Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:44:40.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autonomy, Governance and the Chinese University 3.0: A zhong–yong Model from Comparative, Cultural and Contemporary Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2021

Jun Li Open the ORCID record for Jun Li [Opens in a new window]
Jun Li*
Affiliation:
Western University, Canada. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article builds on the ambiguous concept of the autonomy of universities with three historical turns in two dominant types of universities in the world – the Anglo-Saxon and American models, represented by the British and American institutions, and the Continental models, including the recently emerging Chinese University 3.0. Based on empirical data from two comparative case studies with a documentary analysis approach, I investigate the structure of the zhong-yong model of self-mastery, demonstrating how it may differ from the Western models and offering cultural interpretations for these nuances. The article concludes that self-mastery in the Chinese context provides an additional form of autonomy which is rooted in the pragmatic Confucian concept of zhong-yong. It is also found that through the pragmatism of self-mastery, the zhong-yong model enables Chinese universities to directly serve the state and, at the same time, to legitimate the priority given to their development by state power, thus creating abundant space and resources for them to fully unfold their potentialities. With multilayered and multidirectional power relationships, this model of governance has enabled Chinese universities to radically transform themselves in a short period of time and will allow them to eventually become global leaders, although they may have to sacrifice autonomous freedom in some ways.

摘要

摘要

以英美大学为代表的安格鲁-撒克逊模式和美国模式、以及欧陆模式，经历了三次历史性的大转型。本文探讨的，就是在英美模式以及包括最近崛起的中国大学3.0在内的欧陆模式基础上形成的模糊概念——自治。基于两个比较案例研究所收集的实证数据以及文档分析，本文作者探究了自主的中庸模式结构，试图证明它与西方模式的不同，并为它们的区别提供文化解释。论文的一个结论是，中国背景下的自主为世界提供了与自治不同的、根源于中庸的儒家实用主义理念。本研究也发现，通过自主的实用主义，中庸模式使中国大学直接服务于国家。与此同时，它把赋予大学优先发展的国家权力合法化，从而为它们潜力的充分拓展创造足够的空间及资源。伴随多层向的权力关系——尽管必须牺牲自治的某些自由，这一治理模式使中国大学在短期内奇迹般地稳步转型，并最终成为全球的引领者。

Keywords

autonomyself-masteryacademic freedomuniversity governanceChinese University 3.0Chiniversityzhong–yong modelhigher education leadershipimprovementdevelopment自治自主学术自由大学治理中国大学3.0中式大学中庸模式高等教育领导力改进发展
Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 244: Change, Contradiction and the State: Higher Education in Greater China , December 2020 , pp. 988 - 1012
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS University of London, 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altbach, Philip G. 1989. “Twisted roots: the Western impact on Asian higher education.” Higher Education 18(1), 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altbach, Philip G. 1992. “Patterns in higher education development: toward the year 2000.” In Arnove, Robert F., Altbach, Philip G. and Kelly, Gail P. (eds.), Emergent Issues in Education: Comparative Perspectives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 39–55.Google Scholar
Ashby, Eric. 1966. Universities: British, Indian, African: A Study in the Ecology of Higher Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Ronald. 1988. “Limits to academic freedom: imposed-upon or self-imposed?” In Tight, Malcolm (ed.), Academic Freedom and Responsibility. Philadelphia, PA: SRHE and Open University Press, 88–103.Google Scholar
Bell, Paul B. 2019. “Comments on ‘closing Confucius Institutes’,” 9 January, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/09/colleges-move-close-chinese-government-funded-confucius-institutes-amid-increasing. Accessed 18 May 2019.Google Scholar
Berdahl, Robert O. 1971. Statewide Coordination of Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Berdahl, Robert O. 1990. “Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities.” Studies in Higher Education 15(2), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berdahl, Robert O., and Millett, John D.. 1991. “Autonomy and accountability in US higher education.” In Neave, Guy and van Vught, Frans A. (eds.), Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Brook, Anne C. 1996. “Is complete autonomy necessarily desirable?” Higher Education Policy 9(3), 222–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brubacher, John S. 1982. On the Philosophy of Higher Education (rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
CCP (Chinese Communist Party) Central Committee General Office. 2014. “The implementation guidelines of ensuring and improving the President Responsibility System led by the CCP in regular higher education institutions,” 15 October, http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2014/1015/c1001-25842543.html. Accessed 18 May 2019.Google Scholar
CCP Central Committee and the State Council. 2017. “Opinion on enhancing and improving ideological and political work in HEIs,” 27 February, http://www.xinhuanet.com/2017-02/27/c_1120538762.htm. Accessed 18 May 2019.Google Scholar
Chou, Chuing P. 2014. The SSCI Syndrome in Higher Education: A Local or Global Phenomenon. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Burton. 1979. “The many pathways of academic coordination.” Higher Education 8, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curaj, Adrian, Deca, Ligia and Pricopie, Remus. 2018. “Introduction.” In Curaj, Adrian, Deca, Ligia and Pricopie, Remus (eds.), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies. Cham: Springer, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estermann, Thomas, and Nokkala, Terrhi. 2009. University Autonomy in Europe I: Exploratory Study. Brussels: EUA.Google Scholar
Fang, Fang. 2020. Wuhan Diary: Dispatches from a Quarantined City (Berry, Michael (trans.)). New York: HarperVia.Google Scholar
Haskins, Charles H. 1923. The Rise of Universities. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hayhoe, Ruth. 1994. “Ideas of higher learning, east and west: conflicting values in the development of the Chinese university.” Minerva 32(4), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayhoe, Ruth. 1996. China's Universities, 1895–1995: A Century of Cultural Conflict. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Hayhoe, Ruth, and Liu, Ji'an. 2010. “China's universities, cross-border education and the dialogue among civilizations.” In Chapman, David, Cummings, William and Postiglione, Gerald (eds.), Border Crossing in East Asian Higher Education. Hong Kong: CERC/Springer, 77–102.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Hector J.W. 1965. University Autonomy: Its Meaning Today. Paris: International Association of Universities.Google Scholar
Jaeger, C. Stephen. 1994. The Envy of Angels: Cathedral Schools and Social Ideals in Medieval Europe, 950–1200. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1895. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics (John Watson (trans.)). London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Li, Jun. 1988. “Jixia xuegong de banxue tedian jiqi qishi” (Thoughts on the realistic enlightenment and characteristics of running the Academic Palace at Jixia). Higher Education Research 34(4), 100–105.Google Scholar
Li, Jun. 2009. “Confucianism.” In Pong, David (ed.), Encyclopedia of Modern China. Detroit, MI: Charles Scribner's Sons, 347–351.Google Scholar
Li, Jun. 2012. “World-class higher education and the emerging Chinese model of the university.” Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education 42(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Jun. 2015. “When Confucianism meets Ubuntu: rediscovering justice, morality and practicality for education and development.” International Journal of Comparative Education and Development 17(1), 38–45.Google Scholar
Li, Jun. 2016a. “Chinese university 3.0 in a global age: history, modernity and future.” In Chou, Prudence Chuing and Spangler, Jonathan (eds.), Chinese Education Models in a Global Age: Transforming Practice into Theory. Singapore: Springer, 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Jun. 2016b. Quest for World-class Teacher Education? A Multiperspectival Approach on the Chinese Model of Policy Implementation. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Jun. 2016c. “The global ranking regime and the reconfiguration of higher education: comparative case studies on research assessment exercises in China, Hong Kong and Japan.” Higher Education Policy 29 (4), 473–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Jun. 2018. “Chinese model of higher education.” In Peters, Michael (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Singapore: Springer, 1–7.Google Scholar
Li, Jun, and Hayhoe, Ruth. 2012. “Confucianism and higher education.” In Banks, James A. (ed.), SAGE Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 443–446.Google Scholar
Li, Jun, and Li, Jian. 2019. “Educational policy development in China in the 21st century: a multi-flow approach.” Beijing International Review of Education 1(1), 196–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Jun, and Lin, Jing with Gong, Fang. 2011. “Nanjing University: redeeming the past by academic merit.” In Hayhoe, Ruth, Li, Jun, Lin, Jing and Zha, Qiang (eds.), Portraits of 21st Century Chinese Universities: In the Move to Mass Higher Education. Hong Kong: Springer/CERC, 131–161.Google Scholar
National People's Congress Standing Committee. 2015. The Higher Education Law (revised), 27 December, http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A02/zfs__left/s5911/moe_619/201512/t20151228_226196.html. Accessed 18 May 2019.Google Scholar
Neave, Guy. 1988. “On being economical with university autonomy: being an account of the retrospective joys of a written constitution.” In Tight, Malcolm (ed.), Academic Freedom and Responsibility. Philadelphia, PA: SRHE and Open University Press, 31–48.Google Scholar
Neave, Guy, and van Vught, Frans A. (eds.). 1991. Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Neave, Guy, and van Vught, Frans A.. 1994. Government and Higher Education Relationships across Three Continents: The Winds of Change. Oxford: IAU Press and Pergamon.Google Scholar
Nelissen, Marc. 1998. “Papal charters of foundation for universities.” Paedagogica Historica 34(2), 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nybom, Thorsten. 2008. “University autonomy: a matter of political rhetoric?” In Engwall, Lars and Weaire, Denis (eds.), The University in the Market. London: Portland Press, 131–141.Google Scholar
Paulson, Friedrich. 1894. The German Universities: Their Character and Development (Perry, E.D. (trans.)). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Qu, Qinyue. 2002. Qu Qinyue jiaoyu wenxuan (Selected Educational Works of Qu Qinyue). Nanjing: Nanjing University Press.Google Scholar
Rashdall, Hastings. 1895a. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rashdall, Hastings. 1895b. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Conrad. 1993. Academic Freedom. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sautman, Barry. 2013. “American sage.” South China Morning Post, 8 November, A15.Google Scholar
Schmidtlein, Frank A., and Berdahl, Robert O.. 2011. “Autonomy and accountability: who controls academe?” In Altbach, Philip G., Berdahl, Robert O. and Gumport, Patricia J. (eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University Press, 69–87.Google Scholar
Sun, Peiqing. 2009. Zhongguo jiaoyu shi (A History of China's Education) (3rd ed.). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.Google Scholar
UNESCO. 1992. Academic Freedom and University Autonomy. Proceedings of the International Conference, Sinaia, Romania, 5–7 May 1992, CEPES/UNESCO.Google Scholar
Viczko, Melody. 2013. “Internationalisation of Canadian higher education: troubling the notion of autonomy through an examination of policy actors, knowledge and spaces.” Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences 6(1), 26–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Robert. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zha, Qiang, Shi, Jing H. and Wang, Xiao Y.. 2016. “Is there an alternative university model? The debate around the Chinese model of the university.” In Côté, James E. and Furlong, Andy (eds.), Routledge Handbook of the Sociology of Higher Education. Abingdon: Routledge, 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar