Subnational Variation of the Growth and Development of PHE in China

• In Event: Policies, norms, and disruptions in higher education

Proposal

Subnational Variation of the Growth and Development of Private Higher Education in China – Using Fujian, Yunnan and Hubei as Case Studies

Abstract

Private higher education (PHE) has been studied world-wide for their trends and pattens of growth and development at the global level and regional level (Geiger, 1987; Levy, 2010; Buckner, 2018). There have been national level studies that examine the various aspects of PHE development including the public policy of PHE (Levy, 1986; Wu, 2008; Wang, 2014; Salto, D.J., 2019; Buckner & Gong, 2021; Xu, 2023; Levy, 2023), and the role that PHE plays in the HE system (Geiger, 1986; Li & Jones, 2015). As Levy stated, global trends and patterns can be identified, but realities are very different at the national and subnational levels (2018). The subnational variation of PHE growth and development has been an area where PHE scholars have paid little attention to.

China is an excellent case to study the subnational variation of the growth and development of PHE for the following reasons: 1. The country experienced tremendous growth and development of PHE from the none existence of PHE between 1950-1980 to having PHE accounting for one third of the world’s largest HE system; 2. China is a vast country in both area size and population with 34 provinces and regions each with their own unique cultural and historical traditions; 3. The country’s political system is communist by ideology but has adopted a socialist market economy that has integrated capitalist characteristics and has affected the relations among the state, the academe and the market.

This dissertation research specifically examines the factors that contribute to the subnational variation of the development and growth of PHE in China. It answers the following research questions: 1. What are the extent and nature of the subnational variation in the growth and development of PHE in China? 2. What factors have contributed to this growth and development?

This research is situated in the comparative education paradigm, which encompass the fields of studies in political science, sociology, history, and social science. It adopts the methodology of ideal type, specifically the ideal type of the Chinese mass higher education (HE) developed by Hayhoe (2015). The ideal type of Chinese mass HE in China is grounded in the deeply rooted Confucian philosophical tradition and the progressive elements of Marxism. It has three pillars that are considered the desirable values for the HE system to achieve. These pillars include 1. A system where men and women participate equally at all levels; 2. A flexible and adaptable system that are interactive not only within, but also engaging outside with the global academic world; 3. A system that have equally thriving humanity and social sciences fields, as well as STEM fields. PHE is an “important component of the Chinese HE system” stated by the MOE in its Higher Education Law and the Law on the Promotion of Private Education (MOE, 2020). PHE institutions (PHEIs) can make their unique contribution toward the overall system in achieving these values, particularly adding value to the system to be more flexible and interactive. PHEIs also play a distinctive role in strengthening the social science and humanities fields, as most of the academic programs that are offered at PHEIs are concentrated in these disciplines.
Based on literature review, a conceptual framework of four factors that contribute to the subnational variation of the growth and development of PHE in China are constructed for the analysis of the study. These factors include: 1. The implementation of national level policy at the provincial level; 2. The state of the economic development measured by GDP per capita; 3. Relationship with local public universities for resource sharing; 4. Cultural and historical traditions in the region (Hayhoe, 1996; Bao, 2009; Zumeta, 2006; Wang, 2014).

This study adopts a two-stage data collection – literature and policy review followed by field work interviews. The author used case study method to select three provinces and 13 private and public universities that represent different main regions of China. The different types of PHEIs include independent colleges (ICs), minban universities and Sino-foreign joint-venture colleges. Interviewees include senior administrators, faculty members and founding owners in the case of PHEIs.

The analysis examines the different types of PHEIs and their distribution among the various provinces by institution number and by enrolment. Findings suggest that multiple factors contribute to the subnational variation of PHE development. For Hubei province, quick response at the provincial level to national level policies toward PHE is a key factor that contribute to local PHE development. Another factor is its rich availability of public university resource that continue to support the development of PHEIs. In Fujian, the advanced economic development of the region and a cultural tradition of philanthropy are two key factors that contribute to PHE growth in the region. While Fujian and Yunnan have similar number of public HEIs, Yunnan’s economic development is weaker compared to Fujian. PHE leaders call for stronger policy support at the provincial level towards PHEIs for their sustainable growth.

Furthermore, PHEIs contribute positively to the Chinese mass HE system in achieving the values of the ideal type of mass Chinese HE. Its flexibility in creating academic programs that link to employment market at a speedy manner is an example. The Sino-foreign JVUs as a type of PHEIs in China offer an excellent platform for the open dialogue of the Chinese academe to engage globally. The author argues that PHEIs need a shift in their mindset in their attempt to mimic the comprehensive research universities alike. Instead, they should focus on further strengthening their niche in offering dynamic and creative applied academic programs in the social sciences and humanities fields.

Author

• Cassidy Gong, OISE, University of Toronto