Examining the Australian relationship with India in ... · Go8 universities for the Indian students and its remarkable performance in research collaboration, this Group lacks of strategy

Examining the Australian relationship with India in

postgraduate education and research

A report drafted for

Group of Eight Universities of Australia

Maria Ester Carrasco

An Intern with the Australian National Internships Program

16 October 2013

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The importance of international education has increased during the last two decades due

to the process of globalization. For Australia, the third largest exporter of educational

services in the world, this has transformed its education, especially in tertiary level.

Additionally, Asian countries are rising as the new economic power and Australia’s

future depends on its capacity to manage the relationship with the new giants in an array

of aspects, such as social, economic, political and academic among others. India, one of

the new powers in Asia, it will play a key role in Australia development, particularly in

the education market as part of the internationalization of education process.

This report commissioned by the secretariat of the Board of the Group of Eight (Go8)

presents the results of the analysis of the Australian relationship with India in

postgraduate education and research, and the recommendations for the national level, but

particularly for the Go8 improve relationship with India. To do so, this report examines

the international education process where international collaboration evolves, and

discusses some major perspectives, then provides the theoretical analysis and lastly

presents the data analysis.

Collected data included quantitative and qualitative data and it was structured upon the

framework of the General Agreement on Trade and Services and research (GATS) and

collaboration model.

This report shows that the relationship with India in postgraduate education and research

is undeveloped in the national level and that, despite the competitive advantages of the

iii

Go8 universities for the Indian students and its remarkable performance in research

collaboration, this Group lacks of strategy for India.

This report recommends to maintain the level of commitment at the national level, in

particular continue with the Australian Indian Strategic Research Fund, which is a key

factor in the relationship with India, and for the Go8 it recommends design a strategy that

work on the ground in India.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First to all I would like to thank to the team that works in the secretariat of the Group of

Eight Universities Ltd for giving me the chance for conduct this research. I would like to

specially thank to my supervisor Martin Grabert, for his patient in answering question

and reviewing documents, Alec Webb who was kindly helping me to analyse the data,

Helen Montesin who always provided the information needed and Amelia Witheridge for

providing everything for accomplish my task.

I am very thankful to the Australian National University (ANU) for the Internship

program; Not only the program is one my richest professional experience but also my

first opportunity to undertake research. To Paul Wong and Brett Cuthbertson from the

office of the research excellence, who provided the data about co-authored paper that

were rarely available. I also appreciate the comments of Bjoern Dressel, lecture of

Crawford School who guided me with the research methodology.

Among all, I would like to thanks to my family-friends in Canberra, who have helped and

supported me not only for the elaboration of this report but also during my studies: Astri

Waluyo, Amin Kaliqui, and Thein Than, but especially Carla Douglas for encouraging

me finishing the report and Andereas Nugraha and Tracey Blunck, my proof readers.

Without them it would have been impossible to develop my ability in articulating ideas in

language other than my mother tongue.

iii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ II

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures and Illustrations ...........................................................................................v List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature ........................................................... vi

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND ........................................................................................10 1.1 Internationalization of education: a brief summary .................................................10 1.2 The international education in the context of GATS and research ..........................14

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ......................................17

2.1 Methodological considerations: research international collaboration and GATS ...17 2.2 Research design and methodology ..........................................................................19

CHAPTER 3: COLLABORATION BETWEEN INDIA AND AUSTRALIA ................25

3.1 The Overall picture: International education in Australia and higher education

in India ...................................................................................................................25 3.1.1 Internationalization of education in Australia: ................................................25 3.1.2 Overview of India’s higher education system .................................................28

3.2 Overview of collaboration between India and Australia: ........................................32

CHAPTER 4: EXAMINATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COLLABORATION

WITH INDIA ............................................................................................................38 4.1 GATS analysis .........................................................................................................38 4.2 Research Collaboration Analysis .............................................................................44

4.2.1 Application of the Research Collaboration Framework in the Australia-

India partnership ..............................................................................................44

4.2.2 Analysing the outputs of the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund, the

key driver factor ...............................................................................................47 4.2.3 Research output: Co-authored papers ..............................................................49

CHAPTER 5: WHAT DO THE STAKEHOLDERS THINK? .........................................56

5.1 Perception and opinion of the national performance ...............................................57 5.2 Perception and opinion of the Go8 performance .....................................................60

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS ...........................................64

ANNEXES .........................................................................................................................69

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................80

iv

List of Tables

Table 1: Australian coordination bodies related with Australia-India partnership in

postgraduate education and research......................................................................... 36

Table 2: Participation rate of Go8 in Indian students enrolments by Level of study,

2002-2012 ................................................................................................................. 43

Table 3: Number of Indian student awarded by Australia Awards Endeavour

Scholarships and Fellowships, 2006-2012 ................................................................ 35

Table 4: Share of International fee-paying in the revenue of Universities in Australia

2000-2011 ................................................................................................................. 69

Table 5: Enrolment Indian student year to date by level, program and institution,

2002-2012 ................................................................................................................. 70

Table 6: Commencements Indian student year to date by level, program and

institution, 2002-2012 ............................................................................................... 71

Table 7: Percentage of Indian Student enrolment in terms of total inbound students

(All international students), 2002-2012 .................................................................... 72

Table 8: Go8 Participation rate in the total of Indian student enrolments by type of

program, 2002-2012 .................................................................................................. 72

Table 9: Percentage of Indian Student commencements in terms of total inbound

students (All international students), 2002-2012 ...................................................... 73

Table 10: Number of active agreements between Indian and Australian universities. ..... 74

Table 11: Distribution AIRSF by year and institution type, period 2006-2012 ............... 75

Table 12: Numbers of projects funded by field, time series 2006-2012 ........................... 76

Table 13: Numbers of projects by field and type of Institution, time series 2006-2012 .. 77

Table 14: Co-authored publications by type of institution, period 2000-2010 ................. 79

v

List of Figures and Illustrations

Figure 1: Indicators in this study according to GATS ...................................................... 23

Figure 2: Research Collaboration Framework .................................................................. 24

Figure 3: Share of International fee-paying in the revenue of Universities in Australia

2000-2011 ................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 4: Comparative inbound Indian Student Go8/All universities, by program,

period 2002-2012 (Enrolments) ................................................................................ 41

Figure 5: Comparative inbound Indian Student Go8/All universities, by program,

period 2002-2012 (Commencement) ........................................................................ 42

Figure 6: Participation rate of Go8 in Indian students enrolments by program, 2002-

2012 ........................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 7: Outbound student from Australia to India, 2007-2012 ..................................... 44

Figure 8: Amount distribution of AISRF by Institution and year round, 2006-2012 ....... 48

Figure 9: Growth rate in Co-authored paper with India, Top three countries, time

series 2000-2010 ....................................................................................................... 49

Figure 10: India-Australia volume of joint publication and comparison of Average

citation, period 2000-2010 ........................................................................................ 51

Figure 11:Co-authored and India citation comparison across field, 1996-2010 ............... 52

Figure 12: Growth of Co-authored paper by institutions. Time series 2000-2010 ........... 53

Figure 13: Top ten institutions in number of Co-authored paper, time period 2000-

2010 ........................................................................................................................... 54

Figure 14: Number of Co-authored paper with India and Share of 4 countries, 2000-

2010 ........................................................................................................................... 78

Figure 15: Index Growth rate in Co-authored papers top three Australian Institutions,

time series 2000-2010 ............................................................................................... 79

vi

List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature

Symbol Definition

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics AEI Australian Education International AICTE India Council for Technical Education AIEC Australia India Education Council AII Australian India Institute AISRF Australia-India Strategic Research Fund AUSTRADE Australian Trade Commission CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate CSIRO Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade DIAC Department of Immigration and Citizenship DIICCSRTE Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science,

Research and Tertiary Education ESOS Education Services for Overseas Students GATS General Agreement on Trade and Services GER Gross Enrolment Ratio Go8 Group of Eight IEAA International Education Association of Australia IEAC International Education Advisory Council NAAC National Assessment and Accreditation Council NBA National Board of Accreditation NKC National Knowledge Commission OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PhD Doctor of Philosophy UA Universities of Australia UGC University Grant Commission UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WTO World Trade Organization

7

INTRODUCTION

The Asian White Paper released by the Australian Government during 2012 is a broad

declaration of the importance of Asia for Australia in the next century. The stability and

prosperity of Australia will depend on the capacity that political, social, economic and

academic relation might be conducted. Countries such as China, Japan and India will be

particularly important. Indeed India’s economy is forecasted to grow by 6.75% in the

period 2012-2025 (Australian-Government, 2012, p. 51).

In this context international education is and will be one of the cornerstones of

Australia’s development. By the year 2000, 10.2% of the revenues of Australian

universities came from fee-paying overseas students, while in 2011 the figure increased

up to 17.4% (Table 4 appendix, DIICCSRTE). Furthermore, Deloitte projects that in the

future, Australia’s development will be sustained by international education as its fourth

largest sources of national income, based in particular on exports to China and India

(Business Review Weekly, 2013). Therefore is essential to define an Australian strategy

in higher education for these countries, focusing on postgraduate education where 40.8%

of the international students concentrates (Group of Eight, 2013), but in particular within

the universities of the Go8.

In order to define a strategy is required to analyse the environment under international

education develops. There is a debate in the literature about international education that

identifies its impacts, rationales and expectations, benefits and gains, and its influence

shifting the ideology about the role of education. One key variable in the international

education is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). This treaty has

8

affected the context of Australia’s international education and thus its collaboration

agreements.

In consideration that international education is one cornerstone of Australia’s

development and that India is projected to be projected as the most important partner in

this area, the objectives of this research commissioned by the Go8, is twofold: to examine

the Australian relationship with India in postgraduate education and research, and to

identify areas for improvements. This research examines the Australia’s performance at

the national level but is particularly concerned with the performance of the Go8

universities and mechanism to improve their international education relationship with

India.

The design of methodology integrates quantitative and qualitative methods using

interviews for data collection. The intervieews are Australian key players of this

relationship. The analysis will be focused on the period 2000-2012, thought the dataset

not always examine the same period, for a number of reasons that are provide in the

methodology design chapter.

To accomplish the objectives of this research, the first chapter covers the main concepts

of internationalization of education and its relevance to understand the context of the

Australian relationship with India. The second chapter explains the research methodology

and the framework that underpins the examination of this relationship. The third chapter

provides an overview of this collaboration, providing information about the international

education in Australia and the higher education in India. The fourth chapter analyses the

relationship between Australia and India in postgraduate education and research

9

following the framework discussed in the methodology (chapter 2), that refers to GATS

and research collaboration models. The chapter fifth presents the qualitative analysis and

the chapter sixth conclude by giving some recommendation for the improvement of the

Australian relationship with India at the national level and for the Go8.

10

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND

‘Well I’m pretty old fashioned. Obviously the higher

education sector is a contributor to GDP, and it is

important for our economy, but in the end universities are

there to pursue learning, they’re there to be the guardians

of truth, they’re there to push the boundaries of knowledge’

Tony Abbott (Grattan, 2013)

1.1 Internationalization of education: a brief summary

Although it has old roots, the internationalization of higher education, has been triggered

by globalization. According to Muller (Cited in J. Knight & De Wit, 1995, p. 6) in the

past, education and science had the aim of global knowledge and universities were seen

as global goods. Further, is possible to identify different stages of education throughout

history: during the Middle Ages and Renaissance period, education across Europe was

delivered in Latin; then in the 18th

century, the colonial elite studied in the colonizer’s

universities and similar to nowadays, research was shared at conferences and seminars; in

the period after World War II international education shifted to become more cooperative

between countries but also more competitive among world leaders, which at that time

were the United State and the Soviet Union (J. Knight & De Wit, 1995, pp. 7-9).

Nowadays the internationalization of the education process is influenced by

globalization. Tilak affirms that ‘the internationalization of education is one the key

features of this century and an integral part of the cultural globalization’ (2011, p. 19) and

11

Albatch et al .(2009) indicate that globalization has profoundly ‘influenced higher

education’ (p. ii), in a number of areas such as in the mission and goals of universities,

curriculum reforms, offshore entrepreneurships and study abroad and exchange programs

(Hobson, 2007). Indeed, Guruz estimates that in 1950 only 110,000 foreign student were

enrolled around the world, in 2010 the number had increased to 2.7 million and in 2020

the figure will be 8 million (2011, p. 203). Besides student mobility, which is one of the

most well-known aspects of the internationalization of education, the number of

collaborative agreements for research between foreign universities has increased due to

the new opportunities that have arisen (Albatch et al., 2009; Tilak, 2011, p. 100).

Nonetheless the definition of internationalization of higher education is still an ongoing

discussion. A number of authors (Beck, 2012; J. Knight & De Wit, 1995; Marginson &

Wende, 2007; Tilak, 2008) summarize the array of definitions of the internationalization

of higher education demonstrating how difficult is to arrive to a consensus. However, a

literature review suggests that one common definitions is proposed by Knight (2004,

2006) who ‘sees it as a process that integrates the international, intercultural and global

dimension into the key functions of a university as well as into its mode of operation’

(cited in Egron-Polak, 2012, p. 58).

There are a number of rationalities and expectation effects of the internationalization of

higher education. The internationalization of education is supposed to provide a number

of benefits such as: encouraging economic growth through investment, increasing human

capital, updating skills for the labour market, increasing cultural awareness, bringing

innovation in the curricula of universities and improving the quality of education (J.

12

Knight & De Wit, 1995; Mitra & Boro, 2010; Tilak, 2008). Additionally, rationales for

internationalizing higher education include profits, political power (through soft

diplomacy) as well as social and academic reasons (J. Knight & De Wit, 1995; Qiang,

2003; Tilak, 2011). Even more, since higher education is entering a period of crisis,

encompassing budget cutbacks (Albatch et al., 2009), the internationalization of higher

education emerges as one source of income for financing higher education systems within

countries.

However the benefits seem to be unevenly distributed amongst developed and developing

countries. Caillods and Varghese outline that ‘in general, students move from less

developed to developed countries, whereas institutions move from developed to

developing countries. In both cases, money moves from developing to the developed

countries’ (in Tilak, 2011, p. 10). In fact, figures of student mobility show that OECD

countries host ‘85% of the world’s foreign students (…) however, in 2007, two-thirds

(67%) of the foreign students located in the OECD area were from a non- OECD member

country’ (OECD, 2009, p. 65). Additionally, there are critics of the economic approach of

the internationalization of higher education and its neoliberal market-oriented dominating

view (Beck, 2012) .

In terms of the gains of internationalization of education, there are two approaches, one

focus on the human rights and the other focus on the economic. On the one hand

UNESCO ‘emphasizes the role of human rights and peace in education’ (Martínez de

Morentin, 2011, p. 598), while on the other hand the World Trade Organization (WTO)

considers education as a commodity regulated by its treaty, the General Agreement on

13

Trade in Services (GATS), that boosts income for developed countries (Altbach &

Knight, 2007; J. Knight, 2002; Marginson & Wende, 2007; Mitra & Boro, 2010).

From UNESCO’s perspective the internationalization of education should promote

human rights, support autonomy and freedom of expression within universities and

amongst academics, respect and protection for cultural heritage, as well as global issues

(Calleja, 1995). From the perspective of GATS the internationalization of higher

education increases the scope of the market and financial gains. This is the dominant

view in cross border cooperation (Gu ru z, 2011; Marginson & Wende, 2007; Tilak, 2008;

Tilak, 2011; OECD, 2004b).

The increasing international collaboration in this context of international education has

not been without problems. Like educational systems within countries, education at the

international level faces issues in terms of: equity, because there seems to be broadening

in the gap between socio-economic groups; and capacity building and quality assurance,

where the massification is pressuring for more programs and different delivery modes,

challenging the quality assurance mechanism (Albatch et al., 2009; De Wit & Knight,

1999; OECD, 2004).

The analysis of international education in terms of its impacts, rationales, benefits and

expectations, the ideological considerations and the influence of GATS, can be illustrated

in the case of higher education collaboration between India and Australia. The next

chapter examines how the context of international education determines the Australian

relationship with India.

14

1.2 The international education in the context of GATS and research

The influence of GATS in the internationalization of higher education and therefore

international collaboration in education is examined by considering the rules of the treaty.

Bhushan describes five subsectors in education services defined by WTO in GATS: ‘i)

primary educations services; ii) secondary education services; (iii) higher education

services; (iv) adult education services and v) others’ (2009, p. 2395), though each sector

is not strictly determined.

Despite the importance of GATS and its implications for the internationalization of

higher education, there are significant components of education that are not included.

Trosby discusses four different components of internationalization of education ‘foreign

student programmes, academic staff movement, curriculum development and

internationalization of research’ (Throsby, p. 91). Even more ‘transnational education

accounts for only a small fraction of the annual volume of total global trade in services’

(Gu ru z, 2011, p. 191), therefore GATS does not regulate important aspect of the

knowledge creation process.

Consequently, examining the international relationship in education between two

countries requires going further than the GATS framework. Research collaboration

brings other types of benefits such as new ideas and possibilities of international

connections (Australian Government, 2012). In effect, in the case of Australia, the so-

called Knight review declared that in the case of international PhD students, the revenues

were ‘almost incidental. The main driver for wanting PhD students is the talent, the skills

15

and the research opportunities they embody’ (2011, p. ix). Consequently examining the

research international collaboration demands a supplementary framework.

India and Australia are examples of the internationalization of higher education. Australia

illustrates the process as a developed country and India does as a developing country. On

the one hand Australia is one of the leaders of international education exporting on

average AUD$15,497 million over the last three years, making education Australia’s

fourth largest export in 2012 (DFAT, 2013). On the other hand India is a country with a

population of more than 25 million students in higher education and it has been declared

as one of the largest educational market in the world for private investment (The

Economist Times, 2013). Indeed, India requires the foreign investment in education to

tap the market and fill the gap of education supply; however problems with quality

assurance and equity undermine the impact of educational goals.

The different aspects of international education can be illustrated by India and Australia.

Firstly, in Australia the internationalization of higher education has led to changes in the

curriculum, universities’ structures and even national organization, where institutions

have been created for promoting Australian education overseas. In India the impacts are

still hidden due to the recent introduction of international universities, however there has

been an ideological shift in the role of education since the reforms which took place

during nineties which introduced the private sector delivery of education. Secondly, the

rationales for the internationalization of education Australia are to be a producer of

educational services for economic gains and political considerations. Whereas for India

it is the same but as a consumer of educational services, thus the rationale is increasing

16

human capital. This analysis is linked with the third point about economic gains that are

unequally distributed between developed and developing countries. Fourth, in the case of

Australia international education is predominantly a commodity but in the case of India it

seems to be that education is still a public good.

17

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Methodological considerations: research international collaboration and GATS

The literature review suggests that whereas the definition of research collaboration and its

explanatory factors have certain consensus, its performance indicators for measuring are

still controversial. Katz and Martin outline factors that contribute to collaboration, such

as: funding, motivation for research visibility, the requirements of the environments, the

level of specialization by the field and the interdisciplinary requirements (1997, pp. 3-

4). In this context sources of collaboration are proximity, teacher-student relations and

peer relations. Likewise, Gorur and Loton (2013) find that in the literature there are

common explanatory factors for engaging in international collaboration, for instance:

access to resources, pathway to development and global research. Nevertheless the

measurement of research outcomes is controversial. While Katz and Martin recognize

that joint publication is not a good indicator of research collaboration but tt allows direct

measurement and comparison, Gorur and Loton discard the joint publications as a gage of

international collaborations. Consequently, examining the collaboration in research

implicates a multidimensional analyses.

18

The analysis of the research collaboration combine quantitative indicators with

theoretical perspectives. On the one hand, the bibliometrics1 offers a statistical

perspective for publications analysis designating patterns and trends of research across

for instance: productivity (count of papers), total recognition/influence (citation counts),

efficiency (average citation per paper and H-index) (Thomson Reuters, n.d.). This is a

useful tool for policy makers that have extensively used it as advisory source2 and is used

to measure collaboration by international organizations such as OECD (Vincent-Lancrin,

2009). On the other hand Wash and Kahn (2010) develop a comprehensive model about

research collaboration including its nature, organizational structures, challenges,

management at different stage and its context. This model allows possible analyses on the

quality of the process of collaboration in research. In 2013, AIEE released two studies

about the research collaboration between this two country that cover extensively the

aspect of Wash and Kahn’s model.

This study examines the partnership between India and Australia in postgraduate

education and research, in terms of GATS and is based on bibliometrics plus qualitative

analysis. In the first case, figure 1 illustrates the direction of the research in regards of

GATS modes and the corresponding indicators. In the second case, figure 2 represents

the variables in Walsh and Kahn ‘s model. This second part is built on the studies

commissioned by AIEE and from the interviews conducted in this research.

1 Bibliometrics is the statistical analysis of publications. For more information please see Macquarie

University (2013) 2 There are a number of reports about bibliometrics measures that have been commissioned by different

institutions in order to benchmark certain countries. One example is the Bibliometric report about India

(Thomson Reuters, 2010)

19

2.2 Research design and methodology

This research is commissioned by the Go8 in the context of international education, and

is structured on two questions:

How is the current relationship between Australia and India in postgraduate

education and research, particularly within the Go8 universities?

How can the relationship be improved, in particular for the Go8 universities?

Consequently this research has two objectives: to examine the Australian relationship

with India in postgraduate education and research and to identify areas for improvements.

Particularly this research is concerned about the performance of the Group of Eight

Universities (Go8) and how these universities can improve their international education

relationship with India.

The scope of this research is at the national level in Australia and the field research was

conducted between August and October 2013. The performance of the Go8 universities

will be determined by the national structures, thus in order to examine the Go8

relationship with India, it requires to analyse the national level. Due to time constraints

the research examines Australia perspective, omitting India as exporter to Australia. The

time period analysed is 2000-2012; however not all the dataset permits a temporal

analysis.

The methods used are quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative data collection based

on secondary sources are available either on the website of government institutions or in

other cases directly provided by institution for the purposes of this research. It includes

20

information as follow: number of inbound Indian students enrolments and

commencements3, outbound of Australian students to India, distribution of research

funding in Australia, number of Australian co-authored paper with India by field and

year, average citation of Australia and India by itself and co-authored papers and number

of Indian student awarded by Australia, number of agreements between Australia and

Indian universities. This part of the research responds mainly to the first question,

although also provides insights to respond the second.

The qualitative data is collected by conducting semi-structured interviews to the

Australian key policy maker and stakeholders at institutional level who manage or

influence the relationship with India in higher education and research. It identifies the

opinion of those actors about the relationship with India and areas for improvements,

particularly for Go8. The sampling for the interviews was defined by snowball technique

and triangulation. Due to time limitations, it was considered one the interview by each

institution. The participants interviewed belong to the following organizations: Australia

India Institute, Australian High Commission in India(former public servant), Australian

Trade Commission (Austrade), Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change,

Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE)4, The Commonwealth Scientific

and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and Universities of Australia (UA). One

key institution that did not participate, is the Australian Indian Council that was unable to

3 Both, the enrolments and commencement need to be include because each has shortfalls of analysis. For

more information see AIE, (2006) 4 At the time that the research was conducted that was the name of the department, but highly probable

might change with the new authorities.

21

interview. An additional participant was Radhika Gorur from the Victoria Institute, who

conducted two studies about research collaboration between India and Australia and that

are used in this report for examine research collaboration between this two countries.

This part of the research responds mainly to the second question.

The quantitative data analysis is structured following the GATS framework and

bibliometrics analysis. The indicators used for GATS analysis are described in figure 1.

In general this research uses three types of descriptive statistic: the number and media

(average) year by year, the index growth time period and the average of share rate. The

number and average year by year permit to evaluate the trends in absolutes figures.

The qualitative analysis method used was content analysis structured in XX aspects, the

general opinion about the Australian relationship with India in postgraduate education

and research, its features, its main variables and their performance, the areas and action

for improvements, and the main obstacles.

The limitations of this research concern on capacity to examine the partnership from

countries point of view, the accuracy and representativeness of the institutional position

by interviewing one officer or employee within the organization. The validity of this

research relies on the capacity to examine the Australian relationship with India but from

the Australian perspective. The conclusion it might change if we consider the Indian side.

The scope of this research is at national level but generally only one person by each key

institution identified was interviewed which can lead to bias conclusions. Nevertheless

the qualitative data is complemented with the quantitative data collection, whose

reliability and validity for measure each variable rely on the use of methods standardized

22

by other organizations and academics, such as the Go8 itself when examining student

mobility or Thomson Reuters when examining outputs of research collaboration.

23

Figure 1: Indicators in this study according to GATS

Source: Author based on GATS.

24

Figure 2: Research Collaboration Framework

Source: Author based on Walsh and Kahn’s model (2010)

25

CHAPTER 3: COLLABORATION BETWEEN INDIA AND AUSTRALIA

‘The problem is that increasing numbers

Come out of the high school system,

we don’t have the capacity to absorb them (…)

there is a massive mismatch in the supply-demand

of proportions that have never seen anywhere

or anytime in the world before’

Pramath Raj Sinha , Funding Dean

India School of Business (Singh, 2013)

3.1 The Overall picture: International education in Australia and higher education

in India

3.1.1 Internationalization of education in Australia:

Australia was one of the first countries to internationalize its higher education, but its

policy has experienced changes in the last decades and it will continue in the future. After

World War II, Australia positioned itself as the international education provider for Asian

countries with the aid package known as the Colombo plan (Smith, 1970). This plan was

an initiative that brought hundreds of Asian students to Australian universities. However

the situation ‘has dramatically changed in the past 20 years. Federal government policy in

26

1986 moved the education of foreign students from a taxpayer-subsidized activity to a

highly successful export industry…thus government intervention created a market-led

approach’ (Adams, 2007, pp. 411-412). In order to restructure and improve the

competitiveness of Australia’s international education sector, the Education Services for

Overseas Students Act (ESOS) was enacted in 2000 to regulate institutional requirements

and control the delivery of courses offered to international students (AEI, n.d.-a). The

number of onshore students in higher education increased until 2009, when reached its

peak. Enrollment rates have since declined due to the rising Aussie dollar, proliferation of

competitors around the world, particularly Asia and the incidents in Melbourne that

resulted in a perception that Australia was an unsafe environment for studies5 (IEAC,

2012; M. Knight, 2011). In the year 2011, given the issues with international students

raised by the protest in Melbourne, Michael Knight recommended a series of changes to

the student visa program with the objective of identifying ‘genuine students’ and

‘genuine temporary entrants’ (2011). The changes were endorsed during the same year

and early 2012, shifting Australia’s international education and immigration policies.

Shad and Sid Nair argue that the shift has discouraged international student to come to

Australia (2011). With the change in the government new shifts are expected again. The

new Minister of Education declared recently that the elected government will rebuild the

5 In Melbourne during 2009, big protest and social disrupt started in regards to an Indian student that was

stabbed with a screwdriver. For more information please see, http://www.theage.com.au/national/indian-

anger-boils-over-20090531-brrm.html#ixzz2hIGCZcis or http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-05-

31/thousands-protest-against-indian-student-attacks/1699888

27

international education sector (Barlow, 2013) and the New Colombo plan is an example

of this (Financial Review, 2013).

Despite the variations in international education policy in Australia, international

education is one of the cornerstones of the country. Firstly, growing at a rate of 14%

yearly (Hall & Hooper, 2008), by 2009-2010 the educational related travel services was

the largest export and higher education counted for 57.4% of that figure (ABS, 2012). By

2012, education was the fourth largest export in Australia, though it has decreased 12%

compared with 2010 (DFAT, 2013). Secondly, the financial gains that support

universities in the national context are growing. Following figure 1, since 2000, overseas

fee-paying students, have increased their contribution to the revenue of Australian

universities from 10.2% to 17.4%. This is reflective of the importance of international

students within the Australian higher education system, which in 2007 was 22.5%, the

second highest rate after New Zealand (OECD, 2009, p. 66). Furthermore, the related

benefits also include skilled migration to Australia, where ‘around one-third… are former

international students’ (Australian Government 2012, p. 126). Thirdly, international

education is an important instrument for enhancing diplomatic Australian relations

because it facilitates the future of business and economic relations specially with the

Asia-Pacific (OECD, 2004b, p. 167). Fourthly, it enriches cultural diversity and

awareness, bringing world class into universities (IEAC, 2012).

The outstanding development of international education in Australia has faced challenges

common to the rest of the world. To expand their market, education exporter countries

have to deal with partners’ dilemmas such as the government as provider and/or

28

regulator, foreign provision in foreign countries and/or foreign provision at home,

minimising brain drain and maximising brain gain, augmenting research and maximising

technology transfer (OECD, 2004b, p. 162). As a number of authors realize, there are key

issues that affect the development of international education in the country, for instance:

affordability of tuition fees, safe environment, possibilities of internship and

strengthening of research collaboration, pastoral care programs and the quality of

offshore programs (IEAA, 2012; IEAC, 2012) .

Figure 3: Share of International fee-paying in the revenue of Universities in

Australia 2000-2011

Source: Higher Education Finance Reports 2001-2011 (DIISRTE). See annexes table 4.

3.1.2 Overview of India’s higher education system

Indian forecasts anticipate that India will become one of the most influential countries in

the world, in terms of higher education, within the next few years. In the period 2012-

10.2% 11.4%

12.5% 13.8%

$14.5% 15.1

14.9%

$15%

15.5%

$16.7%

17.5%

17.4%

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

Income universityminus Internationaldomestic fees

Fees from fee-paying overseasStudents

29

2025 India is forecasted to growth at 6.75% and increase the output per person to 20%

(Australian-Government, 2012, p. 51). Indeed, between 2000 and 2010 India’s share of

world GDP rose from 4% to 6% (OECD, 2013b, p. 50). As a consequence, a new middle

class will emerge changing patterns of demand and supply around the world and in the

case of India this has greatly affected the demand for education. Even more, world

economic power is expected to shift from US and Europe to China and India, though not

soft power that will depend ‘crucially on their ability to act as models for economic,

political and societal development, in particular in their neighborhoods’(EUISS, 2013, p.

18). In this context the higher education system will become essential for sustainable

economy.

Overviews of the Indian higher education system have already been done by several

authors and organizations (Deloitte, 2012; FICCI, 2012; Joshi & Ahir, 2013; Rizvi &

Gorur, 2011; Sunder, 2012; UGC, 2012, 2012b). Among those authors there are common

patterns of description: the impressive growth and size of the system in terms of student

enrolments and institutions, the quality disparity among institutions and in the

participation by areas (where engineering dominates), low public expenditure,

distribution and expansion possibilities, the complex regulation scene and the division

between central government and state level. The enrolment ratio in India by 2000 and

2010 was 9.404.460 and 20.740.740 respectively (UNESCO, n.d.). With approximately

659 institutions operating in the sector, educating the third largest population of students

in the world (FICCI, 2012), ‘if current trends continue, China and India will account for

30

40% of all young people with a tertiary education in G20 and OECD countries by the

year 2020’ (OECD, 2012).

Having evolved within a complex institutional arrangement, the Indian higher education

system lacks governance and is highly bureaucratic. Carnoy and Dossani (2013) argue

that higher education governance, developed towards the role of the state follows four

periods: colonial, Nheruvian, Indira Gandhi and the reforms period. Governance was

exercised by the central government and the states, leading to ‘the impact on achieving

goals was mixed and usually did not match national policies priorities’ (Carnoy &

Dossani, 2013, p. 597). Joshi and Ahir also conclude that governance in India is complex

due to unclear regulations (2013, p. 51). Representative of the complexity is the

organizational structure of India (AEI, n.d.-c): there are two types of higher institutions

those entitled to award degrees, which are deemed universities and Institutions of

National importance, and those who are not, either public or private that offer non-degree

qualifications. At the same time universities can be categorized with regards to funding

into: central, state, state legislature and private, and with regards to entitlements of

teaching and awards degrees, into affiliate and those who are not. Besides the type of

institutions, there are four organizations related with the approval of functioning and the

accreditation process for assurance quality: University Grants Commission (UGC),

National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), India Council for Technical

Education (AICTE) and the National Board of Accreditation (NBA). Moreover, the

inflexibility, bureaucratic and corrupt practices of the system undermines the

31

improvements that can be done if receiving universities would increase their resources

(Rizvi & Gorur, 2011).

In addition to the governance issues, higher education in India suffers from quality

problems, a mismatch of supply-demand, among other issues. Common problems

identified in the literature are: supply gaps, quality, equity and efficiency (Joshi & Ahir,

2013; Rizvi & Gorur, 2011). The Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) reached 17.9% by 2011-

2012 (FICCI, 2012, p. 8), when for OECD countries it was 58% and 74% for female and

male respectively (OECD, n.d.). Despite the large universe of higher education

institutions, no Indian university ranked in the top 200 universities. Quality issues are

related with the supply gap and private institutions with profit interest; education demand

is so large that even low quality colleges and universities keep running and private

institutions seem to be reluctant to invest in high quality education, because of the

excessive rent seeking focus (Rizvi & Gorur, 2011; Sunder, 2012). Deconstructing

student enrolment figures in higher education, it is clear that there is an under

representation of postgraduate students: while graduates counts for 86% of the

population, 12% of the population is postgraduate and a mere 1% are research students

(UGC, 2012). This point towards the fact that ‘Indian universities and research

organizations have been resistant to change and innovation, partially because the system's

components are organized as independent bunkers’ (Sunder, 2012, p. 11), complicate the

situation even more for research.

To improve the situation, arrays of recommendations have been made and a series of

reforms have been introduced over the last twenty years. In 1996 the so-called Yash Pal

32

Committee (National Advisory Committee, 1993), proposed to create the National

Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER), to ease the UGC and by 2007

the first report of the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) recommended an increase

in the supply of education incorporating 1500 higher education institutions in total, and to

do so, to overcome barriers for foreign investment. Regardless of the critics such as Tilak

(2007), the higher education sector has undergone a privatization process since then.

The core of the recommendations is that international education is essential for filling the

supply gap. As Bushan points out, is general government and private sector agree that

India should open higher education to GATS (2004, p. 2397). According to Kapur and

Mehta (2007, cited in Joshi & Kinjal Vijay, 2013, p. 46), the privatization of higher

education is due to the incapacity of the domestic sector to response to educational

challenges and demand. Nevertheless, Rizvi and Gorur observe that ‘interest by elite

foreign institutions in providing education in India has so far been disappointingly low’

(2011, p. 9). In 2013, the Indian government authorized foreign universities to operate in

India without a national partner, though the Bill which deals with repatriation profit is

still before the parliament (Nanda, 2013). For Australia this might open unlimited

opportunities to engage with India in the higher education sector (AUSTRADE, 2013)

3.2 Overview of collaboration between India and Australia:

The participation of Australia in India is primarily a commodity approach. Gillan et al.

(2003), note that the Australian collaboration in higher education and research with India

33

has taken place over two periods: the higher education reform in Australia during eighties

and the shift in the education paradigm in India that restructured its funding sources . In

this regard, Tilak (1997) examines that despite the five year plan to improve the

education in India, and the desire of the increase public budgetary for Indian higher

education, the government cut down the spending leading the augment of Indian studying

overseas.

Indian students represent one of the largest groups studying in Australia. According to

OECD (2013) Asian students represent ‘53% of foreign students enrolled worldwide’ (p.

304 ) and ‘the second-largest proportion of international students in OECD countries

comes from India 6.5%’ (p. 313). Indeed, by 2010 India students were paying for 17% of

the total services export (ABS, 2012, p. 3), which represent their participation in the

student recruitment market.

During the last decade Australia has made efforts to engage with India’ beyond the

cricket’ (Gillan et al, 2003, p. 1395). During the last decade the number of agreements

between Indian and Australia universities has increased (Table 10, appendix). Since 2002

The Australian government has awarded 313 Indian students scholarships during the

period 2007-2012, representing 11% of the total and the largest source country (Awards,

n.d. see table 3 ). Later, in 2006 the government created the largest bilateral research fund

in the country, the Australia India Strategic Research Fund (AISRF). The objective of

this fund is to ‘help Australian researchers to participate in leading edge scientific

projects and workshops with Indian scientists. It supports the development of strategic

alliances between Australian and Indian researchers’ (Department of Department of

34

Industry, n.d.). Lastly, in 2008 and 2010 the Australia India Institute and Australia Indian

Education Council were set up, completing an organic picture about the governance of

the relationship between these two countries.

The institutional components of the Australian structure that guide the process and

influence the environment of collaboration with India are identified in table 26. This

research recognized 11 key institutions in the partnership with India based on two

criteria: (1) if according to the literature the institution was responsible for managing

programs within the collaboration framework, or (2) if according to the opinion of the

majority of stakeholders interviewed, the institution was important for the relationship.

The inclusion of CSIRO is a result of the latter criteria.

According the qualitative data analysis, the stakeholders declare that despite the

organization identified as key players (table 1) do not have a common strategy and do not

work altogether, they have an effective coordination without overlaps of functions or

responsibilities. In addition, in terms of authority the national bodies appear to be

horizontal.

6 One of the limitation of the information provide in the table is the temporary structure of de DIICCSRTE.

By the end of this study, a department’s restructuration was expected. The continuation of the AISRF also

was uncertain.

35

Table 1: Number of Indian student awarded by Australia Awards Endeavour

Scholarships and Fellowships, 2006-2012

Award Endeavour Inbound Outbound

Number % total

Number % total

Postdoctoral 161 51% 19 30%

Professional Development

87 28% 14 22%

PhD by Research 28 9% 13 20%

Other 37 12% 18 28%

Subtotal 313 100% 64 100%

Compare with Overall 2838 11% 733 9% Source: Information provided by DIICCSRTE, SECTION.

36

Table 2: Australian coordination bodies related with Australia-India partnership in postgraduate education and research

Australian Structure of partnership

Organization

Role and Responsibilities Programs

Australia India Council (2002) The AIEC is a bi-national body with representation from academia, policy makers and industry which aims to set the strategic direction of the bilateral education, training and research partnership and to develop strategic advice to focus and shape collaborative efforts. (AIEC, 2010)

Australia Awards Endeavour Australia India Education Council Research Fellowships (Short-Term research 2-4) -Australia India Education Leaders’ Exchange -2nd Australia India Vocational Education Leadership Training (VELT)

Australia India Institute (2008) The Australia India Institute (AII) is a leading centre for the study of India. AII is also a hub for dialogue, research and partnerships between India and Australia. Based at the University of Melbourne, the Institute hosts a growing range of programs that are deepening and enriching the relationship between the two countries.

Australia India Student Experience - Internships Victoria India Doctoral Scholarships Australia India Student Experience - Study Tour

Australian High Commission in India The official channel between India and Australia that gives support to educational services between this two countries

No program for India.

Australian Trade Commission (Austrade) Austrade is responsible for the international marketing and promotion of Australian education and training.

Innovation week in India

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

The purpose of the department is to build Australia’s future through the well-managed movement and settlement of people.

No program for India.

Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary

(Secretariat of) Australia Indian Education Council (2010)

The AIEC is a bi-national body with representation from academia, policy makers and industry which aims to set the strategic direction of the bilateral education, training and research partnership and to develop strategic advice to focus and shape collaborative efforts. (AIEC, 2010)

Australia Awards Endeavour Australia India Education Council Research Fellowships (Short-Term research 2-4) -Australia India Education Leaders’ Exchange -2nd Australia India Vocational Education Leadership Training (VELT)

(DIICCSRTE) This department through the Australian Education International (AEI), works to foster international partnerships, provide strategic policy advice, ensure quality, and enhance international students’ experiences

-The Australia-India Strategic Research Fund (AISRF) helps Australian researchers to participate in leading edge scientific projects and workshops with Indian scientists. It supports the development of strategic alliances between Australian and Indian researchers.

(Secretariat of) Australian Education International (AEI)

Is a division part of DIICCSRTE, that manages Australian Government policy in international education, including:

The Endeavour Scholarships and Fellowships.

37

Education (DIICCSRTE)

Support for the development of a long term strategy for international education through the work of International Education Advisory Council. Support for the national objectives of the Asian Century White Paper, including the AsiaBound program. Support for the Statement of Principles for the Ethical Recruitment of International Students. Management of data and research related to international education.

International Student Mobility.

(Secretariat of) International Education Advisory Council

The Council provides advice on the challenges and opportunities facing the international education sector in Australia.

No program for India.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, is Australia's national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world. CSIRO research delivers solutions for agribusiness, energy and transport, environment and natural resources, health, information technology, telecommunications, manufacturing and mineral resources

No program for India.

Universities of Australia (UA) Universities Australia seeks to be an active player in the determination and formulation of public policy, advocating on behalf of Australia's universities. The UA adopts the third wave approach which emphasises a broader and deeper conception of international education integration extending to faculty and research links, doctoral studies, wider disciplinary representation and Australian student study abroad. The goals here are educational richness and not simple revenue payoff.

Shadowing Pilot Program

38

CHAPTER 4: EXAMINATION OF AUSTRALIA’S COLLABORATION WITH

INDIA

4.1 GATS analysis

The GATS implications for India have been discussed in the literature. Tilak highlights

that whereas there are authors encouraging India’s commitment to GATS, the majority of

authors do not support it (2011). On the one hand some authors argues that GATS

represents market opportunities for Australia and for India a mechanism to ease the

higher education system and bring productivity gains and foster economic growth (Islam,

Alam, & Mukhopadhaya, 2012). On the other hand Bushan (2004) proposes to open

barriers to GATS under the condition of management reforms to protect domestic

institutions and certain areas where India is weak. The next section will describe the

situation in the four modes of supply from the Australia perspective to India, thus India as

importer.

The relationship between universities in these two countries seems to be intense.

According to information provided by Austrade, Australian universities maintain 178

active agreements with Indian universities (see annexes table 3), that can include study

abroad, student exchange staff exchange or research collaboration. The Australian

universities with largest number of agreements are: Griffith University, the University of

Western of Australia, University of New South Wales, University of Technology,

Sydney, La Trobe University and Queensland University of Technology. The Go8

39

universities, apart for the University of Western of Australia and the University of New

South Wales, have low representation in the total numbers. However as the research

shows, this is not truly an indicator about the level of engagement between Australia and

India.

Cross-border supply, mode I:

This refers to distance education or partner education provider (see chapter 1, figure 1).

There is one Australian university that emerged during the interview process and data

analysis which is referred to as successfully partnering with Indian universities under this

mode: Monash University. This university has established a partnership with the Indian

Institute of Technology Bombay. These organizations created the ITTB-Monash

Research Academy ‘to attract the best talent - students as well as academic and research

staff to work on goal directed, cross-disciplinary grand challenges’ (ITTB-Monash

Research Academy, n.d.).

Consumption abroad, mode II, Australia as producer:

Probably this is the most mature mode between the two countries, but with the balance in

favour of Australia. For clarification purposes the programs that fall into the postgraduate

level are: graduate certificate, graduate diploma, master degree (coursework and

research) and PhD.

Figure 4 and 5 respectively indicate the increasing trend of enrolments and

commencements of Indian student up to 2008. Since 2009 the onward Indian student

40

enrolment and commencement rate diminishes, although in a time series based on 2002,

the number is still growing at 1.27 times for all Australia and 1.12 times for Go8. The

explanatory variables of this change are set out in the framework; the incidents in

Melbourne obscured the image of Australia as a safe and multicultural study destination,

the increase in the Aussie Dollar and change in migration policies (Rafi & Lewis, 2013).

Figure 4 and 5, also emphasize the relative weight of each degree into the total of student

enrolled and as commencements, concluding that in general the importance of Indian

student for Australia rely on Master Degree coursework and graduate diploma. It is noted

that the commencement, figure 5, it has a steep decrease in 2010, which makes more

visible the impact of Melbourne incidents on the student mobility.

In the case of the Go8, the growth rate 2002-2012 shows similarities with the figures at

the national level (tables 8 and 10 appendix). The proportional share of the general

enrolment or commencements of Indian student is low but not in research programs. In

2002, 16% of Indian students enrolled in universities of the Go8 while in 2012, only 14%

did. Likewise, commencement numbers shows, the sharing of Indian student within the

Go8 in 2002 was 19% and by 2013 was 13%. As compare to the statistics about the

sharing of Go8 in international students, which is in average 41% (Group of Eight, 2013),

the share in the case of India is low. However as figure 6 shows, when is examined by

program, the Go8 occupied 63% of the enrolments for Master degree in 2002 and 37% in

2012, while for PhD was 46% in 2002 and 2012. The same with commencements, the

Go8 occupied the 73% of master’s research in 2002 and 36% in 2012, while for PhD was

51% in 2002 and 47% in 2012. This is summarized in the table 2.

41

Consumption abroad, mode II, Australia as consumer:

The unbalanced relationship between India and Australia in this mode is evident when

numbers of outbound students are compared. As figure 4 shows, in total, 2,198 Australian

students went to India in the period 2007-2012, mainly for short term experiences and for

gaining work experience in placements in India. The total figures of outbound are trivial

when compared with inbound students, but India is the third highest country of

destination for Australian scholars, after China and Indonesia. Those indicators represent

the increasing interest of Australian students going to India and vice versa.

Figure 4: Comparative inbound Indian Student Go8/All universities, by program,

period 2002-2012 (Enrolments)

Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data. See appendix Table 5.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

PHD & Higher DoctorateQualifying Program

Masters Degree (Research)

Doctoral Degree

Masters Degree (Coursework)

Graduate Diploma

Graduate Certificate

42

Figure 5: Comparative inbound Indian Student Go8/All universities, by program,

period 2002-2012 (Commencement)

Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data. See appendix Table 6.

Figure 6: Participation rate of Go8 in Indian students enrolments by program,

2002-2012

Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data, See appendix Table 8 .

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

10,000

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

All

Au

stra

lia

Go

8

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Masters Degree (Research)

Doctoral Degree

Masters Degree (Coursework)

Graduate Diploma

Graduate Certificate

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

Graduate Certificate

Graduate Diploma

Masters Degree(Coursework)

Doctoral Degree

Masters Degree (Research)

43

Table 3: Participation rate of Go8 in Indian students enrolments by Level of study,

2002-2012

Level Study 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Postgraduate by Coursework

14% 14% 10% 8% 7% 9% 10% 10% 10% 9% 10%

Postgraduate by Research

51% 57% 49% 49% 44% 43% 44% 47% 46% 45% 46%

Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data, Table

Consumption abroad, mode III:

In the same direction of mode I, there is one Australia University that has offshore

campus in India: Deakin. It was the first international university to establish in India and

its strategy has been successful. According to AUSTRADE there were three factors of

succeed: long-term strategy well-funded and managed, recognised the importance of

partnerships in India to build credibility and to have an office in India (2013b).

44

Figure 7: Outbound student from Australia to India, 2007-2012

Source: Olsen, Alan (2013)

4.2 Research Collaboration Analysis

4.2.1 Application of the Research Collaboration Framework in the Australia-India

partnership

As mentioned above this section builds upon two pieces of research commissioned by the

AIEC regarding the research collaboration between India and Australia. The information

collected by those previous researches allows an analysis of the research collaboration

under the umbrella of the collaboration framework provided in this research (see chapter

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

20

07

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

07

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

07

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

07

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

Exchange Short Term Placement Research Projects

Go8

All

45

2, figure 2) and therefore identifies current levels of collaboration, its main drivers, and

the stage of collaboration.

The first research conducted by Gorur and Loton (2013), highlights a number of findings

related with the challenges of the scientific research collaboration between India and

Australia and its possible improvements. The main findings indicate that: the

collaborative arrangement remains at individual level, there is unclear strategy in

Australia in regards to collaborative research with India, there are different

understandings about the meaning of research collaboration in the two countries, there is

segregation between social and natural scientific research, for both countries is priority to

include the industry in the research process, that face to face interactions are essential

especially for India, collaboration might bring administrative burdens, misalignment of

PhD recruitment for implementation of research and scheme funding, and the importance

of the trust and the proximity to collaborate (Gorur & Loton, 2013, pp. 6-12).

The second research, conducted by Rizvi, Gorur and Reyes ‘provide[s] an overview of

the potential, possibilities and problems of institutional collaboration’ (2013, p. 1). The

first findings of this study indicate that the drivers of the research partnership from the

Indian perspective are: enhanced chances of visibility and citation (publications),

increasing the effectiveness of the research process, enabling access to infrastructure,

encouraging professional growth, promoting inter-cultural understanding and providing

international PhD programs to Indian students. The second findings of this study point

out that the barriers for collaboration are: the still building commitment of India towards

its collaboration with Australia, regulation uncertainties about foreign universities in

46

India, the non-recognition of credits in India for overseas studies, quality control of

universities, the commitment of Vice Chancellors of Australian universities and cultural

differences. Similar to the collaborative arrangements, there is the common feeling that

benefits remains also at individual level although sometimes there is an institutional

collaboration strategy, such as Monash University (Rizvi, Gorur, & Reyes, 2013, pp. 11-

17).

Consequently, in Walsh and Kahn’s words, the research collaboration between India and

Australia is currently underdeveloped at an individual level, the drivers seem to be more

focused on external and personal factors, and is recently building commitment,

particularly from the India’s side. Based on the findings of the studies commissioned by

AIEC, it is concluded that the level of research collaboration is at the individual level. In

this sense the model of Walsh and Kahn is missing one level of research collaboration

(see figure 2). The drivers identified correspond to the category of external and personal

pressure (e.g.regulations in India about higher education or visibility for the researchers).

This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion about the level of collaboration in

regards to the Walsh and Kahn model, where institutions do not play an important role

determining research between these two countries. At the same time, in Walsh and

Kahn’s words, the collaboration is in the first stage, building commitment. As Rizvi,

Gorur and Reyes observe, for India the commitment with Australia is a recent step in this

partnership. Indeed, as mentioned in chapter 4, before the AISRF Australia was not

considered as partner in research by India.

47

4.2.2 Analysing the outputs of the Australia-India Strategic Research Fund, the key

driver factor

Funding is probably the most important driver for research, which in the context of

Australia is supported by the AISRF. As Walsh and Kahn (2010, p. 9) acknowledge,

physical, special funding bodies are essential drivers for opening up collaboration. For

the India-Australia relationship a key driver is the AISRF, which has funded 115 projects

and invested more than AUD$54 million (see appendix table 11 and 12), in priority fields

such as medical diagnostics, nanotechnology, environment science or food since 2006. It

stands out due to the number of workshops funded, which is indicative of the presence of

another key driver for research collaboration in the case of India-Australia, which is

proximity of peers’ researchers.

Figure 8 highlights the participation of the Go8, other universities, CSIRO and other type

of institutions (e.g. hospitals). Following the figure and the table 13 (see appendix); the

Go8 universities are the greatest participant in the fund with an average of 43% of

amount participation along the six rounds. It is followed by other universities with 25%

of the participation, CSIRO with 22% and then by other type of institutions with a 10%

of the amount participation. In addition Go8 universities are the most constant as well as

other universities, but other type of organization and particularly CSIRO, are irregular

participant of the fund, which it has been absent two rounds, 2008 and 2012, and the

sharing rate varies greatly year by year. For example in the year 2012 the CSIRO

participation rate was 52% but for the year 2011 it was 2%.

48

This analysis suggests that the universities are the main source for research collaboration

in the Australian relationship with India. The research collaboration with institutions

outside the universities seems to be irregular and with less weight in terms of number of

projects and amount of funds, however that is not an indicator of the quality of research

collaboration or ties strengthening between scientists, which are a relevant variable to

determine levels of collaboration.

Figure 8: Amount distribution of AISRF by Institution and year round, 2006-2012

Source: Department of Industry, AISRF Selection Outcomes. (n.d.) . See appendix table

11.

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

CSIRO

Group of Eight

Other

Other University

49

4.2.3 Research output: Co-authored papers

During the period 2000-2010, India significantly increased its collaboration research

outputs. In that decade, India increased its co-authored papers from 28,414 up to 74,093,

which represent a 261% increase. The top ten countries in co-authored publication with

India in descending order are: the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, France,

Japan, Italy, Canada, Korea, Australia and Czech Republic. The United States counts for

more than 13% of the total share in India, followed by Germany and the UK with 4% and

3% respectively, whereas Australia shares a poor 1% of the total co-authored papers (see

appendix figure 6). However, when measured in terms of growth in the time series 2000-

2010, Australia has had a substantial growth and is ranked first in rate followed by the

Czech Republic and France.

Figure 9: Growth rate in Co-authored paper with India, Top three countries, time

series 2000-2010

Source: Scopus Custom Data from Elsevier.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Aus

Cz

Fr

50

Even more, the collaborative output India-Australia has grown exponentially (figure 7).

From 2000 to 2010, the number of authors collaborating with India increased around five

times from 116 to 667. In similar proportion augment the total publications co-authored

between these countries, increased from 202 to 1,086. The comparison of the India

average citation, the joint publication with Australia and with the approximate value of

the world citation average7, shows the ‘lift effect’ when India has a co-authored paper

with Australia. Although the scope of the data set in the case of Australia-India

publications provide signs of reliability (for example the pick of 35 citations average in

the year 2004), the research capacity of Australia certainly would produce a lift in

countries such as India where the level of research is low.

7 For this comparison, the procedure for calculating was: multiply the world average per the number of

publication by field and year, and then divide it by sum of the volume per year. However this aggregate

data does not take into account the differences in citations by field therefore is an approximation to

compare India citation with the rest of the world.

51

Figure 10: India-Australia volume of joint publication and comparison of Average

citation, period 2000-2010

Source: Scopus Custom Data from Elsevier.

The lift effect is also seen across different fields. Figure 8 associates volume by field and

the comparison between India citations and its co-authored paper with Australia. It is not

surprising that in areas where India is well-known as a specialist, such as computer

science and engineering, the lift effect is low: the average citation of co-authored paper

with Australia in those areas is almost equal to Indian publications. The fields with the

widest gaps are general and psychology, areas where India seems to be less developed

than Australia.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Ind-Aus pub

India avgcite

Aus-India avgcite

World avgcite

52

Figure 11:Co-authored and India citation comparison across field, 1996-2010

Source: Scopus Custom Data from Elsevier.

The volume of papers co-authored by Indian and Australian nationals, is aligned with the

AISRF’s field priority. AISRF’s first two fields of importance (medicine and

nanotechnology) are equivalent to medicine, the first field in terms of volume of co-

authored papers.

It is not possible to establish whether there is a correlation between the co-authored paper

and the funding scheme of AISRF in this research. Yet the evidence suggests that the

collaboration output between India and Australia had its first large augment since 2006,

the time when the AISRF settled. After that year the co-authored publication growth has

increased.

From the institutional perspective, the data analysis of co-authored papers shows that

Go8 universities are the most collaborative channel. The time series growth represented

051015202530354045

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Volume

Aus-India

India Citation

53

in figure 9 reflects a faster augment for Go8 since 2006, but from 2009 other universities

are growing even faster. Additionally, table 14 (see appendix) indicates that the

universities of the Go8 are the major source of collaborative networking with 313

publications in 2010, which is surprising considering the low enrolments rate of the last

10 years.

Other institutions are steadily growing compare with the inconsistent participation of

CSIRO.

Figure 12: Growth of Co-authored paper by institutions. Time series 2000-2010

Source: Scopus Custom Data from Elsevier.

This data analysis is coherent with the outputs of the AISRF. The universities again are

the most research collaborative channel between India and Australia, predominantly the

Go8 universities. Meanwhile other type of institutions and CSIRO are less constant and

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

All Universities

Go8

Other

CSIRO

54

produce less co-authored papers than universities, which is equivalent to the outputs

analysis of the AISRF. Nonetheless, again this is not an indicator of either quality of

collaboration or the strength of ties. As Gorur and Loton (2013) point out, the research

co-authored paper is not always a precise indicator. CSIRO for example is an applied

science institution; consequently the type of the collaboration that they do is not

necessarily converted into publications.

Figure 13: Top ten institutions in number of Co-authored paper, time period 2000-

2010

Source: Scopus Custom Data from Elsevier.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Number co-authoredpapers

55

Among all institutions that joint publication with India, the top ten belong to the Go8

universities. Except for the classification of ‘other’8 institutions, and CSIRO, the top ten

is the Go8. The figure 10 has the volume of co-authored paper by institution, indicating

that ‘other’ institutions as a unit, collaborates the most with India. Within the Go8, the

Universities of Sydney, Melbourne and Queensland are the top three. Adelaide

University lags behind in the last position of Go8, regardless the growth. Notwithstanding

is the growth rate of University of Queensland, Sydney and Western of Australia (see

appendix, figure 12). In the time period 2000-2010, the University of Queensland has

increased its co-authored papers with India around 26 times, the University of Sydney 12

times and the University of Western of Australia 9 times. In the case of the University of

Queensland there has been a significant shift from 2 co-authored papers to 53.

Subsequently, the University of Sydney is not only is the leader in terms of the number of

co-authored paper, but is also the institution who has committed the most over the time in

terms of joint publications with India considering its growth rate.

8 According to the classification of SCOPUS, The classification of other refers to all the institutions

different from CSIRO and universities either hospitals, private organizations, or any author not affiliated

with a university.

56

CHAPTER 5: WHAT DO THE STAKEHOLDERS THINK?

‘This is the biggest contradiction, we are natural partners,

both were British colonies and we share British heritage,

we speak a common language in English,

and cricket and democracy, similar climate,

but we haven’t got beyond that, frustration…’

Go8 performance: ‘Asleep at the wheels’

(Quentin Stevenson Perks, personal communication, 12 September 2013)

The objective of this chapter is to ascertain the thinking of key stakeholders about the

performance of Australian universities and the Go8 in the relationship with India. The

interviews were focused on the participants’ opinion of the relationship between

Australia and India in postgraduate education and research, the features of that opinion,

its variables and performance, areas for improvements and main obstacles. The interview

had two parts: the first asked about the national strategy and the national performance of

Australia in India, and the second asked about the performance of Go8. As was

mentioned in the methodology section, the main limitation is the missed opinion of the

Australian Indian Council, irrespective of its main focus on industry.

The analysis of the findings is structured as follow: the first part presents the opinion of

the national performance in terms of the general relationship with India, its features, the

identification of the key variables and areas for improvement and the second part presents

57

the perception and opinion of the Go8 in terms of its general performance, variables and

areas for improvement.

5.1 Perception and opinion of the national performance

General performance

Similarly to what previous chapters discuss, the relationship between India and Australia

in postgraduate education is predominantly commercial, although there has been recent

progress in other areas such as research. The general opinion of the key players is that on

the one hand the Australian relationship with India in postgraduate education is

predominantly commercial. The participants frequently referred to the Australia-China

relationship as being much more extensive than India. On the other hand the stakeholders

acknowledge progress in the relationship over the last ten years. One step forward was

the creation of AIRSF and the AIEC. There is a sense that research collaboration is

becoming increasingly important, with an increasing interest from the Australian side.

The collaboration has focussed on the areas of agriculture and medicine but has several

constraints and tends to stay on the personal level.

Features of the relationship

The level of commitment, engagement, interest and motivation for collaborating in both

countries, are the common features identified throughout the interviews. Australia seems

to be engaged but the level of commitment needs to go one step further. According to the

58

opinion of interviewees, there is a mismatch of interest that has characterized this

relationship. Research, for example, is an area that has great potential for collaboration

but beyond than remains at the individual level. Australia is more related to India in terms

of trade than in science. Genuine interest about engagement with India is something that

key players recognize as a determinant factor of this relationship.

Key variables and its performance

Undoubtedly the most important variable of the relationship is the AISRF. All those

interviewed agreed that the fund is the key pillar because it goes beyond the commercial

approach of student recruitment and creates an environment for collaboration; promoting

exchange of incoming and outbound researchers, and space for discussion. The fund also

represents the commitment of Australia towards the relationship with India in all aspects,

including research and science.

‘When I was in India, a lot of people talked about it [the AISRF]. As I said India has a lot

more mature relationships with many other countries, particularly US and UK, and

Australia wasn’t memorisable at all but because of the AIRSF, Australia came into the

picture, and a lot of people are thinking about Australia simply because of funding’

(Radhika Gorur, personal communication, 24 September 2013)

Before AISRF was established, Australia was not considered a research partner in India,

for to a number of reasons, including how expensive it is to come and research in the

59

country. Thus if AISRF did not exist, the extent of the research collaboration would be

lower.

Nonetheless this key variable goes hand in hand with student recruitment because

research students in particular bring new research networks and increase the likelihood of

collaboration.

The performance of the fund is connected with the obstacles of collaborative research and

some other issues such as levels of bureaucracy and corruption.

Areas and action for improvements

Commonly shared thinking is that India is a face to face country and it takes a long time

to build up a relationship. This an area for improvement because Australia and the

institutions that want to engage with India, need to spend time there, investing work in a

long term strategy, which is the second area for improvement.

Higher education institutions need to be aware about the type of strategy to apply in

India. This country is extremely populated and culturally diverse, thus the strategy even

within India will need to be modified depending on the circumstances of each region. An

additional comment by some research specialists are that Australia needs to find niches to

collaborate with India that are competitive compared with the United State or the United

Kingdom.

As it is a face to face country, it is necessary to increase the number of student exchanges

and the research mobility, because long distance communications (emails, phone) seem

to be not working in India. As a consequence, if institutions want to expand their scope in

60

the market or strengthen their ties, they need to spend a long time in India, either through

students, government officials or researchers.

Obstacles

The major obstacle for working with India, that limits the scope of new strategies to be

applied, is the level of bureaucracy and corruption. Secondly, in the same way of the

areas for improvements, stakeholders realize that the lack of vision also is an impediment

to increasing levels of engagement with India. A third element is the low capacity

building of India, where the supporting institutions are not well established. A fourth

obstacle is long distance communications, where India seems to have difficulties.

Regardless, key players know that a genuine relationship with India in higher education

and research will bring benefits for both countries and that, despite the obstacles, the

collaboration can increase if Australia through its educational institutions adopts an

effective strategy.

5.2 Perception and opinion of the Go8 performance

The presentation of the findings in this section is divided in two: general performance of

the Go8, variables and areas and action for improvements. The reason is that there is no

Go8 presence in India; therefore stakeholders do not have a formed opinion of the Go8 as

a group and even less about its development in the country. As aforementioned,

universities within the Go8 have an active participation in the collaboration with India,

particularly in research, but the data collected suggests that the individual participation of

61

universities has not transformed into an institutional collaboration between the Go8 and

Indian universities, whatsoever would be.

General performance

The majority of the stakeholders do not have an opinion about the Go8’s performance

because there is non-existent performance or no attempts to build relationships with

Indian universities. Among the array of institutions in India, they have seen individual

universities engage with India, such as Monash University or University of Melbourne,

but not the Go8 as a group. Additionally the general opinion is that there is a lack of

strategy, branding and interest to cooperate with this country. Following the comments of

Quentin Stevenson from Austrade, the Go8 has adopted an incorrect direction

‘India has put under the hard basket (…) you expect go there for three days and have

some kind of agreement, when you are in a country with more than 1 billion of people,

and hundreds of different religious and languages’ (Quentin Stevenson, personal

communication, 28 August 2013)

Variables

Some of the stakeholders think that there is a null commitment and willingness to

collaborate with India as a group. For the Go8 this is even more important because with

the degrees of competition among Indian student for access to world class education in

the best universities of the world, rankings are extremely important, and the universities

62

of the Go8 have the competitive advantages of being among the top hundred universities

in the world. Consequently if the Go8 has the conditions to attract the best students from

India, but there is no agreement so far, it is because of the willingness and commitment to

collaborate. In the second place, according to several interviewees, universities of the

Go8 do not have incentives to collaborate with India due to the low quality and the

capacity building in terms of research and management.

Areas and action for improvements

Across the key players the common response in this section was that the Go8 needs to be

on the ground and needs to design an Indian strategy with Go8 branding. The importance

of being on the ground has several impacts: first it is a strategy to avoid the levels of

corruption and bureaucracy that limit the success of the project, second the quality of

Indian higher education institutions makes it difficult to find a correct partner, thus being

on the ground is an mechanism to improve networking, third since there is a lack of

capacity building in India and the educational market is bringing world class universities,

being on the ground is also an strategy of positioning the Go8 in India. Even the CSIRO

has declared that a science attaché would be relevant for increasing coordination and the

implication of Australia in India, and transform the ‘natural partnership’ is a ‘real

partnership’.

‘at that time one of the thing that came out how important was that we just have a base in

India, student or researchers… because if you want that Indian student come to India the

63

trick is how do you take them there, so basically in order to do that, having a base in

India will be very good’ (Radhika Gorur, personal communication, 24 September 2013)

64

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS

This report commissioned by the Go8 examined the relationship between India and

Australia in postgraduate education and research and to provide insights to the Go8 about

strategies to improve its performance with Indian universities. To do so, it was necessary

to first review the state of the current partnership between these two countries as to move

forward we need to know the starting point.

In general the Australian partnership with India has high levels of expectation. These

countries are considered natural partners due to the common characteristics that they

share, but the outcomes in higher education and research seem to be unsatisfactory from

the Australian perspective, despite efforts made during the last decade. It is common to

hear that Australia-India relationship does not ‘go beyond the cricket’. One explanatory

variable comes from the literature review; India’s lack of capacity building, quality

assurance issues and regulatory constraints. Another explanatory reason is the low level

of commitment that Australia had up to the last decade. Since 2002, with the creation of

the Australian Indian Council, many initiatives have started to strength the partnership

between these two countries. Highlights of those initiatives is the establishment of the

AISRF and the AIEC, the former for promoting research collaboration and the latter for

coordinating government bodies for education collaboration.

Additionally seems to be that the clash of conceptions about higher education in India

and Australia international education but is not considered as an obstacle for develop the

partnership. On the one hand in India higher education is a public good and is not

65

tradable. The inclusion of the private sector to the provision of higher education, and the

opening of the sector to foreign investment, will respond to the shortage of supply, which

is currently unable to match the demand of the third largest market of higher education

students in the world. On the other hand, Australian universities, see international

education as one of the sources of revenues that will allow it to maintain high levels of

research and constant pressure for worldwide classroom. Nevertheless, this clash has not

impeded the partnerships in collaboration nor student mobility.

The literature review and data analysis suggest that the Australian relationship with India

is marked by the commercial approach of Australian universities that see international

students as an income source. In this regard, in the period 2002-20012 the universities of

the Go8 shared 12% of the Indian students in Australia, therefore the student recruitment

in India is not distinctive as might be in the rest of universities. The enrolment of Indian

student has steeply decreased in the last three years, due to a several reasons and external

factors such as changes in immigration policies, increases in the Aussie dollar and the

perception of Australia as an unsafe place after the incidents in Melbourne 2009.

Nonetheless, genuine engagement, in a long term strategy, seems to produce a gateway to

other possibilities of collaboration such as in the case of Deakin University, where the

successful commercial presence in India has increased its participation in research

collaboration.

However it seems to be that individual universities belonging to the Go8 have focused

more on research collaboration, rather than student recruitment. The Go8 participation

rate of Indian students has been low since 2000, when compared to Australia overall. The

66

decreasing number of students since 2009 has affected greatly to Australia but not the

Go8 universities. Nevertheless, in terms of research collaboration analysis, the

universities of the Go8 and CSIRO are the key institutions.

In regards to the Go8 as a group, it is certainly unknown in India due to a lack of strategy

and brand marketing, but individual universities within the Go8 are not unknown. The

qualitative data analysis suggests that no universities in India and even within the group

of Australian key players recognize the Go8 as a group in India. Stakeholders in Australia

acknowledge the competitive advantages that the Go8 have for being in the world top 200

hundred universities, but it is not exploiting that advantage in India.

Recommendations at national level

1. Maintain the level of commitment in Australia towards its relationship with India and

continue with the funding scheme of the AISRF. Without the fund, a lot of current

research engagement will vanish because the collaboration still remains at personal level

where the funding is a determinant variable to collaborate.

2. Australia need to incentivise more the exchange in postgraduate education and

research with India. Postgraduate students increase the likelihood of research

collaboration because they bring networks from their own countries. Therefore as a

mechanism to promote collaboration, Australia should increase the level of scholarships

to Indian students.

67

The government should invest more in the universities as a source of the largest source of

research collaboration. The participation of the Go8 and Other universities in the AISRF

demonstrates they are quintessential institutions for building up research collaboration

and therefore strengthening the ties between India and Australia beyond the commercial

approach of student recruitment.

Recommendations for the Go8

1. For improving its relationship with India, the Go8 needs to have the willingness and

the commitment to do so. The level of corruption and bureaucracy in India, limit the

possibilities of success of collaboration, but it is not impossible. Long term strategies,

such as those employed by Monash universities demonstrate that level of commitments

defines the outcomes of the relationship.

2. The Go8 needs to design an India strategy if it wants to establish a relationship with

Indian universities. The Go8 has a lack of India strategy. They cannot expect to follow

the same patterns to establish collaborative agreements as the rest of the world in India

and to succeed. The cultural differences within the same country even, require building

strategies for every circumstance.

3. The Go8 needs to be on the ground and should establish an office or a partner office in

India that is responsible for the branding of the Go8 in the country. Considering the

68

competitive student market in India, the higher education quality issues, the bureaucracy

and corruption, settling an office in India could be a mechanism to effectively coordinate

not only student mobility programs but also foster research collaboration, an area where

the universities within the Go8 already have know-how.

69

ANNEXES

Table 4: Share of International fee-paying in the revenue of Universities in Australia

2000-2011

Total University

income

Fees and charges from fee-paying

overseas students

Year $'000 $'000 % of Total Income

2000 $9,327,667 $947,102 10.2%

2001 $10,202,101 $1,163,509 11.4%

2002 $11,614,134 $1,449,822 12.5%

2003 $12,331,827 $1,700,923 13.8%

2004 $13,448,372 $1,946,611 14.5%

2005 $14,327,515 $2,168,498 15.1%

2006 $15,913,021 $2,375,362 14.9%

2007 $17,316,029 $2,598,336 15.0%

2008 $18,955,909 $2,946,127 15.5%

2009 $20,468,862 $3,414,687 16.7%

2010 $22,158,466 $3,881,656 17.5%

2011 $23,658,742 $4,124,064 17.4%

Source: Higher Education Finance Reports 2001-2011 (DIISRTE)

70

Table 5: Enrolment Indian student year to date by level, program and institution, 2002-2012

All A

ustralia

Level Of Study Program 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Postgraduate by Coursework

Graduate Certificate 69 38 39 56 87 104 151 119 74 60 44

Graduate Diploma 983 902 857 1,091 1,519 1,553 1,579 1,619 1,391 1,069 651

Master’s Degree (Coursework)

4,823 8,261 13,591 16,958 18,166 18,207 18,634 17,763 12,938 7,728 6,255

Subtotal 5,875 9,201 14,487 18,105 19,772 19,864 20,364 19,501 14,403 8,857 6,950

Postgraduate by Research

Master’s Degree (Research) 73 90 133 187 173 157 120 100 86 76 65

Doctoral Degree 164 204 264 324 429 484 524 573 620 705 761

PhD & Higher Doctorate Qualifying Program

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Subtotal 237 294 397 511 603 642 645 674 706 781 826

Go

8

Postgraduate by Coursework

Graduate Certificate 8 3 3 2 8 16 8 5 10 7 3

Graduate Diploma 51 55 54 73 82 110 119 110 85 41 23

Master’s Degree (Coursework)

769 1,244 1,397 1,416 1,306 1,595 1,810 1,759 1,280 757 661

Subtotal 828 1,302 1,454 1,491 1,396 1,721 1,937 1,874 1,375 805 687

Postgraduate by Research

Doctoral Degree 76 112 135 168 201 225 241 268 279 319 352

Master’s Degree (Research) 46 55 58 82 63 53 42 47 43 31 24

PhD & Higher Doctorate Qualifying Program

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 122 167 193 250 264 278 283 315 322 350 376

Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data.

71

Table 6: Commencements Indian student year to date by level, program and institution, 2002-2012

All A

ustralia

Level Study Program 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Coursework Graduate Certificate 36 29 32 49 80 87 132 101 59 55 39

Graduate Diploma 471 578 487 864 951 939 1,064 1,038 820 647 311

Master’s Degree (Coursework) 2,753 5,536 8,172 6,702 7,263 7,611 8,059 6,934 2,693 2,032 3,390

Subtotal 3,260 6,143 8,691 7,615 8,294 8,637 9,255 8,073 3,572 2,734 3,740

Research Doctoral Degree 69 72 105 114 156 124 133 158 166 218 229

Master’s Degree (Research) 30 53 75 85 55 54 36 47 25 35 22

PhD & Higher Doctorate Qualifying Program

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 99 125 180 199 212 178 169 205 191 253 251

Go

8

Coursework Graduate Certificate 8 3 3 2 8 13 7 3 10 6 3

Graduate Diploma 31 38 38 53 56 78 85 70 37 25 14

Master’s Degree (Coursework) 527 770 748 522 560 859 838 777 367 254 394

Subtotal 566 811 789 577 624 950 930 850 414 285 411

Research Master’s Degree (Research) 22 30 25 38 16 17 15 28 8 11 8

Doctoral Degree 35 48 43 58 64 61 62 71 64 95 108

PhD & Higher Doctorate Qualifying Program

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 57 78 68 96 80 78 77 99 72 106 116

Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data.

72

Table 7: Percentage of Indian Student enrolment in terms of total inbound students (All international students), 2002-2012

Broad Level Of Study Level Of Study 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Postgraduate by Coursework

Graduate Certificate 8% 4% 4% 6% 8% 8% 12% 7% 4% 4% 3%

Graduate Diploma 19% 17% 17% 21% 27% 27% 28% 28% 24% 21% 16%

Master’s Degree (Coursework)

16% 21% 29% 31% 31% 30% 29% 26% 18% 12% 10%

Group3Higher Degree by Research

Master’s Degree (Research) 4% 4% 5% 5% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5%

Doctoral Degree 7% 7% 10% 12% 12% 11% 9% 7% 6% 5% 5%

PhD & Higher Doctorate Qualifying Program

0 0 0 0 8% 6% 7% 8% 0

Total 14% 19% 25% 28% 28% 27% 26% 23% 16% 11% 9% Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data.

Table 8: Go8 Participation rate in the total of Indian student enrolments by type of program, 2002-2012

Broad Level Of Study Level Of Study 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Postgraduate by Coursework

Graduate Certificate 12% 8% 8% 4% 9% 15% 5% 4% 14% 12% 7%

Graduate Diploma 5% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 8% 7% 6% 4% 4%

Master’s Degree (Coursework) 16% 15% 10% 8% 7% 9% 10% 10% 10% 10% 11%

Group3Higher Degree by Research

Master’s Degree (Research) 63% 61% 44% 44% 36% 34% 35% 47% 50% 41% 37%

Doctoral Degree 46% 55% 51% 52% 47% 46% 46% 47% 45% 45% 46%

PhD & Higher Doctorate Qualifying Program

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 16% 15% 11% 9% 8% 10% 11% 11% 11% 12% 14%

Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data

73

Table 9: Percentage of Indian Student commencements in terms of total inbound students (All international students), 2002-

2012

Level of Study Program 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Postgraduate by Coursework

Graduate Certificate 5% 4% 4% 7% 8% 8% 12% 7% 4% 4% 3%

Graduate Diploma 14% 17% 15% 24% 25% 25% 28% 25% 22% 19% 12%

Master’s Degree (Coursework) 15% 25% 32% 27% 27% 27% 26% 21% 8% 7% 11%

Postgraduate by Research

Master’s Degree (Research) 5% 9% 11% 14% 11% 9% 7% 8% 4% 6% 4%

Doctoral Degree 5% 4% 6% 7% 8% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6%

PHD & Higher Doctorate Qualifying Program

0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 14% 22% 28% 25% 25% 24% 24% 19% 9% 8% 10% Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data.

Table 8: Go8 Participation rate in the total of Indian student commencements by type of program, 2002-2012

Level of Study Program 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Postgraduate by Coursework

Graduate Certificate 22% 10% 9% 4% 10% 15% 5% 3% 17% 11% 8%

Graduate Diploma 7% 7% 8% 6% 6% 8% 8% 7% 5% 4% 5%

Master’s Degree (Coursework) 19% 14% 9% 8% 8% 11% 10% 11% 14% 13% 12%

Postgraduate by Research

Master’s Degree (Research) 73% 57% 33% 45% 29% 31% 42% 60% 32% 31% 36%

Doctoral Degree 51% 67% 41% 51% 41% 49% 47% 45% 39% 44% 47%

PHD & Higher Doctorate Qualifying Program

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 19% 14% 10% 9% 8% 12% 11% 11% 13% 13% 13%

Source: AEI (n.d.-b), International student data.

.

74

Table 10: Number of active agreements between Indian and Australian universities.

Australian University Number of Active Agreements

Griffith University 18

RMIT University 15

The University of Western Australia

13

The University of New South Wales 13

University of Technology, Sydney 12

Queensland University of Technology

12

La Trobe University 11

Monash University 7

University of South Australia 7

The University of Melbourne 7

Curtin University 6

The University of Sydney 6

The University of Newcastle 6

James Cook University 5

The University of Queensland 5

The University of Adelaide 5

Murdoch University 4

Deakin University 3

University of Wollongong 3

University of Tasmania 2

University of Canberra 2

Australian Catholic University 2

The Australian National University 2

University of the Sunshine Coast 1

Victoria University 1

Edith Cowan University 1

Macquarie University 1

Southern Cross University 1

Central Queensland University 1

University of Ballarat 0

Charles Sturt University 0

Grand Total 172 Source: Information provided by Austrade, International Education Division.

75

Table 11: Distribution AIRSF by year and institution type, period 2006-2012

Round

year

CSIRO Go8 Other Other University Total Amount Total

Number

Project Amount Number % of

Participation

Amount Number % of

Participation

Amount Number % of

Participation

Amount Numb

er

% of

Participation

2006 $4,619,687 6 49% $3,430,369 8 36% $448,000 1 5% $1,025,559 7 11% $9,523,615 22

2007 $346,252 2 5% $2,674,645 10 37% $855,000 3 12% $3,292,200 4 46% $7,168,097 19

2008 0% $2,302,678 9 55% $400,000 1 10% $1,499,635 5 36% $4,202,313 15

2009 $370,000 2 7% $2,095,433 9 40% $299,577 1 6% $2,534,268 8 48% $5,299,278 20

2010 $974,634 3 20% $2,929,395 11 59% $400,000 1 8% $671,784 3 14% $4,975,813 18

2011 $280,000 1 2% $8,147,557 9 63% $3,276,123 2 25% $1,310,145 5 10% $13,013,825 17

2012 $5,252,541 2 52% $1,913,832 1 19% 0% $2,978,749 1 29% $10,145,122 4

Total $11,843,114 16 22% $23,493,909 57 43% $5,678,700 9 10% $13,312,340 33 25% $54,328,063 115

Source: Department of Industry, AISRF Selection Outcomes. (n.d.)

76

Table 12: Numbers of projects funded by field, time series 2006-2012

Field Of Priority Total

Vaccines / medical diagnostics 14

Nanotechnology 10

Environment Sciences (including climate change research)

10

Workshops 9

Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods 8

Astronomy & Astrophysics 7

Transgenic Crops and Marker-assisted Breeding 7

Agricultural Research 6

Micro-electronics Devices and Materials 6

Stem Cells 6

Biomedical Devices and Implants 5

Materials Science (including nanotechnology) 5

Bioremediation 4

Earth Sciences 4

Food and Water Security 3

Renewable Energy 3

Energy 2

Marine Sciences 2

Health 2

Bioenergy and Biofuels 1

Information and Communication Technology 1

Grand Total 115

Source: Department of Industry, AISRF Selection Outcomes. (n.d.)

77

Table 13: Numbers of projects by field and type of Institution, time series 2006-2012

Field Of Priority CSIRO Group of Eight Other Other University

Grand Total

Vaccines / medical diagnostics 7 3 4 14

Nanotechnology 5 5 10

Environment Sciences (including climate change research)

4 4 2 10

Workshops 2 5 1 1 9

Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods 1 3 4 8

Astronomy & Astrophysics 1 2 4 7

Transgenic Crops and Marker-assisted Breeding 2 3 2 7

Agricultural Research 1 4 1 6

Micro-electronics Devices and Materials 5 1 6

Stem Cells 2 2 2 6

Biomedical Devices and Implants 3 1 1 5

Materials Science (including nanotechnology) 1 2 2 5

Bioremediation 1 2 1 4

Earth Sciences 1 2 1 4

Food and Water Security 2 1 3

Renewable Energy 3 3

Energy 1 1 2

Marine Sciences 1 1 2

Health 1 1 2

Bioenergy and Biofuels 1 1

Information and Communication Technology 1 1

Grand Total 16 57 9 33 115

Source: Department of Industry, AISRF Selection Outcomes. (n.d.)

78

Figure 14: Number of Co-authored paper with India and Share of 4 countries, 2000-2010

Source: Scopus Custom Data from Elsevier.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

India

usa

deu

gbr

aus

79

Table 14: Co-authored publications by type of institution, period 2000-2010

institution 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Go8 50 53 60 114 108 130 162 179 230 259 313

All Universities 36 34 35 56 45 80 121 104 151 193 255

Other 29 12 34 27 36 36 51 56 66 91 121

CSIRO 12 16 11 15 20 20 18 19 23 37 26 Source: Scopus Custom Data from Elsevier.

Figure 15: Index Growth rate in Co-authored papers top three Australian Institutions, time series 2000-2010

Source: Scopus Custom Data from Elsevier.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

The University ofSydney

The University ofQueensland

The University ofWestern Australia

80

References

ABS. (2012). Analysis of Australia’s Education exports. Retrieved from

http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/analysis-of-australias-education-

exports.pdf.

Academy, I.-M. R. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved 14 October, 2013, from

http://www.iitbmonash.org/about-us/

Adams, T. (2007). The Development of International Education in Australia: A

Framework for the Future. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4),

410-420. doi: 10.1177/1028315307304182

AEI. (2006). Enrolments, Commencements and Student Numbers-Explanatory note.

Retrieved from https://aei.gov.au/Research/Research-

Snapshots/Documents/Enrolments_Commencements_Student_Numbers_Explanat

ory_Note_07SS06.pdf.

AEI. (n.d.-a). Esos legislative framework. Retrieved 10 October, 2013, from

https://aei.gov.au/Regulatory-Information/Pages/Regulatoryinformation.aspx

AEI. (n.d.-b). International student data. Retrieved 25 September, 2013, from

https://www.aei.gov.au/research/Pages/AEI%20Research.aspx

AEI. (n.d.-c). Types of institutions in higher education, India. India. Retrieved 13

October, 2013, from www.aei.gov.au

Albatch, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in Global Higher

Education: Tracking and Academic Revolution, Executive Summary (W. C. o. H.

Education, Trans.): United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization.

Altbach, P., & Knight, J. (2007). The Internationalization of Higher Education:

Motivations and Realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4),

290-305. doi: 10.1177/1028315307303542

AUSTRADE. (2013). Industry relationships and executive education key to future

opportunities in India. News and Opportunities. Retrieved 13 October, 2013,

from https://www.austrade.gov.au/Education/News/Updates/Industry-

relationships-and-executive-education-key-to-future-opportunities#.UibHjdKno78

AUSTRADE. (2013b). Presence, passion and persistence take Deakin University beyond

student recruitment. In A. T. Commision (Ed.), (Case study: Deakin University

ed., Vol. 2013): Australian Trade Commision.

Australian-Government. (2012). Australian in the Asian Century, White Paper.

Australian Government Retrieved from

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/133850/20130914-

0122/asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/white-paper/australia-in-the-

asian-century-white-paper.pdf.

Awards, A. (n.d.). Australia Awards Endeavour Scholarship and Fellowship, India.

Unpublished work prepared by Innovation Department, personal communication.

Innovation Department.

81

Barlow, K. (2013). Australian minister flags rebuild of international education sector.

Online. Retrieved 10 October, 2013, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-

09/an-australian-minister-flags-rebuilding-of-international-educat/5012444

Beck, K. (2012). Globalization/s: Reproduction and Resistance in the Internationalization

of Higher Education. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(3), 133-148.

Bhushan, S. (2004). Trade in Education Services under GATS: Implications for Higher

Education in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(23), 2395-2402.

Bhushan, S. (2009). Restructuring higher education in India / Sudhanshu Bhushan.

Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

Calleja, J. (Ed.). (1995). International education and the university. London ; Bristol, Pa.

: Paris, France: J. Kingsley ; UNESCO Publishing.

Carnoy, M., & Dossani, R. (2013). Goals and governance of higher education in India.

Higher Education, 65(5), 595-612. doi: 10.1007/s10734-012-9565-9

Committee, N. A. (1993). Learning without Burden, Report of the National Advisory

Committee Appointed by the Ministry of the Human Resource Development (D.

o. Education, Trans.). New Delhi: Goverment of India, Ministry of Human

Resource Development.

De Wit, H., & Knight, J. (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education.

Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Deloitte. (2012). Indian Higher Education Sector Opportunities aplenty, growth

unlimited! (F. P. c. only, Trans.): Deloitte.

DFAT. (2013). Composition of Trade Australia. Retrieved from

http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/composition_trade.html.

Egron-Polak, E. (2012). Internationalization of Higher Education: A few Global Trends

and Regional Perspectives. In C. T. Ennew & D. Greenaway (Eds.), The

Globalization of Higher Education. University of Nottingham, UK: Palgrave

Macmillan.

EUISS, I. f. S. S. E. U. (2013). Global trends 2030 – Citizens in an interconnected and

polycentric world (E. S. a. P. A. S. (ESPAS), Trans.). Paris: European Union

Institute for Security Studies

FICCI. (2012). Higher Education in India: Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017) and

beyond: Ernst & Young, FICCI, Planning Commision-Government of India.

Gillan, M., Damachis, B., & McGuire, J. (2003). Australia in India: Commodification

and Internationalisation of Higher Education. Economic and Political Weekly,

38(14), 1395-1403. doi: 10.2307/4413404

Gorur, R., & Loton, D. (2013). Strengthening the Australia-India Knowledge Partnership:

Challenges and Opportunities Australia India Education Council.

Grattan, M. (2013). ACEL Address: Opportunities and Risks in The Education Market

Place. Retrieved 11 October, 2013, from http://theconversation.com/acel-

address-opportunities-and-risks-in-the-education-market-place-19032

Group of Eight. (2013). International Students Enrolments and Commencements, April

2013, compiled June 2013. Unpublised data

Gu ru z, K. (2011). Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global

Knowledge Economy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

82

Hall, G., & Hooper, K. (2008). Australia’s exports of education

services. Reserve Bank of Australia Retrieved from

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2008/jun/pdf/bu-0608-2.pdf.

Hobson, D. (2007). The Impact of Globalization on Higher Education. In J. L. M.

Hayden, & J. Thompson (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Research in International

Education. SAGE Publications Ltda. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

IEAA. (2012). Submission to the International Education Advisory Council: International

Education Association of Australia.

IEAC. (2012). Discussion Paper for the Development of an International Education

Strategy for Australia: International Education Advisory Council.

Industry, D. o. (n.d.). AISRF Selection Outcomes Retrieved from:

http://www.innovation.gov.au/science/internationalcollaboration/aisrf/Pages/Libra

ry%20Card/AISRFSelectionOutcomes.aspx

Industry, D. o. (n.d.). Australia-India Strategic Research Fund. Retrieved 14 October,

2013, from

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Science/InternationalCollaboration/aisrf/Pages/defa

ult.aspx#about

Islam, R., Alam, S., & Mukhopadhaya, P. (2012). Integrating trade in education services

between Australia and India. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy,

11(2), 133-147. doi: 10.1108/14770021211239659

Joshi, K., & Ahir, K. (2013). Indian Higher Education: Some Reflections. Intelektine

Ekonomika, 7(1).

Katz, S., & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research policy, 26(1), 1-

18. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1

Knight, J. (2002). Trade Talk: An Analysis of the Impact of Trade Liberalization and the

General Agreement on Trade in Services on Higher Education. Journal of Studies

in International Education, 6(3), 209-229. doi: 10.1177/102831530263002

Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for Internationalisation of Higher Education:

Historial and Conceptual Perspectives. In H. De Wit (Ed.), Strategies for

Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Australia,

Canada, Europe and United States of America. Amsterdam: European

Association for International Education.

Knight, M. (2011). Strategic Review of the Student Visa Program 2011. Retrieved from

http://www.immi.gov.au/students/_pdf/2011-knight-review.pdf.

Marginson, S., & Wende, M. v. d. (2007). Globalisation and Higher Education: OECD

Publishing.

Martínez de Morentin, J. I. (2011). Developing the concept of international education:

Sixty years of UNESCO history. PROSPECTS, 41(4), 597-611. doi:

10.1007/s11125-011-9210-x

Mitra, A., & Boro, K. (2010). Globalisation of higher education services: effect and risk.

In N. Barooah, J. Goswami, R. Mudiar, B. Barua, J. Akbar & S. Agarwalla (Eds.),

Globalization, higher education and youth (pp. 63-78). Guwahati: EBH

Publishers (India).

83

Nanda, P. (2013, 10 September). Foreign varsities get independent access to India, Live

Mint & The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/95uWiRa3RsjewIKYLSB9II/Foreign-

universities-allowed-to-operate-in-India.html

OECD. (2004). Quality and Recognition in Higher Education: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2004b). Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2009). Higher Education to 2030, Volume 2, Globalisation: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2012). Education Indicators in Focus. In O. f. E. C.-o. a. Development (Ed.),

(Vol. 5).

OECD. (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2013b). Perspectives on Global Development 2013 : Industrial Policies in a

Changing World. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (n.d.). Gross enrolment ratios in tertiary education, by sex. Gender Equality.

Retrieved 13 October, 2013, from

http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/primarynetadjustedenrolmentratiosbysex.htm

Olsen, A. (2013). Australian Universities International Directors' Forum to be presented

at the Australian International Education Conference. Unpublised data.

Australian Universities International Directors' Forum. Canberra. Retrieved from

http://www.aiec.idp.com/past_papers/2012.aspx

Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: towards a conceptual

framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248-270.

Rafi, B., & Lewis, P. (2013). Indian higher education students in Australia: Their patterns

and motivations. Australian Journal of Education, 57(2), 157-173. doi:

10.1177/0004944113485837

Reuters, T. (2010). Bibliometric study of India's research output and international

collaboration (Evidence, Trans.): Research Council UK.

Reuters, T. (n.d.). Whitepaper susing bibliometrics: a guide to evaluationg research

performance with citation data: Thomson Reuters.

Review, F. (2013, 08 October 2013). Business, universities applaud New Colombo Plan.

Online. Retrieved 10 October, 2013, from

http://www.afr.com/p/national/business_and_universities_applaud_J6LgiF5WyH

hUHJEWmjdtWJ

Rizvi, F., & Gorur, R. (2011). Challenges Facing Indian Higher Education The Fearless

Nadia Occasional Papers on India-Australia Relations: Australia India Institute.

Rizvi, F., Gorur, R., & Reyes, C. (2013). India-Australia Institutional Collaborations In

Higher Education: Potential, Problems, Promises: Australia India Education

CouncilGovernment.

Shah, M., & Nair, C. S. (2011). International higher education in Australia. Perspectives:

Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 15(4), 129-131. doi:

10.1080/13603108.2011.597888

Singh, S. (2013, October 2). Challenges and Solutions in Indian Higher Education, The

Diplomat. Retrieved from http://thediplomat.com/the-

pulse/2013/10/02/challenges-and-solutions-in-indian-higher-education/

84

Smith, R. S. (1970). International Education in Australia. The Phi Delta Kappan, 51(5),

274-275.

Sunder, S. (2012). Higher Education Reforms in India In O. H. Online (Ed.), The Oxford

Handbook of the Indian Economy Retrieved from

http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734580.001.0

001/oxfordhb-9780199734580-e-13. doi:

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734580.013.0013

Throsby, D. (1996). Progress Report on Financing and Effects of Internationalised

Teaching and Learning. In O. f. E. C.-o. a. Development (Ed.),

Internationalisation of Higher Education. Paris, France: OECD Documents,

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

Tilak, J. (1997). The dilemma of reforms in financing higher education in India. Higher

Education Policy, 10(1), 7-21. doi: 10.1016/S0952-8733(96)00031-1

Tilak, J. (2007). Knowledge Commission and Higher Education. Economic and Political

Weekly, 42(8), 630-633. doi: 10.2307/4419273

Tilak, J. (2008). Higher education: a public good or a commodity for trade?:

Commitment to higher education or commitment of higher education to trade.

PROSPECTS, 38(4), 449-466. doi: 10.1007/s11125-009-9093-2

Tilak, J. (2011). Trade in Higher Education: The role of the General Agreement on Trade

in Services (GATS): UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.

Times, T. E. (2013, 15 October 2013). Scottish firms see India as third largest market:

Minister. Online edition. Retrieved 18 October, 2013, from

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-

15/news/43068694_1_innovation-india-scottish-development-international

UGC. (2012). Higher Education in India at a glance. In U. G. Commission (Ed.). New

Delhi.

UGC. (2012b). Annual Report 2011-2012: University Grant Commission.

UNESCO. (n.d.). Enrolment in tertiary public and private institutions. Retrieved 13

October, 2013, from http://stats.uis.unesco.org

University, M. (2013, 5 September 2013). Bibliometrics. Retrieved 18 October, 2013,

from http://libguides.mq.edu.au/bibliometrics

Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2009). What is Changing in Academic Research? Trends and

Prospects. In OECD (Ed.), Higher Education to 2030,Globalisation (Vol. 2):

OECD Publishing.

Walsh, L., & Kahn, P. (2010). Collaborative Working in Higher Education. New York:

Taylor and Francis.

Weekly, B. R. (2013, 09 October 2013). Deloitte names the five super-growth set sector

to add $250bn to Australia's economy Retrieved 18 October, 2013, from

http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/deloitte_names_economy_five_super_BGVXz

Ijs9gMXhlSq4GOR3O

Wright, T. (2009). Sustainability, internationalization, and higher education. New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(118), 105-115. doi: 10.1002/tl.357

85