Abstract
This paper analyses the way in which global university models are adopted in research universities in Indonesia and Malaysia. It first provides the global context in which these models have evolved and the processes through which they spread. How these global models interact with local policies and institutions is the topic of the empirical part of the paper. Even though the global discourse is apparent and similar in different countries, local adoption is path dependent and embedded in wider structures. This might result in dissonance and discrepancy in the implementation phase, an outcome which is inevitable, but not necessarily harmful.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by a Sesqui Postdoctoral Fellowship provided by the University of Sydney, held by the author from March 2005 until March 2008. I wish to thank all interviewees and the helpful staff at ITB, UGM, USM and UM for assisting me in organising the empirical part of the research.
Notes
1. On the basis of 47 interviews in the four universities, the trajectories of diffusion, adoption and adaptation in these countries and universities were analysed. The interviews were conducted in the period August–October 2006. Persons that were interviewed were central level leaders, departmental or faculty leaders, leaders of research institutes and leaders of organisations with an external dimension. At the decentral level, the focus was on science and technology related disciplines on the one hand and management and administration disciplines on the other.
2. A community service internship for undergraduate students which used to be a national, compulsory part of the undergraduate curriculum. At the national level, it is no longer compulsory but at UGM it is still a compulsory part of the undergraduate curriculum. The KKN programme originated from UGM.
3. In 2000, ITB, UGM, Universitas Indonesia and the Agricultural University in Bogor (IPB) received the status of ‘Badan Hukum Milik Negara’ or State Owned Legal Entity. This implied far‐reaching institutional autonomy.