The Impact of the Globalism/Nationalism/Nativism Push-Pull on the Social Responsibility of Higher Education

• In Event: Highlighted Session: The social responsibility of higher education: What do we owe, and to whom?

Proposal

Over the last few decades, globalization has been seen as a constant force, which "provides a one way road to the future” (James, 2009, p. 1). Propelled by innovations that brought countries closer together, such as the telegraph, railroads,jet aircraft, fiber optics to today’s Internet (Samuelson, 2019), nations sought to benefit from this seemingly unstoppable force through varied organizations aimed at facilitating collaboration and integration. Recent events though provide contrary evidence that questions this inevitability narrative. For example, at the 2019 United Nations General Assembly debate, USA president Donald Trump declared an end to globalization arguing that it is a threat to national identities. According to President Trump, “the truth is plain to see. If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold onto your sovereignty. And if you want peace, love your nation. Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first. The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations, who protect their citizens respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.” Historian Harold James (2009) cautioned nearly a decade earlier that one reason for the potential end of globalism could be that "humans and the institutions they create cannot adequately handle the psychological and institutional consequences of the interconnected world. Institutions, especially those created to tackle the problems of globalism, come at particular moments of crisis under strains that are so great as to preclude their effective operation. They become the major channels through which resentment against globalization work their destruction” (James, 2009, p. 5).

Education, specifically higher education, seems to be undergoing a similar process. The once celebrated process of higher education globalization and internationalization through regional integration, has either stalled, evolved, or is now viewed with suspicion. The Bologna Process, which was once seen as a model for an innovative approach to higher education worth exporting to other parts of the world (Alemu, 2019; Khelfaoui, 2009), is now questioned and reviewed in terms not only of commitment to implementation and harmonization (Vögtle, 2019) but also perceived unwanted and unforeseen consequences (Wihlborg, 2019).

This process portends significant potential implications for the social responsibility of higher education. Whether social responsibility is framed as meeting the private needs of individuals (e.g., preparing skilled workers, strengthening national or regional economic development, etc.), meeting the public needs of society (preparing educated citizens, addressing the pressing social needs of communities, societies, or nations), or a mixture of both, the push/pull on higher education reflected in the tensions between globalism, nationalism, and nativism will produce long-lasting and likely unforeseen impacts.

The concept of push and pull is most often associated with studying immigration. Push-Pull theories, concepts and models tend to explain reason immigration as consisting “a compilation of economic, social, and political factors believed to force individuals to leave their native region or country and a similar list impelling them toward another” (Portes, 1987, p. 54) In the education space, the push-pull model as advanced by McMahon (1992) has been used to explain the flow of international students. In the push and pull model, the push “suggested the student flow was dependent on the level of economic wealth, the degree of involvement of the developing country in the world economy, the priority placed on education by the government of the developing country and the availability of educational opportunities in the home country” (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002, p. 82). On the pull side the “model suggested student attraction to a host country was influenced by the relative sizes of the student’s home country economy compared to the host country, economic links between the home and host country, host nation political interests in the home country through foreign assistance or cultural links and host nation support of international students via scholarships or other assistance” (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002, p 82). In this study, the push-pull factors we are exploring are those that interplay between globalism, Nationalism and Nativism.

The objective of this paper is to critically analyze the push-pull tensions on the social responsibility of higher education. Using the methods of document analysis and thematic analysis, this study explores how the ideological forces of globalism, nationalism, and nativism are impacting global higher education. The aim is to situate the process within the context in which triumphalism of one pole (ideology) invariably provokes a sharp reaction of pushing towards another pole (ideology) (James, 2009). For the sake of this study, we define globalism as the ideal that the proper sphere for addressing educational, cultural and commercial issues is the world as a single unit. Consequently, globalization is defined as the processes--whether intentional or unintentional--through which this ideal is advanced. We define nationalism as the ideal that the proper sphere for addressing the same issues is one’s nation. And we define nativism as the ideal that one’ group--whether based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, gender, indigenous heritage, or another identity--is the proper sphere for addressing these issues. Thus, woven through each of these definitions are implications regarding the social responsibility of higher education. By examining the push-pull between these three ideologies, we hope to engender dialogue regarding current and emerging realities.

References

Alemu, S. K. (2019). African higher education and the Bologna Process. European Journal of Higher Education, 9(1), 118-132.
James, H. (2009). The end of globalization: lessons from the Great Depression. Harvard University Press.
Khelfaoui, H. (2009). The Bologna Process in Africa: Globalization or return to colonial situation. Journal of higher education in Africa, 7(1-2), 21-38.
Mazzarol, T. & Soutar, G.N. (2002), "“Push‐pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, (16) 2, pp. 82 90. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210418403
Portes, A. (1987). One Field, Many Views: Competing Theories of International Migration. Center for Migration Studies special issues, 5(3), 53-70.
Robert J. Samuelson (2019). Political pressures rolled back globalization before. It can happen again. Retrieved 25 September at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/political-pressures-rolled-back-globalization-before-it-can-happen-again/2019/09/08/ac76be96-d0d5-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

Authors

• Tutaleni I. Asino, Oklahoma State University

• Stephen P. Wanger, Oklahoma State University