, 179, 180, 182, 195 Confucian education, 575 Confucianism, 575, 589 Confucius Institutes, 572 Congo-Brazzaville, 591 CONNECT, 299 Connected city, 364 Contemporary universities, 9, 14, 605, 618, 624, 627, 633, 634. See also Modern universities; New universities Context-related research, 46 Cooperative R&D agreement mechanism (CRADA), 308 Coordinated campus–city development, 456 Copenhagen, 143, 171, 180, 181, 198–200, 205 Coproduction model of innovation, 357 Corporate campus, 442, 446, 448 Cosmopolitan university(ies), 162 Counter-Reformation, 47, 50, 51, 137, 146, 391 Courtyard design, 394 type, 387, 403

Cracow, 33, 44, 45, 47, 63, 143, 151, 152, 162, 169, 177, 179–181 Creative city, cities, 364, 366, 368, 369 Creativity, 6, 7, 253, 254, 257–259, 263, 265, 266, 279, 337, 479, 612 Creativity studies, 257, 265 Credit point system, 313 Cross-border collaboration, 571, 588, 640 education, 14, 585, 637–645, 649 higher education, 14, 584, 589, 637, 638 relations, 12, 567, 588, 593 Cultural change, 607 innovation, 6, 305 politics, 254 relations, 4, 43–55, 57–61, 63–67, 69, 71–75, 77–84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99–109, 111–113 Cumbernauld, 226, 228, 232–238, 240, 241, 244–246 Curriculum, 13, 25, 52, 139, 206, 210, 212, 368, 405, 560, 575, 582, 609, 613, 624, 628–630

#### Curtin University of Technology, 622

#### D

Danish Ministry of Education, 203 monarchy, 5, 195, 199, 200, 204 Danube monarchy, 79 region, 33 Darmstadt, 144, 420, 429, 430, 462 Decolonization, 627, 631 Decolonization of knowledge, 5, 212 Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), 299, 308 Deimperialization, 14, 624, 628 Deimperialization of knowledge, 634 Democracy, 369 Denmark, 73, 139, 156, 158, 175, 176, 180, 182, 194–203, 205–208 Developing countries, 14, 511, 513, 585, 587, 589, 640 Development cultural, 4, 46, 48, 58, 112, 247, 365, 370, 425 economic, 2, 4, 9, 53, 231, 295, 296, 298, 304, 305, 308, 356, 366, 367, 479, 511, 513, 514, 518, 545, 590, 650 societal, 269, 371, 511, 513, 524 socio-cultural, 6, 231 socio-economic, 362, 439, 448

Developmental university, 511, 533, 535 Dialogical walks, 466 Differential incidence analysis, 481, 493–495 Digital economy, 464 Digital information-processing, 433, 434 Disconnected city, 364 Discursive practices, 14, 198, 346, 607 Diversity, 142, 263, 368, 439, 440, 446, 527, 629, 643–645, 648 Doctoral students, 260, 263, 265, 268, 270, 515, 519, 624 Douala, 522, 524, 526, 532, 533, 557 Dschang, 519, 520, 522–530, 532–534, 557 Dual universities, 319 Dubai International Academic City, 648 Dumfries, 222, 223, 226, 228, 232–238, 240–242, 246, 247 Dutch Republic, 152, 153, 169, 172–178, 180

#### E

Early European universities, 9, 375, 398, 401, 402, 404 East Asia, 573, 619, 623, 640 East Stirlingshire, 223, 224, 226, 230, 234, 235, 244–246

Economic

development, 2, 4, 9, 53, 231, 295, 296, 298, 304, 305, 308, 356, 366, 367, 479, 511, 513, 514, 518, 545, 590, 650

geography, 265, 512, 518

Egypt, 623, 640, 641 Eighteenth century, 9, 75, 77–78, 81, 83, 140, 141, 195, 196, 201, 205, 208, 209, 219, 228, 292, 336, 387, 393, 394, 405, 414, 416, 434 Electoral Palatinate, 49, 60, 65, 72, 78 Elite universities, 606, 613, 648 Embeddedness, 273, 605 Emigration, 104, 433, 516, 547, 559 See also Migration Empirical data, 12, 262, 451, 454, 456 science, 390 studies, 257, 315, 501, 543 Employment, 11, 63, 201, 221, 247, 303, 321, 322, 480–482, 486, 488, 490–492, 499–502, 526, 544, 546–550, 553, 554, 556, 558–560, 592, 613, 639, 640, 646 Empowerment, 480 Endless frontier, 291–310 Engaged university, 511 England, 60, 61, 66, 67, 73, 110, 136, 140, 145, 169, 171, 180, 219–226, 233, 247, 249, 299, 337, 356, 365–368, 370, 381, 382, 394, 402, 403, 405, 434, 467, 606, 609, 612, 628 Entrepreneurial university, 297, 361 Entrepreneurship, 293, 297, 307, 361, 521, 526 Environmental psychology, 255, 257, 273 Eötvös Loránd University, 111, 112 Epistemology, 8, 13, 212, 274, 331–333, 335, 336, 340, 341, 343, 345, 512, 628 Erfurt, 4, 8, 23, 33–39, 159, 180 Estonia, 170 Ethiopia, 547 EUniverCities Network, 439 European council, 360 imperialism, 13 modern movement, 416, 422 universities, 3, 4, 9, 26, 33, 138, 140–141, 172, 200, 211, 212, 314, 315, 376, 381, 402, 403, 412, 415, 430, 431, 434, 543 European Commission, 9, 357–359, 364, 622 European Council, 360 European Humboldtian University, 511 European Union (EU), 294, 306, 308, 359, 484, 512, 568, 573, 593 European University Association, 314, 315

Expansion of universities, 357 Expatriates, 646, 648, 653 Experimental case studies, 461 Expert interviews, 315, 316

#### F

Face-to-face contacts, 14, 257, 258, 266, 267, 271, 272, 433 interactions, 11, 316 Faroe Islands, 196–198, 206–209 Falkirk, 223, 226, 228, 230, 232–238, 240, 241, 244, 246–248 Financial resources, 12, 253, 257–259, 265, 266, 268, 527, 541, 555, 558 Finland, 139, 302, 449 Flanders, 36, 154 Florence, 24, 384 Foreign direct investment, 574, 581, 587, 647 policy, 49, 65, 66, 69, 72–73, 112, 198 talent schemes, 575, 586 France, 619–621, 623, 628, 640, 641, 648, 651 Franeker, 73, 74, 143, 172, 175, 177 Frankfurt/Oder, 23, 53, 54, 74, 105, 146, 158, 159, 167–169, 171, 173 Free University Berlin, 427 Freiburg, 104, 146, 149, 151, 166, 480, 481, 495 Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 406 Fudan, 586 Functional campus-city relations, 441, 444–448, 451–453, 456 mix, 9, 440, 441, 444, 446, 456 Functionalism, 423, 429 Futurism, 420

#### G

Gelehrtenatlas, 4, 25, 30–31 See also Atlas of scholars Geneva, 33, 63, 64, 143, 146 Geographical proximity, 440 Geographicity of knowledge production, 273 Geography(ies) of British university expansion, 245 of centrality and marginality, 624 of education, 31, 194, 480, 605, 624 of higher education, 4, 14, 194, 480 of science, 212, 254, 257 of the university, 1, 617, 624

Geohistorical perspective, 5, 211 Geology, 107, 207, 231, 422, 521, 524, 534, 552, 557 Geometry, 25, 397, 405 Geopolitics of knowledge, 627 of science, 254 Georgia, 305 German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), 111, 543 German empire, 23, 415 German research universities, 6 Germany, 2, 23, 44, 136, 145, 211, 255, 294, 319, 386, 449, 462–464, 480, 520, 543, 572, 619, 640 Gestalt psychology, 274, 275 Ghana, 12, 512, 544 Glasgow, 219, 221, 223, 224, 226, 228, 233–237, 239–242 Global higher education market, 547, 549, 612 knowledge economy, 606, 609, 612 markets, 606, 609, 623 north, 511, 515–517, 519, 520, 533, 543, 545, 547, 551, 560, 624 regionalism, 12, 609 south, 212, 543, 545–547, 623, 624 Global Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), 581, 582, 589 Global Schoolhouse project, 647 Globalization of higher education, 355, 365, 479, 535, 637 processes, 13, 14 Göttingen, 78, 100, 392 Governance, 6, 10, 86, 221, 261, 264, 291–310, 355, 357, 367, 405, 454, 461, 464, 466, 472, 514, 568, 593 Governance of higher education, 2 Government, 2, 60, 195, 197, 208, 220, 255, 291, 292, 335, 355, 375–376, 440, 492, 513, 541, 570, 606, 622, 647 Grand Tour, 43, 44, 66–72 See also Cavalier's tour Grandes écoles, 404 Granularity, 8, 331, 333, 334, 337, 341, 344, 345 Granularity of knowledge, 333, 334 Graz, 45, 63, 77, 143, 149–151, 165, 179 Great Britain, 73, 300 Greenfield campus, 441, 454–456 Greenland, 194, 196–198, 206–209

Index 665

Greifswald, 33, 36, 37, 46, 53, 83, 110, 160, 161, 167, 179 Groningen, 73, 74, 143, 177, 178 Gross enrollment ratio (GER), 542 Guangxi University, 588 Guanxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (GUAR), 567, 569, 589 Guiyang Declaration, 583

Habsburg dynasty, 408, 411 empire, 45, 61, 67, 93, 398 Hanoi, 570, 571, 575, 578, 585, 587, 588 Hanoi National University of Education, 625 Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies, 625

	- clusters, 10
	- innovation, 10, 11
	- regionalism, 12, 194, 567–571, 576, 580, 593–594

Hue, 575 Human capital, 364, 440, 526 development report, 541 geography, 255 resource development, 584, 585, 646 Humanism, 48, 72, 412 Humanists, 3, 43, 47–49, 51, 53, 54, 66, 71, 139, 172, 221, 234, 242, 248, 412, 420 Humanities, 6, 25, 51, 52, 232, 258, 297, 330, 336, 361, 366, 385, 386, 404, 405, 431, 434, 515, 517, 526, 528, 532 Humboldt/Humboldtian University, 406, 408, 427, 449, 511, 522 Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 104–109, 112 Hungarian state university, 82 Hungary, 4, 26, 43–55, 57–61, 63–67, 69, 71–75, 77–84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99–109, 111–113, 139, 151–153, 162, 171, 175, 182

#### I

Industry, 6, 81, 219, 258, 291, 346, 357, 405, 440, 462, 515, 571, 609, 629, 637 Inequalities in higher education, 2 Information and communications technology (ICT), 13, 359 Infrastructure, 12, 257, 259, 260, 268, 279, 292, 299, 309, 356, 370, 430, 431, 440, 442, 444, 455, 463, 466, 480, 515, 522, 527, 541, 573, 585, 588, 614, 642, 650 Ingolstadt, 8, 23, 66, 146, 148, 149, 151, 165, 386 Inner-city campus, 454 Innovation governance, 291–310 initiative, 14, 300, 644, 645 policy, 292, 294, 302, 304–306, 358, 516 state, 295, 296, 302 systems, 291, 292, 296, 304, 360, 479, 517 Input-output calculations, 486 Institutional practices, 14, 265, 607, 612, 614 theory, 254, 257, 263, 273, 274 Institutions, 23, 46, 137, 194, 219, 254, 296, 313, 330, 355, 375, 442, 461, 479, 512, 542, 568, 605, 618, 637 Integrated campuses, 451 Intellectual geography, 135–137, 139, 140, 142–146, 148, 149, 151–155, 157–163, 165–172, 174–177, 179–182 Intentionality, 8, 273, 331, 336, 337, 341, 342, 345 Interaction, 7, 10, 11, 13, 102, 182, 203, 244, 253, 255–260, 262, 265, 269, 271–274, 277, 291, 297–299, 304, 308–310, 357, 358, 440, 446, 466, 519, 525–533, 580, 584, 623, 644, 645 Interior design, 428 International academic mobility, 4, 637, 638 branch campus (IBCs), 13, 581, 582, 642, 648, 649, 651–652 education, 14, 15, 584, 623, 637 education hubs, 14, 15, 637 localism, 626, 633 student mobility, 14, 572 student recruitment campaigns, 640 universities, 3, 4, 13–15, 143, 384, 433, 543, 648 International Building Exhibition (IBA), 10, 466

See also IBA Heidelberg International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM), 576 Internationalization, 2, 5, 13, 194, 212, 444, 646 Inter-referencing, 626, 631, 633 Interrelations between universities and cities See also Campus-city relations Inverness, 222, 223, 226, 228, 231–234, 236–242, 244, 246, 247 Irregular regionalism, 580, 594 Islam, 3, 51, 575, 576, 631 Islamic scholars, 575 universities, 576 Israelite Hungarian students, 94 Italy, 24, 26, 38, 49, 67, 108, 145, 179, 378, 387, 388, 420, 421, 432, 641 Ivory tower, 606, 607

#### J

Japan, 291, 416, 449, 573, 578, 584, 585, 592, 619, 625, 629, 632, 640, 641 Jeju Global Education Campus, 651 Jena, 53, 54, 84, 157, 159 Jesuits, 44, 73, 77, 140, 144, 146–150, 170, 384–386, 391, 392, 398, 399 Jewish students, 91, 93–97 Jews, 50, 81, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 545 Joanina Library, 393 Joint Venture Silicon Valley, 309 Junior scientists, 262, 263, 269, 270 Jutland, 171, 202–203, 211, 212

#### K

Kaiserslautern, 428 Karlsruhe, 396, 399, 405, 480, 481, 495 Karlsruhe institute of technology, 480, 481, 495 Kassel, 64, 144, 145, 166, 167, 181, 428, 431 Kazakhstan, 584 Keele University, 223 Kenya, 516, 550 King's College at Aberdeen, 219 Knowledge, 5 based economy, 295, 439, 453, 638, 646, 647 based urbanism, 470 city, 277, 472, 643, 650 communication, 513 creation, 194, 365, 440, 498, 512 diplomacy, 638, 653

economy, 25, 440, 606, 609, 612, 640, 642, 643, 646, 647 environment, 6, 7, 253–277, 279 exchange, 272, 480, 607, 608 flows, 633 hubs, 13, 464, 466, 541 innovation education hub, 648 milieu, 46, 53, 99 production, 5, 48, 198, 210, 273, 330, 332, 335, 344, 517, 607, 608, 611, 625, 628, 639, 643, 644, 647 (see also Production of knowledge) relations, 568, 633 society, 6, 266, 607 spaces, 270 spillovers, 10–12, 512–514, 516–518, 527, 528, 530–535 transfer, 12, 26, 30, 44, 48, 72, 277, 358, 444, 467, 469, 480, 512, 517, 518, 533, 543, 607 transmission, 333 village, 648 workers, 6, 454, 498, 641 Konstanz, 28, 429, 495 Korea, 449, 584, 591, 619, 622, 629, 640, 643, 651 Krefeld, 428 Kristiania, 205 Kuala Lumpur, 572, 584

#### L

Labour market, 8, 12, 526, 532, 542, 544, 546, 547, 549–558, 560 market entry, 12, 560 Laissez-faire triple helix model, 298, 301 Lancaster, 220 Landscape, 4, 9, 135, 137, 142, 163, 179, 207, 209, 210, 228, 247, 335, 347, 375, 381, 415, 416, 428, 434, 463, 466, 469, 481, 482, 499, 532, 637 Landscapes of higher education, 4 Landscaping, 428 Laos, 583, 590, 591, 593 La Sapienza, 388 Latin America, 4, 398, 401, 416, 623, 643, 652 Latin American universities, 401 Law school, 376 Learning environments, 446, 640 process(es), 255, 256, 267, 269 Leiden, 65, 69, 73, 143, 145, 150, 153, 154, 172–175, 177, 180, 181, 386, 387, 431, 449

Leipzig, 23, 33, 37–39, 53–55, 68, 72, 76, 78, 84, 97, 100, 101, 153, 157, 172, 278, 552, 556, 557 Leuven, 143, 150, 152, 153, 164–169, 177, 179–181, 467 Liberal arts, 25, 100–105, 199, 200, 405 Library and information science, 330 Liège, 36 Linear model of innovation, 303, 309 Living laboratories, 368, 371 Lobbying, 5, 223, 228, 232, 246, 525 Local authorities, 220–222, 228, 233–235, 238, 244, 355, 356, 358, 370, 410, 520, 532, 613 economic development, 356, 366 economies(y), 9, 356, 366 knowledge spillovers, 10, 535 partnerships, 14 stakeholders, 466, 514, 519, 520, 525–533, 535 Localization, 164, 266, 355, 502, 614 Location, 23, 45, 153, 198, 220, 254, 305, 333, 355, 406, 440, 471, 486, 511, 614, 617, 644 Lomonosov University, 421–423 London, 61, 105, 219–221, 226, 234, 344, 356, 364, 370, 385, 414, 464 London School of Economics, 105, 356 London's Athenaeum club, 220 Louvain, 23, 38, 67, 137 Lower Saxony, 34, 157, 161 Ludwig-Maximilians University, 406, 408 Lund, 198, 200, 467 Lutheran students, 55, 94 Lutheran universities, 73, 154–162, 164, 168, 169, 175, 176, 390 Lutheranism, 51, 61, 160 Lutherans, 47, 54, 57, 63, 67, 91

#### M

Mainz, 34, 146, 147, 151, 152, 159, 170, 427 Makerere (Kampala), 512 Malawi, 550, 591 Malaysia, 569, 572, 574, 576, 578, 579, 581, 583–586, 590, 592, 619, 621, 622, 625, 638, 640, 641, 643, 645, 647–649, 651, 652 Manchester, 9, 219, 223, 365, 367 Manchester College of Science and Technology, 226 Mannheim, 78, 84, 97, 101, 104, 105, 481 Marburg, 53, 64, 74, 143–146, 166–168, 173, 177, 178, 181, 387, 431