Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altbach, P. G. (2013) The International Imperative in Higher Education, Boston: Sense Publishers.
Boyer, E. L. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement for Teaching.
Cameron, W. B. (1963) Informal Sociology, a Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking, New York: Random House.
CDGDC (2016) ‘The Fourth National Discipline Assessment formally Launched’, 22 April, Retrieved on May 25, 2016 from http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/xwyyjsjyxx/zlpj/pgpsdtxx/281819.shtml
Cheung, A. B. L. (2012) ‘How Hong Kong Universities balance the global and the regional’, in B. Adamson, J. Nixon and F. Su (eds.) The Reorientation of Higher Education: Challenging the East-West Dichotomy, Hong Kong: CERC/Springer, pp. 95–112.
Chou, C. P. (2014) The SSCI Syndrome in Higher Education, Rotterdam: Sense.
Eagleton, T. (2015) ‘The slow death of the university’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6 April, retrieved 10 April 10 2015 from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Slow-Death-of-the/228991
Flexner, A. (1930) Universities: American, English, German, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., and Maeroff, G. I. (1997) Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement for Teaching.
Gonzales, L. D., and Núñez, A.-M. (2014) ‘The ranking regime and the production of knowledge: Implications for academia’, Education Policy Analysis Archives 22(31): 1–20.
Hanafi, S. (2011) ‘University systems in the Arab East: Publish globally and perish locally vs publish locally and perish globally’, Current Sociology 59(3): 291–309.
Harman, G. (2011) ‘Competitors of rankings: New directions in quality assurance and accountability’, in J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian and U. Teichler (eds.) University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer pp. 35–53.
Harman, G. (2006) ‘Research and scholarship’, in J. J. F. Forest and P. G. Altbach (eds.) International Handbook of Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 309–328.
Hayhoe, R. (1995) ‘An Asian Multiversity: Comparative reflections on the transition to mass higher education in East Asia’, Comparative Education Review 39(3): 299–321.
Hazelkorn, E. (2015) Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence (2nd ed), New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ishikawa, M. (2014) ‘Ranking regime and the future of vernacular scholarship’, Education Policy Analysis Archives 22(30): 1–22.
Ishikawa, M. (2009) ‘University rankings, global models and emerging hegemony: Critical Analysis from Japan’, Journal of Studies in International Education 13(2): 159–173.
Jasper, K. (1959) The ideal of the university, Translated by H. A. T. Reiche and H. F. Vanderschmidt, London: Lowe and Brydone.
Kerr, K. (1963) The Uses of the University, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Li, J. (2016) ‘Chinese University 3.0 in a global age: History, modernity and future’, in P. C. I. Chou and J. Spangler (eds.) Chinese Education Models in a Global Age: Transforming Practice Into Theory, Singapore: Springer, pp. 15–35.
Li, J. (2012) World-class higher education and the emerging Chinese model of the university. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education 42(3): 319–339.
Li, J., and Hayhoe, R. (2012) ‘Confucianism and higher education’, in J. A. Banks (ed.) SAGE Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education Vol. 1, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 443–446.
Marginson, S. (2010) ‘GLOBAL: Research: A force for globalisation’, World University News, 28 March, retrieved 3 January 2016 from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100326113121559.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neave, G. (2001) ‘The European dimension in Higher Education: An excursion into the modern use of historical analogues’, in J. Huisman, P. Maassen and G. Neave (eds.) Higher Education and the Nation State: The International Dimension of Higher education, Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 13–72.
Oguz, A. (2004) Ranking competition: How much to endeavor to move up? unpublished MA thesis, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Pelikan, J. (1992) The Idea of the University: A Reexamination, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Post, D. (2012) ‘Rank scholarship’, Comparative Education Review 56(1): 1–17.
Postiglione, G. A., and J. Jung. (2013) ‘Frameworks for creating research universities: The Hong Kong case’, in J. C. Shin and B. M. Kehm (eds.) Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 237–254.
Power, M. (2004) ‘The risk management of everything’, The Journal of Risk Finance 5(3): 58–65.
Shin, J. C. (2011) ‘Organizational effectiveness and university rankings’, in J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian and U. Teichler (eds.) University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 19–34.
Shin, J. C., Toutkoushian, R. K., and Teichler, U. (2011) University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer.
Teichler, U. (2011) ‘Social contexts and systemic consequence of university rankings: A meta-analysis of the ranking literature’, in J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian and U. Teichler (eds.) University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 54–69.
Toutkoushian, R. K., and Webber, K. (2011) ‘Measuring the research performance of postsecondary institutions’, in J.C. Shin, R. Toutkoushian and U. Teichler (eds.) University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology And Impacts On Global Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 123–144.
University Grants Commission (UGC) (2014) Research Assessment Exercise 2014, Hong Kong: UGC, Retrieved 3 January 2016 from http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/doc/ugc/rae/gn_201406.pdf.
van Vught, F. A., and Westerheijden, D. F. (2012) ‘Transparency, quality and accountability’, in F. A. van Vught and F. Ziegele (eds.) Multidimensional Ranking: The Design and Development of U-Multirank, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 11–23.
van Vught, F. A., and Ziegele, F. (2012) Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-Multirank, Dordrecht: Springer.
Yonezawa, A. (2013) ‘Rankings and information on Japanese universities’, in P.T.M. Marope, P.J. Wells and E. Hazelkorn (eds.) Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses, Paris: UNESCO, pp. 171–186.
Acknowledgments
Empirical findings of this study are mainly from my research projects on “World-class Universities, Publication and Research Assessment: Rethinking the Mission of Higher Education in the Global Age” funded by the Research Development Fund of Worldwide Universities Networks (RDF/WUN Ref.: 4930217) and “China-Africa University Partnerships in Education and Training: Students, Trainees, Teachers and Researchers” funded by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council General Research Fund (RGC/GRF Ref.: CUHK842912). Special thanks go to the two funding agencies, the WUN research team (particularly Mayumi Ishikawa, Jiang Kai, David Post, Wenqin Shen and Xiaohong Tian), and anonymous participants and reviewers as well for its publication here. I bear sole responsibility for its contents, however.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, J. The Global Ranking Regime and the Reconfiguration of Higher Education: Comparative Case Studies on Research Assessment Exercises in China, Hong Kong, and Japan. High Educ Policy 29, 473–493 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0015-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0015-7