76
1990s and 2000s, respectively, have also influenced Asian regionalism research as
shown in the list of edited volumes presented in Appendix 2.
As power asymmetries and dynamics are also predominant in regionalism, these
are represented in regionalism research. These include the leadership question in
Asian regionalism (Frankel and Kahler 1993 ; Acharya 2008 , 2009 , 2014b; Kavalski
2009 ), interregional competition (Capie 1994 ; Higgots and Stubbs 1995 ; Dent
1998 ; Robertson 2008 ; Acharya and Buzan 2010 ), Asian regional governance
(Jayasuriya 2001 , 2004a, b), and the role and influence of regional and international
organizations (Acharya and Johnston 2007 ; Foot 2011 ; Watson 2014 ). The latter
can also be seen in Appendix 3, a subset of the list of selected Asian regionalism
research presented in Appendix 1, which shows research published by regional
organizations and think tanks, and those affiliated with international organizations
studying regionalism such as the United Nations University Institute – Comparative
Regional Integration Studies. These institutions not only contribute to the knowl-
edge base and contemporary policy discourses but also render support to key stake-
holders and regional (and other regions) actors within Asian regionalism.
As this chapter is not about Asian regionalism, the above observations should be
sufficient to highlight some trends in Asian regionalism research. These observed
trends include: the evolving characteristic, definitions, and actors in regionalism
(and by extension Asian regionalism); an initial focus on economic regionalism
(particularly during the period 1990–2001) which then shifted its focus on political
regionalism especially since 2000; Asian regionalism research published in edited
volumes that tend to be focused on contemporary issues; and the power asymmetry
and dynamic dimension in Asian regionalism research that are seen in terms of
inter- and intra-regional contexts and the influence of regional organizations and
think tanks. These observed trends need to be confirmed with a larger study of
regionalism research not limited to Asia. Given the scope of this chapter, however,
the above observed trends should suffice in the task of mapping the regionalization
of higher education research in Asia.
Asian Regionalization of Higher Education: A Conceptual
Framework
Although Asian regionalism development is lagging behind European regional
developments, their approach to regionalism actually follows different models,
namely, networked and institutional regionalism. According to Yeo ( 2010 ), Europe’s
institutional regionalism “achieves integration through endowing specific institu-
tions with far-reaching decision-making powers to shape the behavior of the mem-
ber states,” which is contrasted by East Asia’s open-ended networked regionalism.
Similarly, and in spite of Europe’s pioneering status and influence in the regional-
ization of higher education, the regionalization of higher education in Asia has
taken a different path. Chao (2014a) presents the difference in European and East
Asian regionalization processes and the regionalization of their respective higher
R.Y. Chao Jr.