This book is an effort to understand China's universities as they have been transformed through the massification process of the early 21st century. It presents case studies of 12 universities in four categories: public comprehensive universities, education-related universities, science and technology universities, and private universities. The institutional portraits, when combined, provide a good picture of the state of higher education in China today.
The authors began this project with three research questions: 1) What kinds of cultural resources are Chinese universities drawing from their own civilization and how do these inform their activities, as they move onto a global stage? 2) How has the move to mass higher education stimulated civil society and the emergence of forms of democracy shaped by Chinese civilization? 3) How has the move to mass higher education affected the diversity of the system and what have been the consequences for equity of access and provision? (p. 1).
The case studies were chosen with several principles in mind. Although provincial and local institutions have carried the major burden of massification over the last 20 years, the book emphasizes elite institutions that have potential for a global role, either now or in the future. The case studies also reflect the geographic diversity of China, ranging from Jilin province to Shaanxi and Fujian provinces. Also, as the Introduction suggests, the case studies reflect the diversification of institutional types in modern Chinese higher education. For many readers, the portraits of the three private universities may be the most interesting as an institutional type only recently developed in China.
Although much of the book is descriptive, there are several themes that flow throughout: the tension between globalization and local realities, the trade-offs between quantity and quality, access and equity. Also, the introductory chapters provide a policy perspective on recent Chinese higher education, as well as a focus on the student experience in the process of massification in recent decades.
The introduction to the volume provides a context to the higher education traditions of China, emphasizing both the formal examination system as well as a set of private academies (shuyuan). In the Introduction, Hayhoe describes the subtle tensions in understanding such concepts as “autonomy” and “academic freedom.” She states that the Chinese term for autonomy is “self-mastery” rather than the Western definition as “self-governance” with the connotation of legal or political independence. Similarly, the understanding of academic freedom differs in the two cultures, with Chinese scholars having greater “intellectual authority” than Western peers because of the close link between Chinese universities and major state projects. Similarly, the Confucian tradition suggests “intellectual freedom” in which knowledge should be demonstrated through the public good and criticisms demonstrated in action and social responsibility (p. 17).
The concluding chapter continues the theme of tensions between Western and Chinese understandings of higher education. Qiang Zha emphasizes the influence of shuyuan as a liberal tradition of tolerance of different schools of thought. Character development was also a hallmark of the shuyuan, expressed in contemporary universities as humanistic studies and general education. The historic link between scholars and the state is clear in the role that Chinese universities play as the government's education and research arm for national development. Zha states, “The State promotes decentralization of steering and management in exchange for institutional performance and accountability on the one hand, and tightens control over normative criteria for knowledge production on the other …. Put explicitly, knowledge production no longer arises from scholars’ individual interest, but has become an integral part of national efforts to fulfil the century-long dream of China's resurgence” (p. 462). Zha further contrasts Western and Chinese traditions of academic freedom: “Westerners focus on restrictions to freedom of choice, whereas Chinese scholar looking at the same situation focus on the responsibility of the persons in authority to use their power wisely in the collective interest” (p. 464).
Zha believes that the Chinese model of higher education is a hybrid model of strong centralization (as found in many European systems) and general education (drawn from American experience), mirroring the tensions between the examination system and the shuyuan tradition of Chinese academic culture. He cites the shortcomings of the current academic situation, including H. S. Tsien's famous question, “Why can't Chinese universities nurture great creative minds?” (p. 469).
Academic corruption is another serious problem. Political authoritarianism provides economic efficiency and social stability as well as huge financial benefits to higher education, yet Zha believes it cannot go on indefinitely. “The trend towards greater accountability and participation [in local and national affairs] is unavoidable, with an increasingly vocal civil society and a rapidly growing middle class. In some sense, academic excellence will only come with increasing degrees of China's unique form of intellectual freedom, one that integrates values from the shuyuan tradition into the concept of academic freedom associated with Western universities” (p. 470).
The volume concludes that, if higher education can reconcile its indigenous roots with aspects of the Western model, the Chinese university should be able to make a unique contribution to the world community.
