Adult Education Responses under Global Homogenization: The Dialectical Development of Community Universities in Taiwan

• In Event: Governing and Leading Education Reform: Policy, Partnerships, and Peace in Complex Systems

Proposal

I. Significance and Research Gap
The sociology of globalization seeks to illuminate how economic integration, cultural exchange, and political interdependence reshape social structures, power relations, identities, and cultural contexts across transnational and local levels (Giddens, 1990; Castells, 2010; Sassen, 2001; Held & McGrew, 2007; Beck, 2000). Within this framework, the “dialectic of globalization and localization” (Robertson, 1995; Wallerstein, 2004) provides a critical perspective for understanding how educational institutions sustain local autonomy and cultural diversity under global pressures and risks of homogenization.
Community universities, as grassroots institutions of adult education, embody three central functions: fostering critical consciousness (Freire, 1970), promoting civic participation (Brookfield, 2013), and preserving local knowledge. Their practices extend beyond knowledge transmission to cultural reproduction and social transformation (Hall, 2009). Yet, globalization intensifies inequalities in the distribution of resources and culture, raising urgent questions about how community universities, especially in non-Western and multicultural contexts, negotiate tensions between preserving local culture and engaging with global issues.
Prior studies in adult and community education have examined global citizenship education and cultural preservation (Torres, 2017; Merriam & Brockett, 2022). Likewise, curriculum scholars have emphasized the importance of responding to multicultural and epistemic challenges generated by globalization (Apple, 2004; Pinar, 2012; Goodson, 2014). However, the literature has largely focused on macro-level policy or learning outcomes, offering limited systematic analyses of how community universities localize missions, curricula, and governance, or how leaders and practitioners strategize organizational adaptation. This omission constrains the application of globalization theory to adult education practices.
II. Research Aims
This study aims to:
A. Examine the theoretical debates on globalization and localization, clarifying localization’s role in sustaining local identity and advancing community development.
B. Analyze how community universities respond to global pressures and local needs through mission statements, curricula, and pedagogical practices.
C. Investigate how organizational structures and leadership strategies balance global challenges with local demands, identifying opportunities and constraints.

III. Research Method
The study employs a qualitative design, using in-depth interviews with thirteen educators and administrators from northern, central, and southern Taiwan, all with ten to twenty years of experience. The interview framework drew on UNESCO’s Global Education Core Issues (2015), Freire’s (1970) critical pedagogy, and Mezirow’s (1991) transformative learning theory. Thematic analysis was applied to examine how institutional philosophy, curriculum strategies, and governance practices operate within the globalization–localization dialectic.
Two groups of experts were included one from the National Association for the Promotion of Community Universities and another from the Ministry of Education evaluation committee—were also included. A snowball sampling strategy prioritized practitioners engaged in locally grounded curriculum design and social reform.
IV. Research Findings
This study underscores the significance in promoting educational equity, cultural sustainability, and social innovation.
A. A. Dialectical strategies. Community university leaders adopted dialectical approaches to navigate global pressures. They recognized globalization’s potential to expand knowledge circulation and intercultural understanding, while critiquing its reproduction of inequality and cultural homogenization under capitalist logics (Apple, 2004; Beck, 2000). Curricula incorporated themes such as fair trade, climate change, elder health, and international relations, helping learners situate global challenges within local contexts and fostering critical awareness and transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991).
B. B. Curriculum diversity. Course diversity functioned as a bridge between global and local concerns (Goodson, 2014). Global perspectives were introduced through language and culture courses, while other programs addressed local issues and socio-economic conditions. Uneven learner engagement with global topics revealed shortcomings in participatory strategies and public discussion, highlighting the need for stronger institutional support (Brookfield, 2013; Hall, 2009).
C. C. Professional development. Building faculty and administrative capacity remained a persistent challenge. Although the importance of global issues was widely acknowledged, resource limitations, shifting priorities, and competing localization goals created gaps between ideals and practice (Merriam & Brockett, 2022). Institutionalized training, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and knowledge-sharing platforms are necessary to strengthen staff ability to manage global–local dynamics.
V. Research Implications
This study highlights that community universities are not merely educational sites but also active agents resisting cultural homogenization, promoting social transformation, and sustaining cultural diversity (Giddens, 1990; Castells, 2010; Sassen, 2001). Their dialectical practices in curriculum, governance, and community engagement reveal the multilayered dynamics of global–local interaction. By situating community universities within the sociology of globalization, this study advances understanding of how adult education mediates global integration and local identity. Three recommendations follow:
This study argues that community universities should institutionalize localization as a guiding principle for curriculum and governance (Pinar, 2012), ensuring complementarity between global imperatives and local practices. Long-term professional development is likewise necessary to strengthen educators’ capacity to address global–local tensions, while community partnerships can facilitate reciprocal flows of knowledge that position universities as both cultural preservers and social innovators. Future research should pursue cross-national comparisons to explore how different political, economic, and cultural contexts shape these dynamics, thereby advancing the theoretical and practical relevance of adult education in a globalized era.

Authors

• Sheng-Ju Chan, National Chung Cheng University

• Amy Shumin Shumin Chen, National Tsing Hua University Taiwan