Skip to main content

Hong Kong: Governance and the Double-Edged Academy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter introduces selected preferences and perceptions of Hong Kong’s academic profession about university governance. We identify a double-edged feature of university governance in Hong Kong. On the one hand, there is an increasingly top-down pattern of management. This is reflected in the perceptions of academic staff about their low level of involvement in policy making, relative lack of information about institutional workings, and insufficient quality of communication between administration and faculty. On the other hand, academic staff perceptions also point to a significant level of satisfaction and preference for the performance-oriented decision-making that is practiced at universities in Hong Kong. Moreover, their perceptions of the level of academic freedom in Hong Kong’s universities have actually increased over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The population data are calculated by merging official data on the population of academics in the eight public-funded universities in Hong Kong (statistics reported by the University Grants Committee at http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/index.htm) and estimated data on those in the three additional institutions which are also included in the sample.

  2. 2.

    As survey design effect has not yet been taken into consideration, we do not claim that the following analyses and discussion speak necessarily to the academic population in each country. Arguments made in the following sections are merely based upon some statistics generated from raw data in the sample. The data will be weighed against some key traits of the population (such as their academic rank, discipline and gender), and some comprehensive statistical analyses will be included in later studies. Thus later in this chapter, the comparison among countries is merely based upon self-selected observations (the response rate is around 11% for the case of Hong Kong) instead of the estimation of the population of each country.

  3. 3.

    Data when class is not in session are not available for the case of Mexico.

  4. 4.

    In the original format, respondents are asked to choose between Scale 1 and 5, with “1” meaning “very much improved” and “5” “very much deteriorated.” For the sake of illustration, the answers have been rescaled so that “−2” means “very much deteriorated”, “2” “very much improved”, and “0” neutral.

  5. 5.

    29% of the total sample scale it as “−1”; around a quarter stay neutral (coded as “0”), and another quarter choose “1.”

  6. 6.

    These items are listed in the questionnaire as follow: classrooms, technology for teaching, laboratories, research equipment and instruments, computer facilities, library facilities and services, your office space, secretarial support, telecommunications (internet, networks and telephones), teaching support staff, research support staff, and research funding.

  7. 7.

    In the survey, respondents in Hong Kong have one additional option of University Senate. In order to make the case of Hong Kong comparable to others, this option is left out of this analysis.

  8. 8.

    We leave the option of students out of our discussion.

  9. 9.

    We are very aware of possible variations within each case, for instance, variations across ­universities within the same system. Because of the page limit, we will only focus on the level of country/system in this chapter.

  10. 10.

    The comparison is based upon self-selected observations in the two surveys. The outcome may not represent the changing features of the population over time.

  11. 11.

    Simple statistical tests suggest strong correlations between these variables, which will be reported and analyzed in later publications.

  12. 12.

    In order to conduct efficient and thorough across-country comparison, more institutional, ­historical and contextual factors in each case might need to be incorporated into the analysis.

  13. 13.

    Data for the case of Germany are missing.

References

  • Altbach, P. A., & Balan, J. (2007). World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asia and Latin America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P. A., & Umakoshi, T. (2004). Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2003). Universities and the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. K., & So, A. Y. (Eds.). (2002). Crisis and transformation in China’s Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J. (2006). The academic profession. In F. James & P. A. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J., & Fulton, O. (2002). Higher education in globalizing world: International trends and mutual observations. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. (2004). Killing thinking: The death of universities. London/New York: Continuum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mok, K. H., & Welch, A. (Eds.). (2003). Globalization and educational re-structuring in the Asia Pacific Region. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odin, J., & Manicas, P. (2004). Globalization and higher education. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postiglione, G. A. (2002). The transformation of academic autonomy in Hong Kong. In M. K. Chan & A. Y. So (Eds.), Crisis and transformation in China’s Hong Kong. London: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postiglione, G. A. (2005). China’s Hong Kong bridge. In C. Li (Ed.), Bridging minds across the pacific: U.S.-China educational exchanges, 1978–2003. New York: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postiglione, G. A. (2009). Questioning core-periphery platforms. In D. Chapman, W. K. Cummings, & G. Postiglione (Eds.), Border crossing in East Asian higher education. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postiglione, G. A. (2011). The Rise of Research Universities: The Case of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. In P. Altbach & J. Salmi (Eds.) The road to academic excellence: Emerging research universities in developing and transition countries Washington DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postiglione, G. A., & Mak, G. C. L. (Eds.). (1997). Higher education in Asia. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RIHE Research Institute for Higher Education. (2008). The changing academic profession in international comparative and quantitative perspectives. Hiroshima: Hiroshima University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, S. (2002). Higher education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Research Grant Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai, H. H., Mok, K. H., & Tse, A. B. (Eds.). (2002). The marketization of higher education: A comparative study of Taiwan, Hong Kong and China (in Chinese). Taipei: Higher Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Task Force on Higher Education and Society, the World Bank. (2000). Higher education in developing countries. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • The World Bank. (2002). Constructing knowledge societies: The new challenges for tertiary education. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, B. (2009). Bureaucracy in Chinese universities. In D. Yang (Ed.), The China education development yearbook (Vol. 1). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, R. (2002). Third delight: The internationalization of higher education in China. New York/London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge the support from the General Research Fund of the Hong Kong Research Grants Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerard Postiglione .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Postiglione, G., Shiru, W. (2011). Hong Kong: Governance and the Double-Edged Academy. In: Locke, W., Cummings, W., Fisher, D. (eds) Changing Governance and Management in Higher Education. The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1140-2_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics