1. Introduction
A common theme within the field of education regionalism is the concept of Education Hubs (EH) or Higher Education Area (HEA). In this article, we conceptualize Education Hub (EH) to include both EH and HEA. An EH refers to a group of states or universities forming a cooperative by aligning their higher education institutions (HEI) towards a larger center for excellence in higher education (Knight, 2011, 2013; Pham, 2017; Rottleb & Kleibert, 2022) . The Bologna Process is an important agreement fostering recent EH developments. The intention behind the Bologna Process was to reform higher education in Europe to promote educational quality in the region, which would then contribute to a highly educated labor force that could sustain European growth (Ertl, 2013) . Recent research has shifted focus from European Regional Education Hubs (REH) towards Asia to investigate EH that have being established or developed further in this region (Chou & Ravinet, 2017; Knight, 2015a, 2015b; Zahavi & Friedman, 2019) .
However, most research focuses on how REH strengthen regional ties, increase the highly educated human resource pool of the region, and create prominent university identities that attract more students and provide “mutual development” across the Asian region (Ayoubi & Massoud, 2011; Chou & Ravinet, 2015; Dang, 2017; Fadeeva & Mochizuki, 2010; Raguž & Pisker, 2011) . Recent trends in regional student mobility within EH have arguably received less attention. This article addresses this limitation by 1) discussing various REH and 2) highlighting recent trends of mobility and institutional incentive (motivation) to establish these REH.
1.1. Defining Education Hubs (EH)
Within the literature of Education Hubs (EH), there are three forms of EH that are used to distinguish the differences between the EH. The three forms of EH are classified according to their design, membership structure and scope of the EH (Chou & Ravinet, 2015; Pham, 2017; Robertson, 2008; Wachter, 2004) .
The first form (Type 1) of EH is a university initiated international collaboration. This EH is university initiated whereby individual universities come together to collaborate on research, student and faculty mobility, and networking. An example of this EH is the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) established in 1997.
The second form (Type 2) of EH is the international branch campus (IBC) university. This is a university with its primary location in one country that also operates a campus and offers degrees/qualification in another country (Altbach, 2013; Lane, 2011a) . The most researched example is probably Singapore, with multiple foreign universities operating a campus in the city state. These are, for example, Temple University, USA, and the University of Adelaide, Australia (Gribble & McBurnie, 2015; Lane, 2011b; Siltaoja et al., 2019) . The main aim of IBCs is to provide higher education services and qualifications in other countries through a local campus without the need for the student to travel to the primary location of the university (Farrugia & Lane, 2013; Lane, 2011a, 2011b; Nuzhat, 2021) .
The most common form of EH (Type 3) is the Regional Educational Hub (REH) which is defined as a state initiated organization of universities within the geographical boundaries of a region (Chou & Ravinet, 2016; Gregory, 2009) . The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is one example of this category. It was established in 1999 after the Bologna Declaration (referred to as the Bologna Process) was initially endorsed by 29 European states (EHEA, 2022) . The EHEA has currently 49 member countries and can be considered to be the most researched form of REH (Knight, 2015b; Lohmann, 2015; Wen & Hu, 2019) . The EHEA was established confined by the geographical boundaries of the European Continent and includes all universities in the European Union (EU) (27 member states), in addition to universities in the 22 non-EU member states (Cabanda et al., 2019; Knight, 2012) . A recent example of a REH is the Asian University Alliance (AUA), established in 2017. AUA includes HIEs from China, Japan and Korea (East Asia), Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar and Indonesia (Southeast Asia), India and Sri Lanka (South Asia), as well as Kazakhstan (Central Asia), and the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (AUA, 2022) . However, only a small number of public universities from each member state were allowed to join AUA (Cabanda et al., 2019) . Observing the two REH in Europe and Asia highlights the collective involvement of state actors and higher education institutions in regional cooperation. Therefore, identifying the trends and motivations of other REH around the world would provide a deeper understanding of the how states and higher education institutions cooperate on a regional scale.
1.2. The Sectoral Framework Approach
The Bologna Process is significant as a series of strategic political actions that created the EHEA and encouraged membership of many non-European Union states (Kettunen & Kantola, 2006; Klemenčič, 2012; Knight, 2015b) . The Bologna Export Theory assumes that other regions have somewhat replicated the example of EHEA to establish their own interpretation of a Higher Education Area (Chou & Ravinet, 2017; Dang, 2017; Khalid et al., 2019; Knight, 2012; Wilkins et al., 2012; Zakota, 2018) . However, recent studies have challenged this theory and argue that the establishment of higher education areas in Asia is mainly attributed to regional progress (Cabanda et al., 2019; Chou & Ravinet, 2015, 2017; Robertson, 2008) . Traditionally, universities have argued for autonomy from the state to allow academic freedom and research within the institution (Cabanda et al., 2019) . The establishment of REH provides a unique example of collaboration between states and universities on a regional scale (Dang, 2017) . Therefore, investigating the trends and motivation of other REH will provide an insight towards understanding how states and universities have embarked on a regional progress through establishing regional education hubs (Chou & Ravinet, 2015) . This research aims to explore this gap in REH research by exploring the various REH in other parts of the world by highlighting the trends and motivation of zthe various REH. A Sectoral Framework approach will address this gap and focuses on 1) identifying main actors in REH, 2) the guidelines that frame the operations of the hub, 3) and the goals and principals of the regional initiative (Chou & Ravinet, 2015) . Focusing on these three components allows this research to identify various REH within the higher education sector whilst providing insights into recent trends and motivations behind the establishment of REH.
2. Methodology
Due to the exploratory nature of this research, data collection focused on formal documents and webpages of the REH investigated in this study. Analysing formal documents and webpages allows the study to systematically elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge without the researcher directly intervening in the organization (Bowen, 2009) . As REH are regional institutions, the formal documents and webpages legitimises the existence of such organizations by providing the identity, members and goals of the REH (Cardno, 2019) .
Website Data
REH webpages were analysed to access information on organizational agreements, membership details, as well as general goals of the REH. A total of 9 webpages were analysed to get a deeper understanding of the REH. Only the official webpages of each REH were considered for analysis in order to reflect the organizational characteristics of each REH (see Table 1).
Webpage data was analysed, using unstructured webpage data mining. Unstructured webpage data mining is widely practiced to identify a current knowledge base found in databases about a specific field of study (Jayamalini & Ponnavaikko, 2017; Tayefi et al., 2021) . Data included texts, tables, graphs, and figures from the REH webpages and formed the research corpus for this paper. The information collected identifies the organization as an official institution, highlights the trends and motivation for establishing a REH.
![]()
Table 1. Regional education hubs and their respective URL.
3. Results
Regional Education Hubs (REH)
REH in Europe
In general, REH are state initiated foreign policy initiatives that utilize universities as members within the hub to develop a regional identity of higher education (Cheng et al., 2016; Knight, 2011, 2013; Rezasyah et al., 2017) . To better understand the development of current REH, its membership and goals/objectives will be explored to identify the actors, guidelines, and goals of the REH. Each REH will be organized into specific groups (regions). Table 1 provides a summary of the active REH initiatives that have been initiated across the world, its member states and member universities.
The EHEA was established in 1999, after the Bologna Declaration, and includes universities from its 49 member states, mainly centered in Europe. According to the Bologna Process (1999), the goals of the EHEA are to 1) ensure a three-cycle education system across the member states, consisting of bachelors, masters and doctoral studies, 2) mutually recognize qualifications, credits and learning periods completed within the EHEA to foster student and faculty mobility, and 3) improve higher education quality assurance to promote the EHEA as a center for higher education.
REH in Asia
In the Asian region, the REH landscape is more diverse and fluid. In 1995, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) established the first REH in Asia, the ASEAN University Network (AUN). Membership includes all 10 ASEAN member states (see Table 1) and their 193 universities (see Table A1). The selection process of university membership is not clearly outlined in the official documents, but it is mandatory that all selected universities agree to accomplish the overall goals of the AUN. These goals are to 1) advance curricula and learning approaches, 2) improve higher education quality assurance, 3) foster student skill development through cross-border collaboration, 4) enhance research cooperation and 5) develop AUN as a networking platform (AUN, 2022) . AUN initiated various thematic networks and projects between member universities to achieve its wider goals (Knight, 2012; Rezasyah et al., 2017) .
In 2012, seventeen years after the establishment of the AUN, the ASEAN+3 University Network (ASEAN+3 UNet) was established. The ASEAN+3 UNet is considered to be a branch of the AUN including only the top 30 universities from the AUN (ASEAN) in addition to 21 universities from the three (+3) countries China, Japan and Korea (Hawkins, 2012) . The goals of the ASEAN+3 UNet encompass similar goals as the AUN, but are limited to its members only and are not extended to other AUN universities. It should be noted that in 2010, China, Japan and Korea developed a separate tripartite REH known as Campus Asia. Campus Asia includes one university from each of the three countries and require the cohort of students to spend at least a year in each of the designated universities. The intention behind this REH is to offer a combined degree in policy studies across the three nations in East-Asia (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2022) . The latest REH in Asia is the Asian University Alliance (AUA), established in 2017. Membership of the AUA consist of 13 member states, represented only by a small number of selected public universities. The AUA has four stated objectives, which are to 1) promote the mobility of students and staff, 2) strengthen collaboration and joint innovation, 3) establish a platform for discussion of higher education policies and strategies, and 4) report about higher education across Asia (Cabanda et al., 2019; Gruby & Campbell, 2013) . All university members in the AUA work towards achieving these goals and to invest in the development of higher education within the Asian continent (AUA, 2022) .
REH in Africa
The situation in the African region is quite different with previous research only mentioning one REH. The Association of African Universities (AAU), established in 1967, consists of 49 countries in Africa with a total of 420 member universities (AAU, 2022) (see Table 2). Membership status is split into 378 full members and 42 associate members. Full members are universities that are located and based on the African continent, while associate members are universities that only have satellite campuses in Africa, but are based outside of Africa (Turner Johnson, 2013) . The AAU membership includes both private and public HEIs (Johnson et al., 2011) . The AAU objectives are to work as a platform to 1) promote networking between universities and regional organizations in Africa to improve teaching, accreditation, HEI management, and research, 2) to encourage cooperation amongst universities to mutually recognize qualifications, and 3) to advocate for universities taking on the role of public fora for a dialogue on issues around higher education (Mihyo, 2008) . According to its constitution (AAU, 2022) , members are required to participate in the AAU General Conference once every four years to discuss the AAU policies. However, the process of AAU policy implementation (the outcomes of the conference) is unclear.
REH in Latin America
In Latin America, two REH are currently active. First, the Central American University Council (CSUCA), established in 1948, amongst the eight states within the geographical boundaries of Central America (Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and the Dominican Republic). Membership is exclusive only to the 21 public universities within its 8 member states. The goals of the CSUCA are to 1) foster the improvement, innovation and regional integration of public higher education, 2) defend the autonomy of public universities in the region and 3) build a platform for networking in research, teaching and management practices amongst the member universities (CSUCA, 2022) . According to CSUCA’s (2022) operating rules, each member must implement the policies of the CSUCA and maintain the autonomy of the university within Central America. The second REH in Latin America is the Montevideo Group Universities’ Association (AUGM), including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay. Located amongst the most southern countries in Latin America, its membership consists of 27 public universities within the member states that are required to remain autonomous and self-governed within their respective states. According to the AUGM (2022) , the objectives of the organization are to 1) collaborate and strengthen research/innovation of its members to develop high capacity human resources, 2) to assist in university management and, 3) to support student/staff mobility and research collaboration within the REH.
![]()
Table 2. Active regional education hubs around the world.
4. Results
Trends in REH
To better understand REH, the trends of the current forms of REH need to be identified to indicate the directions in which REH are developing. Based on the literature on REH, it can be argued that REH generally work within the geographical boundaries of a specific region. However, certain trends have been identified within the formal REH documents. These documents outline trends of mobility within the hub and motivations for initially establishing the hub. This section discusses the trends in mobility across REH, identified in the results above and highlights the various motivations for establishing the REH.
4.1. Mobility in the REH
Upon analyzing the formal documents, there were three forms of mobility that REH engaged in depending on the guidelines that dictated the operations of the hub.
The most common trend in REH mobility is arguably the movement of faculty members between universities. REH mobility programs vary and focus on a multitude of anticipated outcomes. The movement of faculty members allows the further development of disciplinary expertise in the region and is often based on collaborative research and teaching across the REH. A common reason for research collaboration is attributed to sharing resources within the REH. Resources such as funding and research equipment are often shared amongst the universities in REH. Within this context of resource sharing, faculty members are able to collectively invest in various research projects. This could be seen as to imply that state barriers regarding intellectual knowledge sharing between faculty in a REH are somewhat removed. The removal of knowledge sharing barriers allows the faculty to better collaborate on research topics for the purpose of regional progress. However, to avoid conflicts, information gathered and developed from collaborative research is often disclosed and accessible to all members of the REH. This ensures mutual learning and regional progress, a shared goal in establishing many REH. For example, the ASEAN University Network (AUN) designated National University of Singapore (NUS) as the center of architecture design studies in the REH. Funding for the discipline of architecture design studies would be directed to NUS and faculty in the same discipline from other member universities can conduct collaborative research through the NUS campus in Singapore. Having the mobility of faculty within the hub allows for regional progress in the discipline and encourages a collective approach in higher education. However, one REH studied (Campus Asia) did not highlight the mobility of faculty as an objective in the REH agreement. The reasoning for this restriction of faculty mobility was to prevent the allocation of collective state funding to one institution with the REH.
The second trend across REH is the strengthening of student mobility regimes. Student mobility often takes on the form of exchange programs, including credit transfer, student research collaboration, student club activities and sports competitions between universities in the REH. Fostering student mobility in the REH indicates that member universities agree on the importance of student interaction. This student interaction within the REH promotes the sharing of ideas and cultural understanding and creates a platform of communication for the future generation in the region. As the goal of many REH is to promote regional progress in higher education, student mobility is a crucial factor in achieving such progress. For example, the credit transfer between universities in the region is often standardized within the REH to reduce barriers for students to experience higher education in other universities within the hub on a temporary basis. Such an exchange exposes students to a range of experiences, such as mutual learning and new cultural perspectives. As a result, students are able to explore the higher education opportunities with the REH. However, three out of the eight REH indicated that student mobility was not a key objective of the REH (see Table 3). This was found in the REH located in Africa and Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) due to the legal restrictions (visa requirements) regarding travel between states within the region.
The third trend in REH mobility is the staff mobility, which is fostered only in three REH (see Table 3). The objectives of these three REH state that sharing good management practices in universities constitute a corner stone of the hub’s goals. The reasoning behind staff mobility is that current management practices of universities in the REH are often unable to cope with the increasing number of students enrolling in universities in the region. Upon further analysis of the REH that encourage staff mobility, it was found that student enrollment over the
![]()
Table 3. Mobility within the various REH.
past decade had increased significantly. This increase coupled with the somewhat inefficient management practices often created the necessity for efficient management practices to be shared between universities in REH. Another reason outlined in formal documents is to offer staff members the opportunity to network within the REH. Networking ensures that the staff are aware of best-practice administrative procedures. Having such understanding would allow member universities to coordinate effectively within the REH. Therefore, the mobility of staff is mainly aimed at providing efficient and productive services between universities in the REH.
4.2. Motivations for Establishing the REH
The other trend found amongst the different REH studied was the motivation for the establishment of the REH. Within the REH formal documents analyzed, the motivation for the establishment of the REH was found to be varied depending on the location of the REH. For the EHEA, the motivation behind the development of the hub was to promote Europe as an area of higher education and to attract international and domestic students to pursue higher education studies within the region. With the decline in university student population in Europe, the EHEA aimed to utilize the reputation of universities in Europe to attract students from other regions. Upon completion of their studies, students often seek careers in Europe. With its declining human resources, attracting foreign talent and retaining them after graduation would be beneficial for the region. On the other hand, REH in Asia had the motivational goal to achieve a higher reputation of its universities as institutions of innovation and academic excellence, which historically is associated with higher education institutions in the West. With the economic rise development in Asia, higher education institutions are striving to garner a reputation of being able to compete with the quality level of higher education in the West. REH allow the region to collectively shape its higher education identity as institutions of innovative research within the international higher education system.
However, a unique motivation for establishment of a REH was identified in Africa and LAC which provides a different perspective on establishing a REH. REH in Africa and LAC ensure the autonomy of universities within the member states. By joining the REH, individual universities are empowered to counter government influence on higher education in the region. This unique motivation was attributed to the frequent governmental interventions on higher education institutions in the region. Therefore, being a member of a REH could be seen as a way of collectively resisting government interventions in the region.
5. Conclusion
Regional Education Hubs (REH) research in general is a relatively new field of study in education regionalism. Identifying the various REH around the world allowed this paper to explore membership, trends and goals of the hubs. The membership arrangements of the various REH highlighted that states and universities both participate in the REH. Across REH, mobility of faculty, students, and staff is promoted as a means of connecting HEIs in the region. This allows for research collaboration, collective resource allocation and academic development, student exchanges, and sharing of management practices on a regional scale. Such mobility schemes strengthen regional progress in higher education and encourage knowledge sharing amongst the members of the hub. However, there are different reasons for developing REH. In Europe, the REH was developed to attract international students to strengthen higher education and human resources in the region. In Asia, REH were developed to promote the region as a new area of academic excellence through the promotion of research and innovation. The unique motivation of REH in Africa and LAC was identified to be a collective approach of higher education institutions to remain autonomous from the state.
The significance of these findings in the field of education regionalism research suggests that REH around the world have been established predominantly for the promotion of regional progress. As REH operate towards achieving certain goals, states and universities collaborate on a regional level to foster economic and intellectual prosperity, motivated by either academic research, innovation, university autonomy or the decreasing human resource pool in a region. This collective approach indicates that countries are recognizing the benefits of merging their efforts in higher education on a regional scale rather than independently competing with each other towards the same goals. Although there are similarities amongst REH, the idea of most REH simply “mimicking” the Bologna Process of 1999 portrays a very limited and limiting perspective on educational regionalism. This paper has shown that REH are far more complex than so far theorized, going beyond ideas of regional progress and resource sharing.
Annex
![]()
Table A1. ASEAN university network member countries and universities.
![]()
Table A2. ASEAN+3UNet: +3 UNet Countries and members universities.
![]()
Table A3. Association of African Universities (AUA) countries and member universities.
![]()
Table A4. Montevideo group association of universities.