issues concerning higher education reforms in both Finland and China, with a ... trial in Master's programmes, provided that the arrangements include a ...
Introduction Yuzhuo Cai, Jussi Kivistö, Li Zhang China is the largest nation in terms of population and intellectual capacity. It is characterised by very rapid economic growth and opportunities for the future. Finland is among the smallest nations, but it is known worldwide for its ability to quickly respond to the changes in social and economic environments and by its proactive approach to coping with technological developments. Due to the different social, economic and cultural backgrounds of the two countries, the systems of higher education also demonstrate many contrasts, for example in their history, structure and scale. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the essential problems in their higher education policies and universities’ practices are totally different. Rather, some of the experiences of the countries may be relevant to each other because of the general reform trends taking place in the higher education systems of both countries. The aim of the book is to present a set of essays that together outline the substantive issues concerning higher education reforms in both Finland and China, with a particular focus on the experiences and challenges in the post-massification era. This book was developed as a by-product of the first Sino-Finland Forum on Higher Education held in Beijing, in April 2010. To facilitate readers to better understand the discussions in the book, we first provide a brief description of the contexts of the higher education systems in Finland and China, in terms of traditional higher education ideas, higher education reforms and structure of higher education systems. This is followed by an introduction of the background and development of the Sino-Finland Forum on Higher Education. Finally, we present the structure of the book.
Higher education in Finland The origin of Finnish higher education dates back to the establishment of the Royal Academy of Åbo (currently University of Helsinki) in 1640, when Finland was ruled by the Kingdom of Sweden. Sweden lost the land area of Finland after being defeated by Russia in the Napoleonic War, and Finland became a Grand Duchy of the Russian Empire in 1809. Consequentially, the Royal Academy of Åbo was renamed Imperial Academy of Åbo, and later Imperial Alexander University in the 1830s when the university was moved to the new capital, Helsinki. Although Finland was ruled by Russia over 100 years, its higher education policy remains relatively independent and meanwhile Finnish people formed their own ideologies on educational development, such as the important role of education in national and social development, educational equality, etc. All these ideas have been inherited and further elaborated since Finland’s independency in 1917. From the 19th century onwards, the Finnish idea of university has also been devised based on a strong influence of the Germanoriginated Humboldtian model, characterised by academic freedom and unity of research and teaching (Hölttä, 1988; Välimaa, 2001). After the Second World War, the welfare ideologies emerged in Finland as well as in other Nordic countries. The concept of education as a public good has been widely accepted, and is regarded as fundamental in organising education activities and
solving educational problems. Several major decisions on the expansion and placement of universities were subsequently made in the 1960s and 1970s when higher education policy was tightly linked to the regional development policies with the aim of keeping the whole country economically viable. Although most universities established since the Finnish independence were originally private, they were all formally incorporated in to the public higher education system during the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1980s, higher education was mainly characterised on aspects, such as strong state control, high institutional autonomy, and the principles of equality and equity (Hölttä, 1988). The following expansion of the system took place in the mid-1990s in the form of establishment of universities of applied sciences. In the mid-1990s universities gained more autonomy from the state governance when university legislation was reformed and performance-based funding model was implemented. In 2010, the Finnish university system has gone through another significant legislative and operational reform. This includes implementing new Universities Act which allows universities greater financial and operational autonomy (even with private status) than the previous legislation. At the same time, the total number of universities is now reduced from the previous 20 to 16 through mergers. Further, the legislation has allowed Finnish higher education institutions (HEIs) to charge tuition fees for degree education from students coming outside the European Union or European Economic Area either through a “made to order” model, or through a fee-charging trial in Master’s programmes, provided that the arrangements include a scholarship scheme. Further, the national Strategy for the Internationalisation of Higher Education Institutions in Finland 2009–2015 (Finnish Ministry of Education, 2009) is pushing Finnish HEIs to adapt their activities and organisations to take into account the demands of international markets. Today, Finland has a dual (or binary) higher education system comprising of 16 research universities and 25 universities of applied sciences (polytechnics). The 16 universities (14 public, 2 private) include 10 multi-faculty institutions, one school of economics and business administration, two universities of technology, and three art academies, all offering Bachelor, Master, and Doctoral level degrees. According to the legislation, the purpose of universities is to promote independent research and scientific knowledge and to provide the highest education based on this research in their particular fields of study. Of the 25 universities of applied sciences, four are run by local authorities, seven by municipal education consortia and 14 by private organizations. Universities of applied sciences carry out research and development, which serve polytechnic education and support working life especially in the fields of engineering, business and healthcare. They play an important role in regional development as providers of higher education and as developers of the economic life of the regions, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises. All polytechnics offer Bachelor and Master level polytechnic degrees in selected fields. In 2008, Finnish universities and universities of applied sciences hosted 296,000 students and granted 35,000 Bachelor’s and 22,500 Master’s Degrees (Hölttä, Jansson, & Kivistö, 2010).
Higher Education in China In China, the oldest institute of higher learning—shuyuan (academy of Chinese classical learning) dated back to the Tang Dynasty (618-907) in the eighth century and such form of educational institutes remained until the end of Qing Dynasty (16441911). However, the first institution considered as the counterpart of the Western university was established in 1895, namely Beiyang gongxue—the forerunner of Tianjin University. Subsequently the Nanyan gongxure (Jiaotong University) and the Imperial University (Peking University) were successively founded in 1896 and 1898. Unlike in Finland, where the idea of the university is historically based on the German model, Chinese higher education has been successively influenced by a variety of Western ideas. First, the Japanese model was applied in the legislation of 1902 and 1903. The Japanese system of higher education reflected both French and German traditions. After the collapse of the Empire in 1911, American influences became prominent when new legislation was passed in 1922 and 1924. In 1932, by the invitation of the Chinese government, a number of European advisors from Germany, France, England and Poland came to China joining a national project on higher education reform. The reform turned the higher education system towards a more centralised and standardised model (Hayhoe, 1999). The restructuring of higher education after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 was largely influenced by the Soviet Union’s model characterised by centrally-planned mechanism, such as “governments allocating higher education resources, appointing university leaders, assigning graduates jobs and deciding enrolment numbers for individual institutions” (Cai, 2004, p. 158). Other examples of leaning from the Soviet Union can be seen in the higher education mergers in the 1950s. The emphasis was to regroup and realign HEIs and faculties by specialisation lines (Cai, 2007, p. 8). However, the degree systems basically followed the models developed during the old regime. For instance, the 2-3 years short-cycle vocationally oriented higher education programmes remained, although such programmes were not available in the Soviet Union. Since the late 1970s, China has launched continuous reforms together with the introduction of an “open door” policy, especially in the economic sphere. Over this period, China has been largely transformed from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented one. To meet the requirements arising from this economic restructuring, China has initiated a series of higher education reforms, especially since 1993 when the “Outline for Education Reform and Development in China” (Outline) was issued. Basically, two reform strategies have been used: “to introduce market forces to liberate education, create impetus for change, and encourage competition for improvement”, and “to use legislation to regulate new social relationships, practices and behaviour arising from the first strategy” (Law, 2002, p.579). The reforms have achieved remarkable success, such as dramatic expansion of the scale of higher education, progress in faculty development, diversification of financing, privatisation of education provision, development of competitive universities, and advancement of internationalization of higher education (Wang & Liu, 2009). Regardless of the achievement, the reforms have been always associated with problems and dilemmas, such as: 1) weak capability for cultivating top-notch innovative personnel, 2) gap between the applied sciences structure in some universities and the demands of industrial development, 3) unstable and inadequate
conditions for the sustainable development of higher education, and the pressures for university graduates’ employment. Currently, China’s higher education is composed of two parts: regular higher education and adult higher education, of which the former plays a dominant role in the overall structure of Chinese higher education. By the end of 2009, there are 2,305 regular HEIs, including 658 private HEIs (Chinese Ministry of Education, 2010). The higher education system in China is not binary, but is vertically divided into four categories, namely research institutions, research & teaching institutions, teaching institutions, and application oriented institutions (Cheng, 2004, p.207-208). The research universities are those 112 institutions in the “project 211”, which is the Chinese government’s endeavour initiated in 1993 with an aim to strengthen about 100 HEIs as a national priority for the 21st century. Among those, 39 institutions are selected as “project 985” universities. Project 985 is a constructive project for founding world-class universities in the 21st century conducted by the Chinese government of the People’s Republic of China, launched after Present Jiang Zemin’s speech on May 4, 1998, who declared that “China must have a number of first-rate universities of international advanced level”. The HEIs host 29.79 million students accoutring for 24.2% off the age group between 18 to 22, and the average student enrolment in each regular HEI is 9806 (Chinese Ministry of Education, 2010).
Background of the forum Since the 1970s, globalisation and the evolution of the knowledge based economy have caused dramatic changes in the character and functions of higher education in most countries in the world. Global policy trends characterised by effectiveness, efficiency and quality underline higher education reforms in many countries. The higher education reforms in China and Finland have taken place in such a background, though the direct drive for reforming higher education is mainly derived from growing expectations and demands of different stakeholders in the domestic environment. In spite of differences, China and Finland can also provide comparison on similarities and with it the possibility to learn from each other. Since the 1980s, both countries have experienced a transition from a centrally controlled system towards one with more institutional autonomy. In the last two decades, mergers as means to expand higher education and develop world class universities have been introduced in both higher education systems. The current reforms in both countries intend to strengthen the role of higher education in the social and economic development of the society. Particularly, universities become essential actors in the national and regional innovation systems. Although both countries have realised the potential of market mechanisms in achieving reform objectives, they emphasise the importance of government policy and coordination in the regulation of markets. Since 2005, the idea of preparing comparative studies on higher education policies and reforms of the two countries has been formulated within the framework of the successful cooperation among a number of Finnish and Chinese higher education researchers from the Higher Education Group, University of Tampere, Graduate School of Education, Peking University and Higher Education Research Institute, Beijing University of Technology. The three institutes have established a research network focusing on understanding Finnish and Chinese higher education systems and
promoting mutual understanding. The network has gradually expanded and had more researchers and institutes involved, and has turned to develop a national platform for higher education research between China and Finland. The milestone of the progress is the organisation of 2010 Sino-Finland Forum on Higher Education (26-27 April) in Beijing, by Beijing University of Technology, Peking University, University of Tampere, and University of Helsinki. The purpose of the Forum was to share the contemporary experiences in developing higher education among Chinese, Finnish and other international researchers with the aim to promote cooperation in the field of higher education research and policy between China and Finland. The particular focus of the forum is on the experiences and challenges in the postmassification era in both Chinese and Finnish higher education, as one particular interest for Chinese policy makers and researchers is to learn from Finland as a successful example of transforming higher education to the post-massification stage. Sharing experiences between the two countries may also help Finland to adjust its strategy in collaborating with China in the field of higher education. According to Martin Trow’s (1974) definition, when the enrolment of higher education reaches 15% of the relevant age group, “mass higher education” will emerge as a second sector beside the “elite higher education” (1-14% of the age group). When eventually student enrolment surpasses 50%, it then comes to a stage of “universal higher education”. “Post-massification of higher education” refers to the process of a transition from mass higher education toward the new stage of higher education. In China, the gross enrolment rate in higher education had never exceeded 4% until 1992. However, only after one decade the gross enrolment rate went up to 15% in 2002, indicating that China’s higher education entered into the stage of mass higher education. In 2009, the rate already reached 24.2%. Despite the achievement, the rapid growth of enrolment has generated a number of problems concerning the quality of education, employment of graduates, and governance of higher education, etc. To cope with these problems, the experience of industrialised countries, which had evolved into the mass higher education stage much earlier, may be relevant for China. In Finland, the higher education participation of 21-24 year-old has already reached 41% (Usher & Medow, 2010, p. 42), whereas the national entry rate is currently at 70 % (OECD, 2010, p. 56).
Structure of the book To further explore the issues around the theme of post-massification, the 2010 SinoFinland Forum was organised around three thematic areas, namely 1) the challenges and experience faced by Chinese and Finnish higher education in the postmassification era, 2) national innovation system building and higher education reforms, and 3) globalisation and transformation of higher education systems. The forum received special attention from Chinese and Finnish Governments, as well as higher education scholars in China, Finland and other countries. The Forum gathered altogether 120 participants, of which more than 50 presented a research paper. Selected out of this group, this book contains altogether 15 papers Among those, there are 6 papers derived from keynote speeches by Ulrich Teichler,
Wanhua Ma, Fengqiao Yan, Yijian Jiang, Seppo Hölttä, and Markku Mattila. These articles are independent views of distinguished scholars, policy makers, and officials, addressing the historical development, contemporary challenges, and future prospects of higher education. The other articles are selected from the papers presented in the panel discussions and have gone through an external review process with the aim to help authors to upgrade their papers to better meet the focus and requirements of this publication. The articles are categorised into four sections, namely international perspectives, Chinese perspectives, Finnish perspectives, and comparative perspectives. In Chapter 1, Ulrich Teichler discusses the potential challenges in the transformation from elite higher education to mass higher education, and eventually universal higher education from a global perspective. In relation to Teichler’s discussion, Fengqiao Yan in Chapter 2 analyses the dilemma of balancing quality and quantity in Chinese higher education. He also explains based on a survey study, how the reform towards mass higher education has resulted in the differentiation between national and regional universities (the former for elite education and the latter for mass education) in Chinese higher education. In Chapter 3, Wanhua Ma presents the inequity between urban and rural students access to public research universities in China. Given the challenge faced by rural students accessing higher education, the author calls for the attention of public research universities to take this into account when developing their enrolment policies. The equality issue is also examined by Yongjun Feng in Chapter 4, but with a focus on the unequal opportunity of access to higher education between different social classes in two provinces in China. He further suggests policy measures to resolve the problem. The following two chapters respectively deal with quality issues concerning teachers and students in higher education. In Chapter 5, Xiaoguang Shi clarifies the concept of faculty development in Chinese higher education and analyses the measures used by the Chinese government and higher education institutions to improve the quality of academic personnel in the past three decades. In Chapter 6, Yijian Jiang takes Beijing University of Technology as an example to illustrate the challenges and solutions in developing innovative capacity and practical skills of students in regional technology universities in China. In Chapter 7, Ming Fan introduces the concept of “knowledge management” into the Chinese context and argues that knowledge management can be one way of contributing to the development of innovation education system in China. Innovation system comprises of complex functions and interactions among various actors, such as government, enterprises, and universities. In Chapter 8, Wang Xinhong explores the university-industry cooperation in the innovation systems in China from the perspectives of state-owned enterprises and small and medium-sized high-tech companies. Based on her case studies, she has discovered a number of factors affecting universities participation in the innovation process. In Chapter 9, Seppo Hölttä discusses the developments of the Finnish higher education system and the path leading to the present role of higher education being a major actor in promoting the economic growth and wellbeing of Finnish citizens. In Chapter 10, Markku Mattila supplements this discussion by describing some of the challenges and future trends in Finnish science and innovation policy.
In Chapter 11, Turo Virtanen analyses the Finnish models of quality assurance of higher education from the international perspective. According to him, Finnish models of quality assurance of teaching and research rely both on the European tradition of governmental regulation and information provision, but they also make use of the models of professional self-regulation and internal self-assessment originally developed in the U.S. In Chapter 12, Jussi Kivistö highlights the international perspectives by discussing the options how Finnish and European doctoral education should be developed especially when they are compared to the doctoral education in the U.S.. In Chapter 13, Timo Aarrevaara discusses the differences in the academic profession’s perceptions of the academic unit, workloads, and the support of academic units for the globalisation of the academic profession in Finland and China. The data utilised in article is based on the international Changing Academic Profession (CAP) survey. In Chapter 14, Dong Li makes comparisons between China and Finland by analysing higher education institution mergers and by examining the similarities and differences of merger processes in both countries. In the final Chapter of the book, Yuzhuo Cai examines the regulations and practices of cross-border education in China, and discusses the opportunities, challenges and suggestions for Finnish stakeholders of education export.
References Cai, Y. (2004). Confronting the global and the local--A case study of Chinese higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(2), 157-169. Cai, Y. (2007). Academic staff integration in post-merger Chinese higher education institutions. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Cheng, H. (2004). Zhongguo gaodeng xuexiao fenlei yu dingwei yanjiu (Research on classification of Chinese higher education institutions). Changsha: Hunan University Publishing House. Chinese Ministry of Education. (2010). Statistics communique of national education development in 2009 (in Chinese). Beijing: Ministry of Education. Finnish Ministry of Education. (2009). Strategy for the Internationalisation of Higher Education Institutions in Finland 2009-2015. Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Education Retrieved from http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2009/liitteet/opm23. pdf. Hayhoe, R. (1999). China's universities 1895--1995: A century of cultural conflict. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre. Hölttä, S. (1988). Recent Changes in the Finnish Higher Education System. European Journal of Education, 23(Nos 1/2), 91-103. Hölttä, S., Jansson, T., & Kivistö, J. (2010). Emerging Markets in the Finnish System. In R. Brown (Ed.), Higher Education and the Market (123-134). New York: Routledge.
Law, W.-W. (2002). Legislation, education reform and social transformation: the People's Republic of China's experience. International Journal of Education Development, 22(6), 579-602. OECD. (2010). Education at a Glance: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD. Trow, M. A. (1974). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education Policy for Higher Education, from the General Report on the Conference on Future Structures of Post-Secondary Education (55-101). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Usher, A., & Medow, J. (2010). Global Higher Education Rankings 2010. Affordability and Accessibility in Comparative Perspective. Toronto: Higher Education Strategy Associates. Välimaa, J. (2001). A historical introduction to Finnish higher education. In J. Välimaa (Ed.), Finnish higher education in transition : perspectives on massification and globalisation (13-53). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research. Wang, Y., & Liu, B. (2009). Zhongguo jiaoyu gaige 30 nian: gaodeng jiaoyu juan (The 30 years of Chinese education reforms: Higher Education Volumn). Beijing: Beijing shifan daxue chubanshe (Beijing Normal University Publisher).
