GLOBALISATION AND UNIVERSITIES’ QUALITY DEVELOPMENT
Globalisation’s Effects on the Quality of Western Universities’ Services and Organisation; Is China Different?
Professor Arild Tjeldvoll
ABSTRACT
How does globalisation affect the quality of organisation/management, research and teaching/learning of tertiary level institutions? Concepts like research, quality and globalisation are contested, often loaded with unconscious subjective values and ideological under currents. Research may be based primarily in either an analytical, normative or practical way of thinking. Level of consciousness about these distinctions is critical for the quality of conclusions drawn. Quality, likewise, can be defined either as quality “of” related to fundamental values in our civilisation or to instrumental quality “for”. In the latter case the concern is about the quality of the means we use to reach our goals (e.g. in research and organising of learning). Globalisation can either be a “strategy of greedy capitalism”, as an intended purpose for organising a “functional world”, or an intended neutral frame of reference for analysing cultural, economical and technological global effects. Introductorily, observations are based in a Western frame of reference for analysing university development, before asking: Are the same problematic relevant for China?
What are key concepts and controversies related to western universities’ quality development under so-called globalisation? And, is the same problematic relevant for China? In the West globalisation is a contested buzzword that seems impossible to avoid when analysing university development. Whatever its conceptual status and empirical underpinning, it is here – as a socially constructed reality, felt as a rather brutal new context of higher education in most countries. Globalisation as university context is assumed to influence profoundly on the quality of universities’ main services – research and teaching, or as the latter could be termed more accurately – the way we organise learning in mass higher education institutions. Also, the concept of quality is disputed. What is quality of research and learning in a university? – The definition we choose becomes crucial for the decisions we make about objectives and strategies for university development. In terms of different stakeholders one can easily imagine that ministries of education (but also others, e.g. ministry of labour), working life, students and professors define quality of a university’s services differently – because - they think differently, that is: they apply different rationalities, they seek different values or purposes and have different vested interests in universities. Who will in times ahead decide upon the university quality issues? Internationally, a fascinating power struggle is going on between state, professors and market. The power balance between them is quite different in different countries, due to varying historical legacies and financial conditions.
Scientific research
Scientific knowledge is a key feature of an institution calling itself a research university. Research is a powerful term. It can mean everything and next to nothing. A TV programme is based on ‘research’. Everyday problems investigated can also be termed research. Most people would, however, still tend to think of research as academic or scientific research, that is: activities aiming ultimately at concluding something that is credible because it seeks truth.
Research reports, not least from the field of education, are often concerned about how things ought to be, or how they could be implemented. These are normative and practical ways of thinking. Fair enough. However, they are constrained by the researchers implicit pre-understanding of what is either good, or what is practically useful. Different from such investigations, analytical academic research tends to be based in a distinct scientific frame of reference and aims at exploring or explaining a phenomenon as objectively as possible. Hence, conclusions are found more durable and credible by a wider audience.
In research on universities’ quality development we ought, hence to be clear about which scientific frames of thinking that is steering our activities: Is it facts that we can observe? Or, are our research activities steered by what we would like to see happen? Or, is the motive to find out how we can make things happen? Research on university development will be qualitatively different depending on whether our research activities are governed by analytical, normative or practical ambitions/motives. Academic/scientific researchers are normally conscious about these distinctions, and give arguments for choice of research approach, its validity and why the conclusions would be generally credible. Within mass higher education it happens, however, that professors ride their own political hobby horses, and blur scientific research with politics.
Quality
The word quality is now heard everywhere – all the time. In Norway, it has been made the overarching concept of the present nationwide reform of higher education – The Quality Reform.[1] Few good examples of definition of quality are found.[2] A common sense opinion is that quality is something everybody has a pretty firm “feeling” of what is. “You know when you are in touch with quality”. This is a popular way of saying that quality is relative and connected to an individual’s subjective notion of standards. Related to universities the quality issue takes a particular significance - because universities in the western world have been ‘institutions’ (socio-cultural cornerstones alongside e.g. the Church and the Family) representing certain value dimensions basic in our civilisation[3].
Quality can analytically be related to Max Weber’s distinction between value goals and instrumental goals.[4] Value goals are about fundamental, universal qualities (or characteristics or properties), in principle valid for all human beings. Instrumental goals are related to economic and practical issues, often decisive to achieve value goals. For example, it is important for a university to have a healthy economy, strong enough to also employ philosophers and sociologists researching conditions for civilisation and daring to speak truth to powers – like State and Market. The value aspect and the instrumental aspect of quality can be further explained by two labels: Purpose for and Purpose of – research and learning.
Quality as fitness of “purpose for”
Quality may be related to how fit an instrument, tool or strategy is for reaching a given goal, for example, the goal of competitiveness for a university to recruit students. When the instrument, e.g. a teacher’s organising of learning, is producing high achievements by the students, quality of teaching as instrument has been high in terms of making the institution competitive. The instrumental “purpose for” quality concern is related to effectiveness, efficiency and, with globalisation as context, increasingly to competitiveness. There is high quality of teaching activities when learning achievements by students are high, they are attained at lowest possible costs – and graduates from this institution are competitive in the job market.
Quality as fitness of “purpose of”
Quality as “purpose of” is concerned not about instruments or strategies to achieve something, but about the quality of a purpose itself. Is our aim or goal valuable? Is it a worthwhile goal we are trying to reach with instruments of high technical quality? Instead of concentrating on the quality of the instruments, focus here is on the essence, or meaning of what we are doing. Is the purpose important in a value and moral perspective? Quality of education can be taken as an example. Is education primarily a means for producing work competence in general or for jobs? Or, is the quality of education primarily related to the student’s personal development as a responsible human being in a civilised society?
The clash between quality as “purpose for” and “purpose of”
Within higher education, in the western world, there are today observed intensive struggles between the two quality camps of “purpose of” and “purpose for”. Governments/Ministries of education, large groups of students and working life are concerned about higher education’s quality in terms of qualifying people for being continuously competent and competitive in the global knowledge economy.[5] Continuous relevant competence is a necessity for survival of individuals and nations in the global economical competition. A slogan from this camp frequently heard is: Learn or Burn.[6]
The Quality as purpose of-camp is represented by groups of professors and intellectuals with their value roots in both radical and conservative ideologies. They claim that success of the Quality as “purpose for-struggle” will be at the cost of the Quality as “purpose of” – the classic values or purposes of the university as a social and cultural institution in a civilised society. This camp claims the overall mission of a research university as a social institution to be: basic research and training of students for creative, independent critical thinking. Over and above a key purpose of universities should be to train young people to speak truth to power – to counteract dehumanising effects from the purpose of one-sided economical instrumentalism.
The paramount question in terms of universities’ quality development obviously is: Is it possible to organise a university that simultaneously can serve the purposes of human civilisation/culture-values and the needs of the economy, from which we all are living? And, if yes, how is such a double purpose designed in terms of a relevant university organisation and production activities of research and organising of learning? To play a bit on words – what would be indications of quality of the strategies achieving Quality both as “purpose of” and “purpose for”?
Some stakeholders would tend to think that a functional division of labour could be that classical research universities should mainly take care of “purpose of”, while professional schools could take care of “purpose for”. However, some would then claim that such a division would imply an intellectual class structure within higher education – between the “culturally educated” and the ‘instrumentally trained”. Such “inequality” might have difficulties in being accepted in a society with a strong democratic ideology. Maybe most students are not interested in being “purpose of-educated”. Maybe they wish purpose for-quality and a lucrative job. Maybe it is not possible under mass higher education to keep up the traditional purpose of-ideal like before for everybody. The student market may refuse it. In Norway, there seems to be some irrational tensions between the purposes of academic elitism, of equality thinking and of what is needed for staying competitive as universities in an increasingly global higher education market.[7]
Globalisation
Also ‘globalisation’ is difficult to define and to have a generally agreed opinion about. At least three camps can be identified in terms of how the label is understood. Firstly, we have those groups seeing globalisation as a rather conscious strategy by “greedy global capitalism”. The French-originated activist organisation “Attack” is an example of such a view. IGOs (e.g. IMF and WB) and large multinational companies are promoters of a global profit-seeking process producing more social inequality and dangerous environmental development. Hence it ought to be attacked or attempted stopped. Concrete examples are the demonstrations at WTO meetings, like in Seattle, Genoa and Gothenburg. The other view is one positive to globalisation, seeing the process as a natural and constructive way of organising the whole world to become functional and efficient for production and distribution of services and products. The technological communication revolution and the success of market economy thinking as ideology make it a challenge for everybody’s survival to see the world as one unit – “a global village”.[8] Thirdly, there can be imagined a camp that at least tries to take a neutral, analytical stand to globalisation, and whose ambition is to try to conceptualise the globalisation process, and then to collect empirical data to underpin conceptual relations. Manuel Castells’ three volumes work[9] – is a relevant example of such an attempt. Sociologists like Castells do not take a stand for or against globalisation. Their ambition is firstly to try to understand what is happening globally, and, then, secondly, to predict consequences for society, culture and economy. From these analyses politicians may take normative advices for their choice of policies. If one, from this camp should try to take a normative stand, the overall query would be: How can both an economic and a cultural rationale be legitimized in a traditional, western research university? – Studying the present behaviour of e.g. Cambridge University or Melbourne University gives interesting insight in how classical elite research universities adapt to globalisation in terms of governance, research and teaching. They behave like successful business schools. But will they succeed? – Or, will they turn into “value-unconscious knowledge enterprises”? – producing whatever products whatever market asks for?
Quality effects on universities’ services
Whatever resistance made to globalisation by ivory-professors[10] universities all over the world seem now forced to make changes in their organisation and production. They are forced to become more competitive in order have students and research funding. This challenge is perceived differently in different countries, depending on the character of the power relations between State and professors/trade unions historically and the status of the national economy.[11] In countries where internationally competitive higher education is decisive for the national economy efforts are stronger for changing the universities.[12] Relevant examples are UK and Australia. Other countries are more relaxed to these challenges, taking considerable time to discuss if and what sort of changes should be made. This is the case either when historical traditions for strong professorial power are present, like Germany, or when the national economy is affluent, like Norway.[13]
Challenges envisioned for western universities
For research the challenge is double: Both to be internationally competitive in basic, fundamental research, and to be highly relevant in applied research serving the state and the market. The first challenge implies having an institutional economy that makes it possible to make long time investments in excellent researchers’ independent work. The second implies having researchers that can do problem-oriented applied research needed by customers, and well paid by them. How this double challenge is met will depend on the power balance between state, professors and market in the country, in general, and on the political strategic handicraft of the Government. For teaching, the great challenge is for the university to transform professors into pedagogues – to create real learning for a highly diverse student body. This is an extremely difficult challenge, because many professors are excellent researchers, but poor pedagogues, and most of them are not likely to be able to learn the art of teaching a student body reflecting the diversity of a universal comprehensive secondary school.
What to do then? Some education researchers would already argue that the fundamental challenge is to look at the whole university as a learning organisation. How can its structures, processes and functions be designed to make professors, administrators and students learn effectively – in order not to “burn”[14]? If students do not think the university is teaching well they will evaluate it by their feet, that is – they will go to another institution. Even more important for the university as an organisation is the quality of its governance, management and administration.[15] In Norway today this is a hot issue. Thousands of university professors have recently turned political activists – reminding one of the radical students of the 1970’s[16] – in their resistance to the Government’s attempts at making Norway’s knowledge production and tertiary level training internationally competitive.[17] In an international/comparative perspective Norway is an extreme example of professors’ and trade unions’ powerful resistance to globalisation effects on higher education.[18] One particular reason for the relative success of the resistance campaign is the affluent national economy, making for instance student fees a rude word. Another reason is a creative alliance of university administrators/trade unions and professors in defence of their autonomy and job security.
For the recent effects of globalisation on research, organising of learning, use of ICT and management design, it seems fair to look to the Anglo-American world[19] and, also the former Communist world[20]. Different norm spaces from the past now seem to merge in peculiar ways. In common these two worlds now have a rationalist orientation of seeing universities as instruments for the economy, while several European countries are still governed by the spirit of idealism, the university as an “ivory” institution at a distance from the economic interests of state and market, and with autonomy for the professors to decide what the university’s mission should be.[21] In a country like Norway the benefits of the Ivory Model has also turned strategically useful for the state colleges’ academic and administrative staffs. The unionist aspect is particularly interesting. What do professors (full, associate and assistant) from universities and colleges – and administrative staff have of common interests – crystallized strategically in resistance to the Government’s Quality Reform in Norway? It could be continued freedom to take well care of their subjective down to earth material interests, wrapped up in academic freedom rhetoric, without giving much consideration to the economy of their institution.
While Norwegian higher education development may be a case of the West – “a higher education turtle” moving in the same direction as her speedy Anglo-American model countries, China may be a case from the diminishing socialist/communist camp. This camp does not today comprise many countries, but China represents 30% of the world’s population. The comparative pertinent question is, however, is higher education development in China different from the West?
IS CHINA DIFFERENT?
In international comparison of higher education China sticks out as a particularly interesting country case. This paper’s empirical basis for analysis is limited. It is comprised of daily observations and impressions at Xiamen University in Fuijan Province from August between 2002 and 2008. Data have been achieved from discussions with colleagues and graduate students in a weekly seminar on service university development internationally.[22] The seminar has been attended by students from several parts of China. They have informed about how policies materialise differently in the provinces of this vast country. Also, daily watching CCTV 9[23] and reading China Daily[24] have been valuable sources to understand how the Government/the Party like the outside world to interpret China, especially in the areas of economy and culture. Higher education policies are important for both. Moreover, tutoring of a handful of Chinese graduate students in Norway writing their theses on comparison of Chinese higher education with western countries has been an important source of information about China[25]. Impressions are that Chinese colleagues and students are concerned with several of the same issues as academics in the West. However, some of the western controversies seem absent from discussions in the Chinese context.
Globalisation – not a Problem?
In Anglo-American countries, the for-profit commercialisation of higher education following from the WTO’s proposal of seeing” education products” as free trade in a global market has created considerable concern among academics.[26] In China there are seldom heard reactions to possible negative effects of globalisation. Everybody is aware of China’s joining the WTO, and the impression is that over and above membership is in the interest of China. The issue of “higher education as global free trade” and its consequences for goals and content of Chinese higher education do not yet seem to be a widespread concern. Over and above impressions are that the Chinese are self-confident about the competitive strength of their higher education also under globalisation. Maybe this self-confidence is connected to “the firewall” of the Chinese language. For a foreigner staying in China for some time and only speaking English, the Chinese language seems like a giant cultural “Great Wall” between the Chinese World and the Western World. Behind this Great Cultural Wall the Chinese may feel that they are safe for a long time ahead to pursue their own research and higher education goals. Because of the language, the “laowais”[27] simply are mostly excluded from influencing the debate on content and structure of domestic higher education policies.
Western universities’ branch campus on Chinese soil may just be functional supplements to domestic programmes, never able to seriously threaten the massive ongoing education for the billion people plus only understanding Chinese. On this background the Chinese may be more than ready to pick up, apply and exploit whatever western higher education strategy and product appearing that they find pragmatic useful for their over all economical aims. Watching CCTV 9’s programmes and reading China Daily’s articles on Chinese culture, tourism and, especially, economic issues, you unavoidably get the feeling that the country is strongly oriented towards competitiveness. It prepares for competing with the West in general and the US. Most of the indicators used for comparisons of economic development directly or indirectly refer to US parallels. In terms of culture there can hardly be another country where the media are so concerned about showing the historical cultural strength of the country. The TV-programme Cultural Express is sent several times a week, and offers media-professional presentations of the greatness of the past, as well as all the current cultural activities going on, strongly supported by the Government. In business report programmes, there is a similar dedication to presenting the impressive growth of the economy, and how attractive the country is for foreign investors.
A careful attempt at summing up the Chinese’ attitude to globalisation could be that the nation feels so economical competitive and has such a strong cultural identity that globalisation seems almost welcome, implicit – China will be a global winner both in terms of economy and culture. The country’s higher education policies seem to be calibrated to such national strategies. Foreign “higher education investments” would just be useful supplements.
A “Chinese” Science Paradigm’?
In discussions with graduate Chinese students it is strongly claimed that there is a Chinese science paradigm different from the international/Western paradigm. Using the concept of paradigm, it is referred to the classic text by Thomas Kuhn, on “revolutions in science”. It is held that in recent years, Chinese researchers are increasingly leaning towards the Western paradigm, and complementary, Western researchers understand the Chinese way less. In general, it turns out that what these students mean by “Western paradigm” is what in the West has been termed a “positivist” hard science model also for social sciences. What then about the Chinese paradigm? It is claimed to be a paradigm, but not a stringent model like the Western hypo-deductive model. When challenged to be more specific, two main types of research approach within the Chinese paradigm are outlined.[28] In Type 1 you will find the following steps:
a) Problem statement (referring to the western term) - is not necessarily needed, because the reader will understand what the “problem” is while reading the paper.
b) Presentation of the author’s main ideas – this is the core of the research paper; the author is advocating his or her own ideas in different ways
c) Conclusions – is not necessary, normally, as they will be included in b) above
Type 2 has four steps:
a) Stating the problem
b) The author advocates one main approach to illuminate the problem: his chosen option is the core of the article
c) The chosen core option is testified by logic
d) A conclusion is drawn
The second type is claimed to be the most common and popular among graduate students in social sciences. Not to master this type is considered a failure. Per the graduate students studying higher education they see western social science research mainly as positivist, applying the same logic as in the natural sciences, e.g. seeing empirical data as decisive. This approach is secondary within the Chinese paradigm.[29] Another difference between the two paradigms is the way previous research is assessed. In the West, much attention is paid to the (literature) review of previous research, the idea being to build further from what is already known (not risking reinventing the bicycle), while in China this is not seen as necessary. However, the researcher may look to previous research, but will not treat it as important. Focus is on testifying the author’s own ideas. It is also held that Chinese scholars are now learning the western paradigm as part of international trends or globalisation, but the Chinese paradigm is still popular.[30]
However, a closer look at these arguments and a comparative glance to the West make one wonder how real the claimed difference is. The Chinese paradigm may not be very different from the content of a familiar anti-positivist science critique in the West. Per Welch[31] the critique of positivist science in the West must a considerable degree created a destruction of “The Canon” of science as it used to be understood and applied in the past. Hence there are not necessarily such distinct “paradigmatic differences” between China and the West. Paradoxically, the Chinese, per Zhou[32] may now be moving towards a western thinking that is on its return in the West, - and perhaps the West is moving towards a more Chinese “paradigm”, with a less strict “Canon”?
The issue of “what is scientific research” is closely related to the question of quality of science, or the relation between quality as “purpose for” and “purpose of” discussed earlier in this paper regarding Weber’s distinction between value goals and instrumental goals.[33]
The “Quality of” issue not a Chinese controversy?
To which degree are Chinese researchers free to choose whatever issue they wish to do research on? Is the western debate about the two understandings of quality relevant for the Chinese world? From scarce empirical observations, it is difficult to make any firm assessment. Applying a long historical glance at knowledge production and application in China, it is a rationalist understanding of the relation between state/society and university that seems most distinct – and, hence different from the idealist perspective of the West, especially highlighted in the German Humboldt-tradition. Historically, the emperors and the mandarins set the agenda for which functions institutions of higher learning, and research should have. The overall criteria were the rational needs of the State. From 1949 the rationalism of the CCP has set a similar agenda, however based on the values (also of democracy as interpreted by Communism) and functional interests of the Chinese State. It seems fair to claim that quality of a university in this perspective had to be about “quality of the purpose for” – since universities’ production of knowledge and education clearly was an instrument for the political and ideological needs of the State. A comparative paradox may be that the West seems moving in the rationalist direction, but now from the needs not of the (e.g. welfare) State, but from the competence needs of a turbulent global market economy. China, still, applies rationalist norms based in the needs of the State. However, the Chinese turns out to demonstrate a form of State rationalism. From the 1970s the State has extended its rationalism to include the needs of “socialist market economy” (SME).
Envisioned Challenges for Chinese higher education
Attempting to envisage Chinese higher education particularities confronting the western, Anglo-American-led, globalisation and marketisation of higher learning and research, several challenges may be identified (although – as seen by the limited knowledge of a “laowai”).
Scientific “bilingualism”
Although many Chinese for traditional and philosophical reasons much would like to stick strongly to the Chinese science paradigm[34] there is obviously also a need for commanding the internationally dominating western ways of understanding and doing empirical research. This will be a condition for a functional, international, academic communication, as well as for being competitive in the higher education global market. Hence, the Chinese scholars perhaps ought to go for scientific “bilingualism” – that is being trained to command both paradigms, and be competent to implement empirical research from both. From such a competence position, it ought to be possible continuously to assess and decide about what are necessary adaptations to western style, and where western ways should be refused, and Chinese preferred.
“University Pedagogy” in mass higher education
Although recruitment to higher education in China is increasing strongly, the country has not yet reached “mass/universal higher education” like most western countries. Chinese students over and above are very well motivated for university studies, implying that there are not very strong needs for the teaching professor to behave like a motivating pedagogue. The latter is becoming a must in the West. Also for China, when increasing student recruitment results in a more diversified student body, in terms of cognitive background for academic studies, there may be a need for more student-centred teaching and application of principles for inter-active learning. A technological aspect of the new “university pedagogy of mass higher education” is the use of ICT in teaching, on campus and off campus. Increased competition in the global higher education market, the ICT Revolution[35] may make it necessary for Chinese professors to change their pedagogy.
The International Student Role
Globalisation and higher education market economy will contribute to increasing the exchange rate of students between countries and to stimulate students to go for their own study careers in other countries. Parallel to “scientific bilingualism” Chinese students may find it useful to command different student roles. The student role in China is quite different from the West. To maximise benefits from studying in the West, familiarity with the student role in this part of the world, and capability of playing this role to some degree would be useful. On the other hand, when returning to China, the Chinese student role will still be required. A role is the sum of expectations to a person in a certain position, in this case, the Chinese student. An important expectation is the one from the Chinese professor, when in China, and from the western professor when staying in a western country. The challenge being to command both roles, and, simultaneously, avoid splitting one’s identity.
Cultural Defence Needs
Although based on scarce empirical data, there is obviously another, complementary picture to the enthusiastic Chinese student eagerly exercising English in the campus parks early in the morning – and preparing communicatively for the international scene. Older professors express distinct concerns about the consequences of western influence for the millennia-old Chinese culture, embedded e.g. in the language, in the art, in the artefacts and, recently, in communist equality values. What will happen to China’s “cultural defence works” when thousands of Chinese go abroad and then come back, re-socialised to western, not least commercialised American pop-culture values? And, on the other side, when WTO-regulations open for branch campuses of Anglo-American universities on the Chinese mainland – what else than competence in business management, English language, computer technology a.s.o. – will they bring to Chinese hearts and minds? Such queries by the older professors indicate a fear of western cultural imperialism, reminding the Chinese of the “western visits” to China in the 19th and early 20th Centuries (e.g. the Opium Wars). Obviously, these are serious concerns, and deserve profound discussions related to national higher education and culture policies.
A more self-confident Chinese attitude observed is, however, that there is not really a need for being concerned about cultural defence. The specific quality of the Chinese culture is so strong, especially the “firewall” of the Chinese language, seen together with the foreign capitalists’ attraction to the “1.3 Billion Market” makes it likely that it will be the “laowais” that must learn Chinese, and adapt to Chinese culture to get access to business. From this point of view, it might well be the Chinese who will be changing the western culture, than the opposite. Or, development could be as Castells claims: culture in the traditional meaning will disappear, and only an ephemeral cultural code is what is left.[36]
A cultural defence need expressed by the older Chinese is to preserve the cultural and social gains of the Chinese Communist Revolution of 1949. Although admitting the failures of the Culture Revolution and that Chairman Mao was 30% wrong, the socialist utopian values and their cultural force in continuously working towards collective responsibility, equality and respect for all human beings are still strongly held, also under pragmatic Dengism and “socialist market economy” (SME). Per Wang[37] Dengism is classified as Deng’s personal ideas and politics on economic reform over the past twenty-five years. This “ism” basically is Deng’s remarks and thoughts concerning the building of a socialist society which includes Chinese characteristics in terms of market-style reform and an open-door policy towards foreign investment. In late 1978 Deng announced what he called the “second revolution”. Deng’s modernisation of rural agriculture production, reforming industry by upgrading technology and managerial systems, implementing price reforms, advocating foreign trade and investments and encouraging private businesses have proved successful in terms of economic growth and better standard of living for the Chinese.[38] – However, can Chinese SME avoid being swallowed by greedy, global, impersonal capitalism?[39]
Concluding Remarks: Has China found a “Winning Formula” of Social Organisation?
“Socialist Market Economy” (SME) for many westerners sounds like a contradiction in meaning of words. However, could it be that SME represents an innovation in terms of how to organise a society for social equality and justice on the one side - and simultaneously, on the other, for the country – creating domestic economic growth and economic competitiveness in the global market? If the answer is a tentative yes, what would then be the role of higher education in this model? Per Castells[40] “If knowledge is the electricity of the new informational-international economy, then the institutions of higher education are the power sources on which the new development process must rely”. Moreover, Castells argues that here are two ways of organising tertiary education. One is within the frames of an institution created for that specific purpose. The other is within the frames of a business with an external purpose. In the West, the latter is exemplified by “corporate universities”.[41]
In a strongly centralized state like China, the Government’s policies in terms of public, private and corporate higher education or flexible solutions between them ought to be a function of the needs of SME. Information noticed from discussions with colleagues; from expressions in the media[42] during the autumn of 2003 indicate a pragmatic Government attitude. China seems ready to experiment with a variety of models of organizing, governance and financing of post secondary education.[43]
The SME reality is almost felt physically in Xiamen, Fuijan Province, which has one of the special economic zones (SEZ). The dynamic economic development is visualized in skyscrapers for the multinational companies (e.g. Sony, Dell and Kodak) mushrooming in the City. Construction work is going on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Business seems to be flourishing everywhere. A US immigrant business school professor teaching at Xiamen University for many years has captured this market dynamic lively in his book Magic Amoy[44]. At the same time, students’ opinions indicate a lot of attention to socialist equality values. The Communist Party is a present reality in Chinese higher education. At Xiamen University, the Office of Communist Party’s representative in the University’s governing body is located at the top floors of the 23-story main campus building.
The western controversy of higher education’s quality as either Purpose for or Purpose of – research and learning does not really seem to exist in China. On the backdrop of Chinese history, culture and present philosophy of organising and running the State, it seems that “purpose of” and “purpose for” of higher education have integrated into a functional synthesis. Chinese higher education, at large, aims at serving both the fundamental values of Chinese culture and the economical needs for a regional power aiming at becoming a world power. If successful, the Chinese have found a winning formula in organising their society, higher education included. Yes, China is different from the West in her organising of higher education – the State is likely to continue monitoring how global market forces influence Chinese socialist equality values.
Acronyms
CCP China’s Communist Party
CCT Central China TV
IGO International Governmental Organisation
IMD International Monetary Development Fund
SME Socialist Market Economy
WB World Bank
WTO World Trade Organisation
[1] Ministry of Education (2001). Facts about Norwegian education. Oslo: ODIN – Government’s homepage (https://odin.dep.no/kuf/norsk/p772/index-n-n-a.html)
[1] Harvey, L. & Green, D (1993): "Defining Quality". Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol.18, No.4, 1993
[3] Welle-Strand, A. (2000) “Knowledge Production, Service and Quality. Higher Education Tensions in Norway” in Quality in Higher Education, Volume 6.3
[4] Weber, M. (1964) The theory of social and economic organization; translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Free Press.
[5] “The Service University in the Knowledge Economy of Europe” in Dewatripont, M., Thys-Clemet, L. Wilkin (2002) (Eds.) European Universities: Change and Convergence? Bruxelles: Universite Libre de Bruxelles.F. Thys-Clemet, L. Wilkin (2002) (Eds.) European Universities: Change and Convergence? Bruxelles: Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
[6] Welle-Strand, A. & A. Tjeldvoll (2002) ICT, Learning & Value Creation – Strategies Missing? Research Report 6/2002. Sandvika: Norwegian School of Management BI
[7] Tjeldvoll, A. (2001) “Professorene, staten og markedet” (The Professors, the State and the Market) chronicle in Norwegian Daily Aftenposten, Oslo, June 12, 2001.
[8] Tjeldvoll, A. and I.S. Holmesland (Eds.). (1997). Globalization and Education: Essays on Quality of Equality. Report nr. 10. Oslo: Institute of Educational Research. University of Oslo.
[9] Castells, M. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society (1996). Volume II: The Power of Identity. (1998). Volume III: Towards the Millennium (1999). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. The Information Age – Society, Economy and Culture (1996, 1998, 1999)
[10] Currie and Tjeldvoll (2001) Globalization and European Universities – A Trends Report from the University of Oslo. Studies in Comparative and International Education (Vol. 7). Oslo: University of Oslo Institute for Educational Research.
[11] Clark, B. R. (Ed.) (1993) The Research Foundations of Graduate Education. Germany, Britain, France, United States, Japan. Los Angeles: University of California.
Altbach, P. G. (2000) The Changing Academic Workplace: Comparative Perspectives. Boston: Center for International Higher Education, Boston College.
[12]Currie and Tjeldvoll (2001) Globalization and European Universities – A Trends Report from the University of Oslo. Studies in Comparative and International Education (Vol. 7). Oslo: University of Oslo Institute for Educational Research.
[13] Tjeldvoll, A. (2001) “Professorene, staten og markedet” (The Professors, the State and the Market) chronicle in Norwegian Daily Aftenposten, Oslo, June 12, 2001.
[14] Thune, T. & Welle-Strand, A. (2001): "Reorganising resources for independent learning: libraries becoming Learning Resource Centres". In the New Review of Libraries and Lifelong Learning, Vol. 2, 2001, Taylor Graham Publishing
16 Jongbloed, B., P. Maassen & G. Neave (1999). From the Eye of the Storm. Higher Education’s Changing Institution. Dorderecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher
[16] Many of these professors were student activists in the 70s.
[17] Editorial: Wag the dog: The Minister of Education’s two Faces, in Forskerforum Tidsskrift for Norsk Forskerforbund (Research Forum Journal for Norwegian Researchers’s Association) No. 8, 2003 (https://www.forskerforbundet.no)
[18] Tjeldvoll, A. (2001) “Professorene, staten og markedet” (The Professors, the State and the Market) chronicle in Norwegian Daily Aftenposten, Oslo, June 12, 2001.
[19] Altbach, P.G., R.O. Berdahl & P. Gumport (1997) American Higher Education in the 21st Century: Social, Political and Economic Changes. Boston: Boston College Center for International Education
[20] Leisyte, L. (2002) Higher Education Governance in Post-Soviet Lithuania. Studies in Comparative and International Education, (Volume 10). Oslo: University of Oslo Institute for Educational Research
[21] Clark, B. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon
[22] Tjeldvoll, A. (1998) “The Idea of the Service University” in International Higher Education. Number 13, 1998. Boston: The Boston College Center for International Higher Education.
[23] The Government-controlled public channel broadcasting in English.
[24] The Government-controlled daily newspaper in English
[25] The Norwegian programmes have been a) the Master of Philosophy Programme in Comparative and International Education at the University of Oslo, and b) the doctoral programme on international higher education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
[26] Altbach, P.G. (2001)” Higher Education gone Amok?” (Title uncertain), in International Higher Education nr 23. Boston: Boston College’s Center of International Higher Education
[27] Chinese for ’foreigners’ – meaning literally: ”venerable outsiders”
[28] Zhou, G. (2003) “On Chinese and Western Research Paradigms”. Paper to the “English Seminar” on Higher Education, Xiamen University Institute of Higher Education Science 2003/2004.
[29] (Ibid.).
[30] (Ibid.).
[31] Welch, A. (1998) The end of certainty? The academic profession and the challenge of change, Comparative Education Review, 42, pp. 1-14.
[32] Zhou, G. (2003) “On Chinese and Western Research Paradigms”. Paper to the “English Seminar” on Higher Education, Xiamen University Institute of Higher Education Science 2003/2004.
[33] Weber, M. (1964) The theory of social and economic organization; translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Free Press.
[34] Zhou, G. (2003) “On Chinese and Western Research Paradigms”. Paper to the “English Seminar” on Higher Education, Xiamen University Institute of Higher Education Science 2003/2004.
[35] Castells, M. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society. (1996). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Wang, J. (2002) Contemporary Chinese Politics, An Introduction, 7th edition, US: Prentice Hall
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Castells, M. (1994:16) “The University System: Engine of Development in the New World Economy. In: Revitalizing Higher Education, edited by Salmi, J. & A.M. Verspoor.
[41] Ibid.
[42] CCTV Channel 9 and China Daily
[43] From a pragmatic point of view “higher” education may be a bit pretentious label in a situation where continuous upgrading of competence for the adult population at large is the overall challenge
[43] Brown, B. (2003) Magic Amoy. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press