Search

The global drive for world-class universities is twinned with a radical movement to create research assessment indicators, and universities have never been pressured as much as today by global rankings. This paper aims to focus on how research assessment exercises have reconfigured the institutional missions of the university in terms of knowledge production, teaching, and service address, by comparing three top research-intensive universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Japan. It critically investigates how far and in what ways academics in the three systems have been pressured to respond to these exercises. The empirical findings show that all the three cases have been affected severely and that Hong Kong universities are the most internationalized and Mainland universities are the most productive in research outputs, as also evidenced in recent QS rankings. The paper argues that the global ranking regime has created a Double Bind for East Asian universities, and has brutally dominated their institutional reconfigurations. To turn the tide, the manipulated emphasis, flawed methodology, and unethical desirability of global university rankings and research assessment exercises should be avoided to help universities healthily and meaningfully focus on real missions to which they should commit themselves. Meanwhile, critical reflections and policy actions are particularly urgent on the indigenousness of knowledge exploration and production by higher education systems in East Asia and other post-colonial contexts. Furthermore, the paper anticipates that the importance of teaching and service will be revitalized in the new stage of East Asian universities, e.g., the Chinese University 3.0. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on case studies of China and Japan, this study undertakes comparative research on major aspects of university curriculum and instruction-teaching activities of academics, their role in curriculum development, and their perceptions of these activities-between a mass and a universal higher education system. Major findings from the APA (Academic Profession in Asia) surveys administered in the two countries in 2011-2012 with a similar questionnaire provide hard data. However, the study also explores other contextual factors and drivers which might have affected the teaching activities undertaken by academics, their involvement in curriculum development, and their views of relevant activities. The paper argues that, although differences can be found in some aspects of the curriculum and instruction and academics' participation in these activities during the shift from the mass to universal phase of higher education, seen from the two case studies, it is less clear that the differences show the impact of transforming from mass to universal education. The national contextual factors, especially the origins of higher education and ongoing national policies in both countries, appear to play a significant role in how current academics perceived the curriculum development and instruction, and their participation in these activities. More importantly, as fundamental changes do not necessarily occur in all aspects of the curriculum and instruction, as well as the academics' views across universal and mass higher education systems, Trow's research can only be partly applied to the analysis of the curriculum and instruction in both countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several papers published within the issue including one on the challenges for higher education in Japan of global neoliberalism, another regarding the issues surrounding Chinese higher education and a paper on the relationship between neoliberal globalisation and New Zealand universities.