Learning about and from Normative Power China in International Education Cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explains different forms of normative power and expands the conceptual understanding of the normative power approach to studying international higher education cooperation. ‘Normative Power’ is often understood as the ability to shape conceptions of the ‘normal’ in international relations (Manners, 2002), a concept underexplored in higher education research. Drawing on the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) education process, which has convened 51 Asian and European countries alongside the European Union (EU) and the Asian Secretariat since 2008, this paper investigates how the European partners promote the Bologna Process standards and norms to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). However, normative power is not exclusive to Europe; China’s Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI) education program, initiated in 2013, has also exerted a distinct form of normative power and influence on ASEAN’s higher education systems. By analyzing the ASEM education process and the BRI education program, this paper examines the constituents of normative power, its practice, the key differences between 'Normative Power Europe' and 'Normative Power China,' and the outcomes generated in EU-ASEAN and China-ASEAN collaborations. The author argues that the EU’s and China’s normative power in higher education cooperation is not defined solely by the norms they seek to diffuse but also by the underlying logic guiding their actions and the outcomes produced through processes of interactions. The paper also sheds light on lessons that can be learned about how China wields its normative power in comparison with the EU and how ASEAN engages with various powerful partners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".