64
as an academic discourse—from ivory tower to praxis—and a social responsibility
discourse (Serrano-Velarde and Krücken 2012 ). My claim here is that there is a
significant gap between Asian conception of KT and its actual practice.
In what is the most prototypical understanding of it, an Asian state university
funding agency define KT as:
The systems and processes by which knowledge, including technology, know-how, exper-
tise and skills are transferred between higher education institutions and society, leading to
innovative, profitable or economic or social improvements. (UGC 2015 , my emphasis)It adds that it should be a two-way process, because “not only would the community
enjoy realizable benefit from the knowledge transferred from institutions, but aca-
demics and researchers would also be enriched by having closer ties with the larger
community” (UGC 2015 ).
The usefulness-oriented KT can be problematized (Strathern 2007 ) because of
its social self-imagery of situating itself into global market and knowledge econ-
omy, globalization. But for the postcolonial Asia, the very globalization itself is
problematic:
[Globalization is] capital-driven forces which seek to penetrate and colonize all spaces on
the earth with unchecked freedom, and that in so doing have eroded national frontiers and
integrated previously unconnected zones. In this ongoing process of globalization, unequal
power relations become intensified, and imperialism expresses itself in a new form. (Chen
2010 , p. 4)In this view, the “third mission” is essentialized as one more socioeconomic engage-
ment, capacity building for university-industry linkages (Schiller and Brimble
2009 ), or an entrepreneurial turn toward being bundled together with other core
missions—teaching and research (Nelles and Vorley 2010 ).
Not only is KT a discourse mounted on a Western view of globalization that
evokes a “G-series” World Summit cocktail party, but it also turns Asian knowledge
production into a subservient of the West-led globalization cum neo-imperialism.
These have become the neoliberal bases on which the so-called KT strategies are
formulated and adopted by Asian HE, albeit notable discrepancies among countries
and systems in planning, implementation, and governmental HE funding.
My critique is not at KT itself but this naïve idea that any KT, regardless of its
local contexts, should be instrumental to reify the universal dream of a ‘globalized
world’.
From West to Asia, Then Back to the Ideal of University
The core of the matter is as follows: What is the contribution of Asian universities
to human condition in the immediacy? Are Asian HE institutions contributing to the
solution of the regional problems? Should the main concern of Asian HE the highest
position in global rankings by promoting flagship “boutique universities”?
J. Park