* Xiaoguang SHI is Deputy Director of Higher Education Institute, Professor of international and comparative higher education Policy at Graduate School of Education, Peking University. Information on his research activities and interest can be found at www.gse.pku.edu.cn. Email: shixiaoguang@pku.edu.cn
Introduction
University governance is defined as the means by which universities are operated.
1
Kezar and Eckel (2004) noted it as the process of policy making and macro-level decision-making within higher education.
2
It is also considered a multi-level concept including several different bodies and processes with different decision-making functions.
3
Recently, relevant issues of university governance, at both international and national levels, have become a popular discussion topic in the last few decades.
4
The notion of corporate governance (of universities) has also occurred and has even become a more dominant concept.
5
This is partly because the modes of governance in higher education institutions (heis) have evolved from conventional paradigms to emerging paradigms in terms of both external and internal trends.
6
The changes in university governance are mainly inspired by new public management (npm) since 1980s, which deliberately alters the structure and policy development process in public sector organization with the purpose of making them more efficient and effective.
7
Lapworth (2004) pointed out that the rise of the notion of corporate governance and the decline of the shared or consensual governance can be seen to be a result of the decline in academic participation, growing tendency towards managerialism and the new environment where the universities are operating.
8
Facing the impact of npm, and together with neo-liberalism in Western nations, China’s heis have been attaching importance to the exploration related to the changing modes in university governance. Particularly, after the Ministry of Education (moe) released the “2020 Outline”
9
in 2010, the tasks for building a modern system of university governance are on the agenda. This article aims to present an overview of China’s modes of university governance different from that in the Western nations. The article also aims at helping those who have obstacles to read Chinese literatures, to fully understand Chinese higher education system in a way of describing institutional changes in China’s heis system.
Governing Bodies with Empowers
In most institutions worldwide, a typical form of university governance has a dual-level structure with the central administration and faculty school levels. In the article, I mainly focus on analyzing issues from a dimension of the central administration. Mostly, there are two systems of governing bodies that coexist in the central administrative level. As described by R. Birnbaum (2003), one system, based on legal authority, is that the basis for the role of trustees and administration; other system, based on professional authority, justifies the role of the faculty.
10
In Chinese context, there also coexist two systems of governing bodies in the central administration in charge of university affairs, but China’s difference compared with most other countries is that no board of trustees presents at the legal authority level. Replacing that, a unique governing body with much air of political force called the Party Committee (hereinafter referred to as the pc) is in operation. In appearance, particularly as far as the roles of “legal authority” are concerned, the pc’s functions look like those of the board of trustee in the Western universities, but they are absolutely different by nature. For instance, although the board of trustees in the West is empowered greatly, it is seldom involved directly in institutional management and inner governance directly, while the pc is just the reverse. In Chinese heis, the pc deemed as governing body paralleling to the executive group of university governance, can play a key and direct role in university operation. The difference between the pc and the executive group is that the former can exercise more leadership and the later can focus more on day-to-day management.
11
Looking at China’s university governance from an internal angle, we can notice that there coexist three governing bodies empowered and embedded in China’s university governance and institutional culture. They are: (a) party’s section (Dangkou in pinyin); (b) administrative section (xingzheng kou), and (c) academic section (xueshu kou). The triple dimensions really sit together in a power structure of the institutional organization, but are responsible for different affairs in China’s public universities and colleges.
The Dang kou section is a relatively independent governing system consisting of several agencies, such as the pc, Teacher (Trade) Union, the Communist Youth League, Student Union, Office for cadre affairs,
12
Office for Multi-partisan alliance affairs, Office for publicity as well as school-level party branches. Among them, the pc stands at leading status, and plays a dominant role in deciding university affairs, particularly in some important events.
13
The pc consists of all the party chiefs, several executive chiefs,
14
and a few administrators at important managing posts, such as the director for cadre affairs, the director for publicity affairs. In fact, seats for the pc vary from universities to universities. Normally, about 25-30 seats of the pc, are common seen at a central administration. Among them, 7-9 or at most 12 seats are reserved for those who are selected to organize a standing committee (called “core of leadership”). In the committee, the party chief, vice chiefs and president and several vice presidents are entitled to be members in the core of leadership. In the sense, the standing committee acts as of paramount empowered to make policy-decision in the university governance.
The xing zheng section is another independent governing body acting as an executive authority paralleling to the party section. In Chinese discourse, it is called as “xing zheng ban zi” (Executive Team; et). The et generally consists of president and vice presidents followed by some directors of division for executive arrangement related to administrative affairs.
15
In a university, president as head of the organization usually takes the over-all responsibility for administrative affairs, and vice presidents are assigned with responsibilities in various areas, such as academic affairs, student affairs, financial affairs, logistic affairs, etc. In operations of the university, lots of regular decisions regarding to managing universities via a mechanism called Executive Team Meeting (etm). The etm is usually scheduled to hold weekly or monthly in order to make arrangements to the operation. The main themes on the etm are those of arrangements related to how to assure a university’s operation on efficiency and effectiveness. Seats of the etm have not a limitation, but core members generally consist of president, vice presidents and relevant office directors at central administration. Each time, apart from the core members, some invited participants attending to the etm are mostly those who have something to do with themes and contents on discussion and decision-making. Once the issues discussed are decided at the etm, a written meeting minute (or executive order) might be released in order to assure the decision-makings into easy and successful implementations.
The Xue Shu section is the third sub-system of governing body mainly comprising of the faculty senate (fs), and the academic council (ac), the Degree Grant Supervision Council (dgsc), and other academic bodies at the professional schools. Among them, The acs, typically act as the most powerful professional authority in charge of something related to the academic affairs. Usually, there might be about 30 seats in the ac at central administration, but in fact, the seats quite vary from university to university. Conventionally, about a half of the ac members come from those who stand on several posts of the central administration, such as presidency, vice presidencies, a few of directorship
16
from managing divisions. The about other half come from the deans or heads of schools and departments. Quite a few of them come from faculty and staff.
17
However, a new trend is to appear so much so that the increasing academic staff and professors can be appointed as members in the ac. For example, in some institutions, the acs can select professors who have no executive background to preside. In p.r. China, the prototype of the ac as a governing body might date back as far as the late 1970s. In instance, in 1979, Peking University (pku), one of China’s top research-intensive universities, made its own Charter on the ac
(which amended in 2004 and 2010). The ac at pku, as stipulated in its Charter of 2004, should have at most 29 seats with memberships including president, party secretary, relevant vise presents, Chairpersons of the acs at faculty level as well as some well known professors and equivalents.
18
In early days, president is usually nominated to act as chairperson, but nowadays, more and more academic staff can get an opportunity to preside in the ac.
Role and Duty of the Triple System
Universities have long been seen as complex and difficult organizations to describe, let alone manage and govern.
19
In Chinese universities, many people believe that management is a process of negotiation and coordination between different sections representing different groups of interests due partly to their different inclinations and wants. In most cases, no single section can impose decisions on others dogmatically, on the contrary they lay together to discuss and negotiate something and make efforts to reach consensus and agreement in practice.
Inside the organizational structure of the triple sections, the role of the party section is deemed as something irreplaceable, which is so-called the “China Way” by which the socialist universities are governed. One reason is that its status is legalized by the Law on Higher Education of 1998, which stipulated in Article 39 that the power model in China’ heis should be “President Responsibility under Leadership of the pc” (dang wei lingdao xiaozhang fu ze)(the pr-led-by—the pc). Under the model, the duties of the pc are: to ensure that the heis can always adhere to the guidelines, policies and initiatives that the Central Party Committee (cpc) and the State Council have made; to keep to the socialist orientation in running heis by providing with some guidance to ideological and political work and moral education; . . . . Specifically, the pc takes in charge of: (a) to supervise and guarantee that the universities move forward in the right way; (b) to complete the publicity work, cooperation and coordination between the Communist Party and other minor Parties; (c) to take in charge of cadres (directors) appointment in the partisan system and beyond, (d) to prepare and recruit new party members; (e) to educate and train party members, and so on.
20
As the governing body for policy-making, the pc has its own mechanism—the Party Committee Meeting (pcm). In Chinese heis, the pcm is not strictly and regularly scheduled a intervals. It is often held in time only when a university has some important events and claims for a collective decision. On the pcm, party secretary acts as Chairperson, who has a right to propose themes (items) for discussion and decision-making. Beyond that, he/she has one vote alone equal to other members. In the sense, pcm is viewed as a democratic mechanism of policy-making regarding to university affairs.
With regard to roles and duties of the administrative section, they are different from those of the party section. The main duties are to exercise powers to make arrangements necessary for supporting teaching, research and social service of the universities and colleges. As per Article 41 of the Law, powers that president is empowered to exercise will include as followings: (a) to propose guideline for future development, and to formulate regulations, annual program schedules, and put them into effect; (b) to arrange for teaching, research and moral educational activities; (c) to decide on in which way internal structure of university can be adopted; and to nominate who will be candidates for vice-president posts, and to appoint and remove directors of divisions in the executive section; (d) to appoint and dismiss faculty and staff members; to keep control of the school run, and to give reward and punishment to students; (e) to draw up and implement annual fiscal budget, protect and manage the property of the institution, and protect the lawful rights and interests of the institution; and (f) other duties.
21
Similar to that in Western universities in which the ac is viewed as a consulting body with a limited power. How powerful it might be must have relied on what decree that powers president decides to give it.
22
In Chinese context, the academic section no exception, is not an independent system either. Mostly it operates under a control of the executive section. In cases, the academic section does not seemingly run as per its inner logic, though it is perceived as a professional authority naturally responsible for academic affairs in the process of university governance and management. The academic affairs mainly refer to something, such as new program approval; academic title’s promotion etc. Nowadays, the academic section is increasingly irreplaceable in managing universities. The roles and duties of the academic section, particularly the duties of the ac are clear. As provided in Article 42 of the Law, the ac established in heis are mainly empowered to: (a) to review proposals and plan about disciplines, programs, teaching and research etc.; (b) assess outcome and production of teaching and research and other equivalents.
23
Furthermore, Article 13 of the Regulation provides further, members of the ac are empowered: (a) to be informed of regulation, policies and initiatives regarding to academic affairs in the university; (b) questioning and advising relevant divisions as well the decisions regarding to academic affairs made by them; (c) to propose proposals or plans, and monitor them on operation once they are adopted.
24
Realities and Dilemmas
For the last three decades, much progress has been achieved in reforming university governance in China’s heis, but the achievement has yet to reach as much as expected, and the current university governance system is under constant attack due to its highlighted, institutionalized deficiency and flaws.
The first reality is a conflict between the political section and the executive section, though those two sections are all together perceived as an opposition to the academic section. Historically, the ruling Party’s participation and interference into university administration can date back as far as to the early 1950s after it took power. For the half-century, debates centering on “whether” to insist on and “how” to insist on institutional operation under the ruling Party’s leadership did not stop until 1998 when the Law was passed. Particularly since 2000 onward, explorations around how to change modes for university’s management and operation are always attracting a wide attention in academia, in both conceptual framework and practical approach. However, as argued by some scholars, that the Law does not address clearly so that up to now, good coordination and smooth relationship between the pc and the at have yet to be well assured. In other ward, since the boundary of political, academic and administrative affairs are blurred in the institutions, the powers distribution and role-playing among the pc (chaired by party secretary), and the at (led by president) and the ac (led by academic authority) are definitely not distinct and clear. In daily works, some conflicts can be easily generated. As some noted that it is true that the mode of “the—pr-led-by the pc” has become a fundamental pattern of the university governance, and the pc also becomes the most powerful governing body. The point is that the over-emphasis on the pc’s role and powers in managing university affairs might, to some extent, limit the free academic development and prosperity, particularly in humanist and social science.
25
The second reality focusing on the bureaucratic administration with over-centralized powers was deemed as the most other problematic. It is easily noticed that lots of university internal affairs are much more subject to the political leadership or government intervention. For instance, both party secretary and president in a university are not elected by faculty and staff of the university; rather, they are usually appointed by the government agencies. Therefore, the party chiefs and presidents might not lean to listen to voices from the bottom of heis, such as faculty and students’ sounds. Sometimes, a few of party chiefs and executive chief would like to be responsible for the upper-level government agencies rather than those from campus lower level. Since it is considered as a top priority for Chinese governments to maintain social stability, confronting with increasing social crisis, many heis also prefer to waive institutional system and power structure. Many leaders in heis are reluctant to conduct reforms in this aspect because they believe that aggressive measures in reform may become a major instable factor to the society.
The third problematic reality was the weakness of the academic section. It was reflected in the fact that administrative power dominates the academic power in the university governance. The hierarchical, the bureaucratic structure exists in the system that gives more powers to the administrative directors in deciding the affairs in China’s heis. In other words, the division directors in the central administration often make regulations and decisions on distributing resources necessary for teaching, research, and social service. Meanwhile the professional preferences and demands are often ignored. If academic affairs that should belong to the ac are taken away by the pc or the et, then the faculty/academics’ initiative and creativity must have been harmed and strangled. Therefore some academics might just become instruments of teaching or research rather than feel like owners of the heis. Faculty/ academics’ initiative and creativity are harmed or killed. One survey was conducted by a Chinese scholar, among 764 interviewees, finding that 68.5 % (523 persons) of them responded negatively as they noted that the ac could not play important roles in university governance.
26
If the university governance over-relies on a few of division directors rather than on the academics’ collective wisdom, no one would like to believe the university could operate well.
Looking Forward and Conclusion
As discussed above, as the current university governance system has been under fierce criticism for its bureaucratic control over academic affairs and lack of freedom for heis, it is necessary and urgent for heis to launch a new round of movement of reforming institutional governance and power structure. Looking forward, China’s heis are expected to explore and transform form the conventional paradigm to an emerging paradigm in terms of university governance.
In terms of the policy environment, as the “2020 Outline” provided, heis ought to establish a new model of management and modern university by reforming and improving organizational governance. In order to respond to the call of the moe, many institutions begin to consider how to conduct the reform. Two tasks are considered necessary and significant. One is to formulate a University Governance Charter/regulation. In this respect, the Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Piloting the National Education System Reform
27
provided clearly that piloting experiments should be conducted in some heis, aiming to promote to establish and improve the university statute on which the internal governance structure of organizations depends.
28
The other is to push heis to reform organizational governance structure by setting up university council (uc)—an emerging governing force. In the third part of the 2020 Outline, it is clearly stated that China will in the future conduct “system reform”, including giving more autonomy to the heiss and improving university governance. In article 40, it says: (a) improving modern Chinese university model with the Chinese characteristics; (b) improving the governance structure; public universities will adhere to the pr-led-by-pc; (c) improving deliberation and decision-making procedure; (d) giving the party committee and the university president their lawful rights; (e) improving the way the university presidents is elected; (f) giving the full play of the ac in disciplinary construction, academic evaluation, and academic development, and exploring an effective way in professor governance, and making the best use of professors in teaching, research and university governance; (g) strengthening the construction of trade union students representative congress and make use of the people; (h) creating the University Charter and trying to set up the University Board of Trustees (ubt)or the uc.
29
Several primary explorations have been under moving. In practice, the establishment of the ucs can date back as far as to early 1980s. In 1984, the Notification for Primary Establishment of University Governance Council in heis was released, stating that heis should set up advisory board that could consult with executive group.
30
In order to respond to the call of moe, a few universities also had done lots of experimental work, such as in Shantou University (stu), one of local universities affiliated to Guangdong province, under the financial support by Li Ka Shing Fund. Different from most public heis in China, stu has a very powerful new board of trustees with nearly 25 board member seats. The honorary chairman is reserved to Li Ka Shing,
31
and the chairman is for the vice governor of Guangdong province. The board members include the deputy secretary general of Guangdong province, party secretary general and mayor of Shantou city, several presidents from some top universities in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, together with the president, party chief, vice president and two professors from stu. The purpose to organize such a uc was to assure the quality of education at stu, and strengthen the ties with the business and government. The university through the way was expected to improve its academic reputation and could stand at an advantageous position in acquiring resources and institutional development.
Recently, particularly since the release of 2020 outline onward, some universities have set up or are scheduled to set the ucs. There are two models that can be observed. One model aims at strengthening the democratization for decision-making. In the model, the heis began to reconsider the status, roles and duties of the pc, the at and the ac. In order to make it a more and more democratic body for policy-making, some of them have established ucs. In the cases of those heis, there are three different stories. One is that nothing has happened in some universities where the ats have been given a new title. The other is that something has happened partly because the new model of the uc with more seats has been established, which was expanded basically on the prototype of the at. The third is that other newly created the uc, which is established to act as advisory body with more layers and experts.
In summary, for the past three decades, the university governance has been changed in many aspects along with the socio-economic development. Old paradigm of the institutional system organizational, structure, and power distribution has been either replaced by emerging one or improved to survive in the new environment. First, in term of leadership system, the pc
is functioning similarly to that of Board of Trustee /Governing Board at corporate institutions. The difference between Chinese public heis and Western Corporate institutions is that president in the former is entitled to be an identity of the Legal Person. In the system, as there exists the contradiction between obligations and rights, or responsibility and power, Chinese leadership system might be one of most complicated governance structure with indigestibility. Second, the academic force is getting enhanced along with the nature and inner-logic of universities being learnt and understood. The academic system comprising of the ac as well as other expertise committees has been established and playing an increasingly important role in operating university affairs, particularly with regard to those associated closely to academic issues and events. Third, the uc as a new emerging force is to become popular trends. Although it can’t sway the fundamental stone of the conventional paradigm of university governance structure, it will be helpful to improve the current shortcomings of university governance in China.
.