Nice article, thanks Simon. Two things interest me about the top 100 target. First, (as far as I am aware) this is the first time outside the higher education sector that the ARWU has been cited as an authoritative (read: objective) metric. Interesting how something that began as an internal institutional benchmarking tool (i.e. Chinese universities comparing their research performance against elite Western universities to work out strategies) is inexorably becoming the definitive device for all universities to use.

Second, in my opinion the only way to achieve the target of 10 in 100 would be either a) for the Federal Government to massively increase research funding over the next 10 years (i.e. over at least three elections) or b) significantly restructure the sector so as to pick 10 ‘winners’ and direct almost all research funding to them. Given that the Go8 currently attracts about 70% of all research funding, this would spell the death of a comprehensive research sector and a return to the pre-Dawkins era. The first scenario is highly unlikely. The second is only marginally more probable.

Hi Simon - thanks for your article; it raises important issues.

The Australia in the Asian Century White Paper is a welcome addition to the national conversation about Australia and its place in Asia, geographically and economically, but does it really come to terms with our cultural engagement with Asia?

Now it’s a fine thing that we promote learning about Asia (language and Asian studies in schools and universities) and learning in Asia (student exchanges and so on) but I read the document, I found nary a word in about learning with and from Asia. What I mean by this is an explicit declaration that there is as much to be learned, for example, from Kongzi (Confucius), Sunzi (Sun Tzu) and Laozi (Lao Tzu) as from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, that we should be learning together and creating new knowledge together. We should be partners in learning about and from each other, rather than, it seems, simply better fitting ourselves (at least in Australia) to benefit economically from the rise of Asia and its middle class.

Consider that one in five people walking on the planet is doing so in China, while nearly a further one in five lives in India. Add Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand, and one accounts for 50% of the world’s population. Yet, if the academic journals are to be believed, it is North America, with less than 5% of the world’s people, that has something of a mortgage on the world’s best ideas. This kind of intellectual hegemony is reflected even in the titles and editorial scope of those journals.
Several years ago, my colleague, Connie Zheng, and I conducted a review of 107 empirical studies relating to human resource management in China, carried out over the previous 30 years and published in the relevant leading journals. We found that, despite the obvious significance of how a fifth of the world’s population might be more effectively managed in an organisational context, human resource management in China is not treated as a mainstream subject of study. Rather it is seen from non-Chinese eyes as a matter for comparative examination and a subset of “international human resource management”. Indeed, the clear conclusion drawn from our review is that, via the many comparative studies reviewed, we now know more about the unique HRM practices of Western (especially US) companies than about human resource management in China.

Looking at this issue from another perspective, you might be familiar with the phrase "What would Jesus do?" (or WWJD?), which became popular in the United States in the 1990s as a statement of ethics for evangelical Christians. We could (and should?) equally ask “What would Confucius do?” or “What would Muhammad do?”, as a basis for exploring the ethics of a situation or particular decision.

In the West we act like we have the best ideas on business ethics that should be adopted by China when confronted by problems like the dairy industry scandal (China Daily, 2010), the public airing of unethical conduct in the business to business company Alibaba (Balfour, 2011) or the Zijing Mining pollution of the Tingjiang River (China.org.cn, 2010). On the other hand, Confucian thinking has been informing ethical business practice in China for several millennia, providing a "home grown" solution that could work not only for China but perhaps in the West too. Indeed, when events like the global financial crisis take place, we might ask about the extent to which we pay attention to our own ideas in this regard. Perhaps we need first to take the plank out of our own eye before we attend to our neighbour’s eye.

This is not, and should not be seen to be, some kind of anti-American tirade but, rather, a cri de coeur for recognition of the mutuality (of recognition, respect and understanding) that needs to inform our interactions. Put another way, we need to have a conversation with our Asian neighbours, rather than a series of convenient monologues. It's critical we bring this notion to the fore, to see it explicitly stated as a partnership based on genuine engagement with our geographical neighbours and not merely an economic opportunity. Then we can talk meaningfully about Australia in Asia, as well as Australia in the Asian Century.

Yes, it is a good article, As a former Australian and Asian history student (at UQ in the mid-seventies), I am particularly taken by Simon's pertinent observation that the report:
does not dwell on the highly varied specifics of the sub-regions and nations under the heading “Asia”. Nor is it drenched in the rich excitement of 3000 years of Sinic, Indian and Southeast Asian cultures.

Learning an Asian language is certainly a useful goal. However, learning about the complexity, antiquity and richness of Asian cultures, societies, and histories is essential to building an improved understanding of their contemporary economies and politics. Given the absence of history departments from so many universities, we need to find ways of incorporating these elements into our courses where possible. I am trying to do this in my Disability Studies courses at the School of Human Services and Social Work at Griffith: the response from the students is keen.

Thank you Simon for this wonderful article. In my opinion, we need liberal educational financing system to push our higher education to the world-class level. Research and teaching on Asia and Asians must be promoted from all stakeholders in all disciplines. Otherwise, this White paper is just another political strategy.