Comparing Doctoral Education in China and Finland: An Institutional Logics Perspective

  • Gaoming ZhengEmail author
  • Jussi Kivistö
  • Wenqin Shen
  • Yuzhuo Cai
Part of the Palgrave Studies on Chinese Education in a Global Perspective book series (CEGP)


This chapter explores and compares the institutional logics of Chinese and Finnish doctoral education systems through on-desk research of secondary data. Findings show that in both Chinese and Finnish doctoral education systems, there are five underlying institutional logics, namely state logic, profession logic, family logic, market logic and corporation logic; however, the differences lie in which of them are more dominant, and how they interact with each other. Findings also indicate that, to a large extent, the logics underlying Finnish and Chinese systems are compatible, and can serve as a solid foundation for developing cooperation between both countries. Based on the findings, we contend that in cooperation practice, stakeholders and practitioners in the cooperation need to be aware of the differences of logics.


  1. Ahola, S. (2007). Doctoral education in Finland: Between traditionalism and modernity. In S. Powell & H. Green (Eds.), The doctorate worldwide (pp. 29–39). Berkshire, UK and New York: The Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press and McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Power of theory: Capitalism, the state and democracy. Cambridge, New York and Victoria: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray, M., & Gui, Q. (2001). Comparative education in Greater China: Contexts, characteristics, contrasts and contributions. Comparative Education, 37(4), 451–473. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai, Y. (2013). Graduate employability: A conceptual framework for understanding employers’ perceptions. Higher Education, 65(4), 457–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai, Y., & Hölttä, S. (2014). Towards appropriate strategies for international cooperation with Chinese higher education: The Finnish case. In Y. Cai & S. Hölttä (Eds.), Transformation of higher education in innovation systems in China and Finland (pp. 323–342). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press and the Authors.Google Scholar
  6. Cai, Y., & Kivistö, J. (2011). Higher education reforms in Finland and China: Experiences and challenges in post-massification era. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cai, Y., & Kohtamäki, V. (Eds.). (2014). Transformation of higher education in innovation systems in China and Finland. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cai, Y., & Mehari, Y. (2015). The use of institutional theory in higher education research. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research III (pp. 1–25). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  9. Cai, Y., & Yan, F. (2015). Demands and responses in Chinese higher education. In S. Schwartzman, R. Pinheiro, & P. Pillay (Eds.), Higher education in the BRICS countries: Investigating the pact between higher education and society (pp. 149–169). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai, Y., & Zheng, G. (2016). University academic promotion system and academic identity: An institutional logics perspective. In L. Leisyte & U. Wilkesmann (Eds.), Organizing academic work: Teaching, learning, and identities (1st ed., pp. 243–261). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, H. (2010). Transformation of knowledge production and quality crisis of doctoral education. Journal of Higher Education, 31(1), 57–63.Google Scholar
  12. China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center. (2014). Chronicle of events in Chinese academic degree and graduate education development. Retrieved from
  13. China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center. (2016a). Chinese academic degrees management structure. Retrieved from
  14. China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center. (2016b). National random check of doctoral education dissertations. Retrieved from
  15. China’s quality assessment group for doctoral education. (2010). China’s doctoral education quality report. Beijing, China: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Crossley, M., & Jarvis, P. (2001). Introduction: Context matters. Comparative Education, 37(4), 405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2000). The doctoral experience: Success and failure in graduate school. London and New York: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  18. European University Association. (2010). Salzburg II recommendations: European universities’ achievements since 2005 in implementing the Salzburg principles. Retrieved from
  19. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gu, Y., & Chen, H. (2007). Control the size of doctoral education. Academic Degree and Graduation Education, 1, 30–32.Google Scholar
  21. Guo, J. (2009). Expansion of doctoral education, quality distribution and quality assurance of doctorate in Chinese universities: A perspective of the institutionalism. Peking University Education Review, 7(2), 21–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guo, X. (2003). Chinese higher education development: Through key units’ development. Academic Degree and Graduation Education, 11, 2–4.Google Scholar
  23. Haila, K., Karinen, R., Kaihovaara, A., Eronen, A., & Haapakorpi, A. (2016). Employment situation of people with PhDs (Miten tohtorit työllistyvät) (Publications of the Ministry on Education and Culture No. 3). Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland. ISBN978-952-263-388-0Google Scholar
  24. Hakala, J. (2009). Socialization of junior researchers in new academic research environments: Two case studies from Finland. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 501–516. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Han, Q. (2010). Internationalization of Chinese doctoral education: Strategic analysis. Master monograph, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou (1929759).Google Scholar
  26. Hölttä, S., Jansson, T., & Kivistö, J. (2010). Emerging markets in the Finnish system. In R. Brown (Ed.), Higher education and the market (pp. 123–134). New York and Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Kivistö, J. (2011). Developing doctoral education in EU and in Finland: Using the U.S. system as a benchmark. In Y. Cai & J. Kivistö (Eds.), Higher education reforms in Finland and China (pp. 193–210). Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kuoppala, K., Pekkola, E., Kivistö, J., Siekkinen, T., & Hölttä, S. (Eds.). (2015). Tietoyhteiskunnan työläinen: Suomalaisen akateemisen projektitutkijan työ ja toimintaympäristö. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Leisyte, L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding academic work in a changing institutional environment: Faculty autonomy, productivity, and the identity in Europe and the United States. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, higher education: Handbook of theory and research 27 (pp. 123–206). Springer Science+Business Media B.V. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lepori, B. (2016). Universities as hybrids: Applications of institutional logics theory to higher education. In Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 245–264). Emerald. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li, Y. (2002). New relationship between teachers and students in China. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities, Philosophy and Social Sciences, 23(9), 233–235.Google Scholar
  32. Liu, X. (2016). Doubts on Chinese politicians’ high-level academic profiles. People’s Tribune, 7, 67.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, Z., & Luo, Y. (2015). Predicaments and countermeasures in doctoral education in the background of knowledge transformation. Journal of Graduate Education, 3, 38–49.Google Scholar
  34. Ma, W. (2007). The trajectory of Chinese doctoral education and scientific research. Research and Occasional Paper Series: CEHE.12.07, 1–12.Google Scholar
  35. Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland. (2015). University core funding from 2015. Retrieved from
  36. Ministry of Education of China. (2005). Announcement of regular assessment of institutions that are approved to provide bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral education. Retrieved from
  37. Ministry of Education of China. (2014). National regulations on doctoral student recruitment (since 2014). Retrieved from
  38. Ministry of Education of China. (2016). Overview of national educational system development in 2015. Retrieved from
  39. Ministry of Education of China, National Development and Reform Sector of China & Ministry of Finance of China. (2013). Policies about deepen the graduate education reform in China. Retrieved from
  40. Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China. (2013). Ideas about the improvement of the financial support system for postgraduate education in China. Retrieved from
  41. Nummenmaa, A., Pyhältö, K., & Soini, T. (Eds.). (2008). Hyvä tohtori, Tohtorikoulutuksen rakenteita ja prosesseja. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Office of the State Council Academic Degrees Committee of China. (1980). The People’ Republic of China regulations on academic degrees. Retrieved from
  43. Pekkola, E., & Kivistö, J. (2012). Reforming the Finnish university system: Policies and institutional responses. In S. Bergan, E. Egron-Polak, J. Kohler, L. Purser, & A. Spyropoulou (Eds.), Leadership and governance in higher education: Handbook for decision-makers and administrators (pp. 87–105). Berlin: Raabe.Google Scholar
  44. Peng, A. (2009). Changes and reforms on doctoral candidates’ financial aid system in China. Academic Degrees & Graduate Education, 5, 18–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peng, A. (2011a). Doctoral students’ financial situation survey. Modern Education Management, 1, 105–109.Google Scholar
  46. Peng, A. (2011b). An empirical study of factors influencing the amounts of doctoral financial aid. Journal of Graduate Education, 5, 17–24.Google Scholar
  47. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (2001). Expanding and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism. Organization, 8(2), 154–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sun, Y., & Liang, J. (2009). Doctoral education reform in China in the context of higher education internationalisation. Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education, 9(185), 94–96.Google Scholar
  49. Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing (1st ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
  50. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vipunen Education Statistics Finland. (2016). Students and degrees. Retrieved from
  53. Wang, J. (2008). The development and changes of Chinese graduate school education under globalisation. China Mainland Studies, 51(1), 67–95.Google Scholar
  54. Yang, R. (2011). Self and the other in the Confucian cultural context: Implications of China’s higher education development for comparative studies. International Review of Education/Internationale Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft/Revue Internationale De L’Education, 57(3), 337–355.Google Scholar
  55. Yang, R. (2012). Up and coming? Doctoral education in China. Australia Universities’ Review, 54(1), 64–71.Google Scholar
  56. Ylijoki, O., & Henriksson, L. (2015). Tribal, proletarian and entrepreneurial career stories: Junior academics as a case in point. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yue, J., & Zhou, G. (2008). Tutorial system and employer system. Advanced Engineering Education Research, 2, 117–123.Google Scholar
  58. Zhao, S., & Shen, W. (2013). A comparative analysis of the doctoral education expansion between USA and China: Based on data from 1960s. Educational Research, 11, 169–181.Google Scholar
  59. Zheng, G., & Cai, Y. (2018). Collaboration between Europe and China in doctoral education: Historical development and future challenges. In A. Oleksiyenko, Q. Zha, I. Chirikov, & J. Li (Eds.), International status anxiety and higher education: Soviet legacy in China and Russia. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC) and Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Zheng, G., Cai, Y., & Ma, S. (2017). Towards an analytical framework for understanding the development of a quality assurance system in an international joint programme. European Journal of Higher Education, 7(3), 243–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zheng, G., Shen, W., & Cai, Y. (2018). Institutional logics of Chinese doctoral education system. Higher Education, 76(5), 753–770. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhou, Y. (2009). Review on the research into the relationship between tutors and postgraduates in the international higher education institutions. Journal of Xinyu College, 14(1), 106–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaoming Zheng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jussi Kivistö
    • 1
  • Wenqin Shen
    • 2
  • Yuzhuo Cai
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Management and BusinessTampere UniversityTampereFinland
  2. 2.Graduate School of Education, Peking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations