University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Accountability and the changing academic profession: interacting logics, decoupling and recoupling processes at a Chinese research university

(USC Thesis Other)

Accountability and the changing academic profession: interacting logics, decoupling and recoupling processes at a Chinese research university

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Accountability and the Changing Academic Profession:
Interacting Logics, Decoupling and Recoupling Processes at a Chinese Research University

By

Ji Zhou
______________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

May 2014

2

Dedication
To all Buddhas who keep inspiring me to appreciate all life has to offer with strength,
gratitude, and a peaceful mind.

3

Acknowledgements
First and foremost I want to thank my advisor Dr. Darnell Cole for supporting and
guiding me throughout my entire doctoral study at Rossier School of Education. I appreciate all
his contributions of time, ideas, suggestions, and funding, which has made my doctoral education
experience productive. Dr. Cole has the knack of guiding me to learn research techniques, but
also inspiring me to find my own enthusiasm and intellectual paths. He has been supportive of
my intellectual growth and has given me the freedom to pursue various research projects. At the
same time, he kindly encourages me to work with other faculty and colleagues in and outside
Rossier as well as USC, so that I can develop a web of academic and professional support. Dr.
Cole is also one of the most approachable and kindhearted people I know, who is always willing
to l ist e n to s tudents’ struggles and successes and provide suggestions.
I feel immensely grateful to the committee members for my qualifying exam and
dissertation, Drs. Peer Fiss, Adrianna Kezar, Mike Diamond, and Guilbert Hentschke. Their
constructive and prompt feedback has greatly shaped this dissertation and elevated its quality.
Equally essential is their kind and continuous encouragement, particularly during the tough times
of completing this dissertation. Thank you to Dr. Fiss whose fantastic class on organization
theory sparked my interest in conducting this dissertation, whose enthusiasm for organization
theory and organization research has been contagious and motivational for me. Thank you to Dr.
Kezar whose expert qualitative work on organizational change in higher education has served as
the exemplary model for this dissertation, whose constructive feedback has been critical at each
stage of completion this dissertation. This dissertation would not have been possible without the
help and support of Dr. Diamond who was instrumental to helping me gain access to the study
site. I am also very grateful to Dr. Diamond for sharing his knowledge about Chinese higher
4

education and for providing insightful comments to improve this dissertation. Thank you to Dr.
Hentschke whose warmth, kindness, and enthusiasm for helping me advance my research and
teaching is so appreciated. In addition, I owe a great debt of gratitude to my committee members
for their support and suggestions for my career and job search.
I am extremely blessed to have met a few other faculty who took their time to get to
know my research interests and provided advice during the early stage of this dissertation
research. Thank you to Dr. William Tierney who encouraged and inspired me to conduct a study
on Chinese higher education reform and changing faculty lives back in my first semester at
Rossier. Thank you to Dr. Simon Marginson who provided suggestions during our several
meetings at ASHE and AERA about conducting this dissertation research as well as qualitative
research in international higher education in general. Thank you to Drs. Anthony Bailey, Tracy
Tambascia, and Stanley Rosen whose insightful comments helped shape this dissertation during
the initial stage.
A good support system is essential to surviving each stage in the doctoral study. I would
like to thank all my friends at Rossier who have not only made the past four years fun and
enjoyable but also enriched my experience with countless wonderful conversations. Special
thanks to Michelle and Sable for listening, offering me advice, and supporting me academically
and personally throughout the entire process. Many thanks to Rudy, Robin, Monica, and Megan
for your generous help with my qualifying exam. Many thanks to Matt for listening, editing my
writing, and encouraging me during the final year of dissertation and job search.
I reserve a special place in my heart for many faculty and friends at Binghamton
University who were instrumental to my transition and growth in the first few years since I came
to the United States to pursue doctoral degree. Thank you to Drs. Larry Stedman and Marilyn
5

Tallerico who have believed in me and supported me to follow my academic passion. Many
thanks to Jiangyuan and Shuheng who made my time at Binghamton enjoyable and have
continuously supported and encouraged me since I left.
I would like to give special thanks to the case study university and all its participants,
whose name I cannot identify for protecting their anonymity. I am grateful to the university for
providing me an incredibly welcoming and collegial space during data collection. I am also
grateful to all participants for their willingness to take part in and support this dissertation
research.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their love and support. For my grandmother
and late grandfather who raised me with love and encouraged me to dream big in my childhood.
For my aunts and uncles who have always believed in me and supported me by kindly taking
care of my mother over the past seven years when I was away pursuing the degree in the United
States. For my father who has always believed in me and supported me in following my dreams.
And most of all for my mother whose unconditional love, faithful support, and quiet patience for
all of my pursuits is so appreciated. Thank you.
Ji Zhou
Los Angeles
May 2014
6

Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter One Introduction ......................................................................................................... 11
The I nte g r a l R ole of C hinese Hi g he r E duc a ti on in C hina’ s Moder niz a ti on ................................. 12
Recent Developments ................................................................................................................... 15
The Changing Academic Profession ............................................................................................. 21
Problem Statement and Research Questions................................................................................. 36
Chapter Two Theories ................................................................................................................ 42
Institutional Theories .................................................................................................................... 42
The Old Institutionalism ......................................................................................................................... 42
The New Institutionalism ........................................................................................................................ 44
Inhabited Institutionalism ....................................................................................................................... 47
Institutional Logics ................................................................................................................................. 49
Synthesis of Other Organizational Perspectives ........................................................................... 61
Principal Agent Theory ........................................................................................................................... 61
Resource Dependency Theory ................................................................................................................ 64
Cultural Theory ....................................................................................................................................... 67
Sensemaking ........................................................................................................................................... 73
The Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................................... 78
Chapter Three Methods ............................................................................................................. 85
Paradigmatic Assumptions and Positionality................................................................................ 85
The Case Study Tradition and Its Utility for Studying the Changing Academic Profession ....... 87
Research Design............................................................................................................................ 90
Place and Use of Theories ....................................................................................................................... 91
Site .......................................................................................................................................................... 93
Sampling and Participants ....................................................................................................................... 94
Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 98
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 105
Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................................................... 107
Ethical and Political Considerations ..................................................................................................... 109
Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 111
Chapter Four Findings ............................................................................................................. 113
7

The RUC Story ........................................................................................................................... 114
Interacting Logics in National Policies ....................................................................................... 116
Centrality of the State Logic ................................................................................................................. 116
Logic Blending and Compatibility between the State, the Market, and the Corporate ......................... 118
Rising Importance of the Academic Professional Logic ....................................................................... 119
Creating Harmony and Synergy between Logics ................................................................................. 120
Interacting Logics in University Policies .................................................................................... 121
Centrality of the State, the Market, and the Corporate Logics .............................................................. 122
Struggling and Periphery Academic Professional Logic ...................................................................... 125
Accompanying Role of the Confucian Family Logic ........................................................................... 127
I nte ra c ti ng L o g ics in A c a de mi c s’ Be li e fs a bout an d I nte rpr e t a ti ons of the P rof e ssi on .............. 127
Academic Professional Logic Should be Central and Dominant .......................................................... 128
Academic Professional Logic in Setting up Performance Standards ................................................ 128
Academic Professional Logic in Controlling the Scope of Academic Work .................................... 134
Professional Logic in University Decision-Making .......................................................................... 135
The Corporate Logic Must Be Curtailed to Minimum Influence ......................................................... 139
The Market Logic Ought To Be Less Emphasized; Yet It Suits the Current Situation in China and at
RUC in Particular .................................................................................................................................. 140
Confucian Family Logic Competes with the Academic Professional and Market Logic ..................... 145
Positive Change Can Only Come From the State; Change Is Possible in the Long Term .................... 147
I nte ra c ti ng L o g ics in A c a de mi c s’ Re sponses: Va rie d De c oupli n g a nd Re c o upli ng .................. 150
Coupling Varied by Age ....................................................................................................................... 151
Coupling Varied by Discipline and Academic Rank ............................................................................ 154
Coupling Varied by Employment Track ............................................................................................... 168
Coupling Varied by Gender .................................................................................................................. 170
Chapter Five Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................... 173
The Utility of Multiple Theoretical Perspectives ........................................................................ 173
The Iron Cage Hypothesis .................................................................................................................... 174
University (Principal)-Faculty (Agent) Relationship ............................................................................ 176
Resource Dependence ........................................................................................................................... 178
Institutional Logics and the Coupling Processes .................................................................................. 180
Interacting Logics and Changing Academic Profession in China .............................................. 182
Interacting Logics and Changing Academic Profession Globally .............................................. 185
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 188
8

Tables and Figure ..................................................................................................................... 217
Table 1. Summary of Institutional Approaches to Organizations ......................................................... 218
Table 2. Ideal Type Institutional Logics (Source: Thornton, Ocasio, Lounsbury, 2012, p. 73) ........... 220
Table 3. Summary of Assumptions of Additional Organizational Perspectives ................................... 222
Table 4. Academic Profession Conceptualized by Ideal Type Institutional Logics ............................. 223
Table 5. Demographic Information of Academic and/or Administrator Leaders ................................. 227
Table 6. Demographic Information of Faculty Participants with No Administrative Titles ................. 228
Table 7. Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 230
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of Intra-Organizational Dynamics Facing Top-Down Change ....... 232
Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 233
Appendix A Interview Protocol for the Vice President ........................................................................ 234
Appendix B Interview Protocol for Mid-Level Academic and Administrative Leaders ...................... 235
Appendix C Interview Protocol for Faculty .......................................................................................... 236
Appendix D Observation Protocol ........................................................................................................ 237
Appendix E Journal Entry Format ........................................................................................................ 238

9

Abstract
This dissertation examines the extent to which demands of accountability and prestige
from various sources —the state, the market, the corporation, the Confucian family, and the
academic profession —shape the changing academic life at a Chinese research university. The
objective is to understand the interface between external demands and internal policies and
pr oc e sses o f de finin g a nd e va luatin g a c a de mi c s’ w or k, a nd the e x tent to which a c a de mi c s ali g n
their interpretations and actions with these policies and external demands. Three dimensions
have emerged to affect the university ’ s pol icie s, includi ng the governance structure of Chinese
higher education, the academic prestige of the university, and the socioeconomic context where
the university is located. Four dim e nsion s hav e e mer ge d to af fe c t a c a d e mi c s’ inter pr e tations a nd
actions, including age, discipline and academic rank, employment track, and gender. These
findings highlight the varied extent of decoupling and recoupling between university policies and
practices as well as between indi viduals’ interpretations and actions for different academics and
for the same academic at different time points. In other words, say versus do or symbolic versus
substantive change are not as dichotomous as common conceptions of universities might predict,
due to the increasing demand for accountability and prestige. Further, the alignment between
a c a d e mi c s’ inter pr e tations a nd a c ti ons fa c ing top -down change is not as coherent as organization
theory might predict, due to the governance structure and the current developmental stage of
Chinese higher education. Broadly speaking, this dissertation provides a glimpse of the changing
academic profession alon g C hina’ s striving for modernization via a combined strong state and
free market economy. Comparatively speaking, this dissertation highlights two different
dynamics —assimilation versus blending —between higher education and external logics (i.e., the
state, the market, the corporation, and the Confucian family) in shaping the changing academic
10

profession: assimilation of external logics into academic profession in the West (e.g., the UK and
US higher education) and blending of these logics with academic profession in Chinese higher
education. These two different dynamics are embedded in different higher education governance
structures (decentralized versus centralized) and developmental stages (developed versus
developing), resulting in different broad change processes (fragmentation, incremental change
versus conformity, abrupt change) between the West and China.

11

Chapter One Introduction
Few issues resonate more deeply with academics than the rising pressure of
a c c ountabili t y a nd the in c e ssant pur suit of pr e sti ge . W it h hig he r e du c a ti on’ s incr e a sin g r e li a nc e on tuitions, endowments, and corporate donations have come greater demands for public scrutiny
(Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009). Performance of colleges and universities has become a
topic of great concerns (Gallagher, 2010). Performance-based evaluations have sought to assess
and rank institutional quality based on crude and quantifiable indicators (Marginson & van der
Wende, 2007). At the same time, as financial resources are believed to be linked with prestige,
colleges and universities are making incessant efforts to move up the institutional ladder
(Hazelkorn, 2009). They are invited or forced to follow the standardized template of excellence
(Hallett, 2010). Facing these two interrelated issues —accountability demands and prestige
concerns, how universities respond and how academics restructure their activities warrant
examination. In the international context, the extent of global convergence and local variations is
another intriguing and relatively unexamined avenue of inquiry (Paradeise & Thoenig, 2013).
In this study, I examine the extent to which accountability requirements from various
forces shape the changing academic profession in China and at a Chinese research university. I
focus on understanding the interface between external demands and internal policies and
pr oc e sses o f e va lu a ti ng a c a de mi c s’ wor k, a nd the e x tent to which a c a de mi c s align their
interpretations and actions with these policies and external demands. While data are specific to
one site, the institutional and faculty issues under examination are virtually universal due to
increasing accountability pressures and the striving for prestige. This study is of broad
significance to understanding the changing academic profession internationally, particularly at
research universities which are becoming increasingly similar (Morphew, 2009).
12

In this chapter, I begin with briefly discussing the integral role of Chinese higher
e duc a ti on in C hina’ s mod e rniz a ti on fo r the pa st 1 50 y e a rs, w hich p rovide s the ba c kdrop o f
changes in higher education and the academic profession. Next, I review recent national and
institutional initiatives that emphasize accountability and the pursuit of prestige. I then review
changing policies and practices in the academic profession. Finally, I provide the problem
statement and research questions. Laying out the societal and institutional context in which
Chin e se c oll e g e s and uni ve rsiti e s ar e e mbedde d is im porta nt, g iven the stu d y ’s e mphasis on t he influence of multiple societal and institutional forces on higher education and its academics.
In this and subsequent chapters, I situate the study not only in the Chinese context but
also in frequent connection to the changing academic profession internationally, with a greater
focus on the U.S. This connection is necessary for two reasons. Recent developments in Chinese
higher education have emphasized learning from research universities in the West. The voluntary
emulation has intensified with the diffusion of global rankings that extol the excellence of
Western, particularly American, research universities. Further, the demand for greater
accountability and the drive for prestige have led to similar broad changes to higher education
institutions in many countries, including China (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Sadlack &
Liu, 2009). Making the connection between Chinese higher education and its international peers
speaks to the extent of global convergence and local variations, facilitating a global and
comparative understanding of changing academic profession.
T h e In te gr al Role of Chi n e se Hi gh e r E d u c at ion in Chi n a’ s M od e r n izat ion
Unlike the ongoing tension over the role of higher education in many nations such as the
U.S. (Kezar, 2004; Thelin, 2004), the role of Chinese higher education has been well defined,
serving political purposes in ancient times and economic needs in recent and contemporary
13

China. For more than 2,000 years, scores on a national examination —based on Chinese classics
grounded in the works of Confucius —determined bureaucratic appointments. Higher education
was only been a means of intellectual self-betterment, but also the pragmatic means to political
a uthorit y . A fte r the foun ding of the P e ople ’s Re p ubli c of China, hig he r e d uc a ti on wa s dema nd e d
to closely serve the manpower needs of the centrally planned economy (Min, 2004). The shift
from the planned to the market economy since the 1980s has greatly intensified higher
e duc a ti on’s e c onomi c f u nc ti on.
F or the p a st t hr e e de c a d e s, C hina ha s followe d a n “ a uthorit a ria n mod e of libe ra li sm,” a combined strong state and a free market model that strives for modernization and global
competitiveness as soon as possible (Mok, 2005). The state and private interests in using higher
education for economic benefits go in tandem. For individuals, the reality of fierce competition
for a better life is inescapable in an overly-populated China that is still developing. Issues with
inequality have raised serious concerns (Zhang, 2007). Yet, the role of higher education in
a ll e viating soci a l i ne qua l it y is being l e ss questi one d. To some de g r e e , Chi na ’s r a pid e c onomi c growth has diverted attention away from inequality and widening wealth gap. The rising middle
class that was non-existent two decades ago tend not to challenge the authoritarian rule as long as
they are allowed to enjoy the growing wealth and to pursue a better life for themselves and an
even better one for their children (Schell & Delury, 2013). Additionally, the traditional
Confucian notion of harmony, as subordinate to social hierarchy, has appeased some social
unrest in the face of rising inequality (Marginson, 2011).
Realizing the Chinese Dream via Higher Education
Attempts to modernize higher education have been integral to the modernization in China,
which aims to rise out of poverty and backwardness and attain wealth and power internationally.
14

C hina’ s mod e rniz a ti on dr ive is de e pl y roote d in t h e na t ion’s de c li ne in r e c e nt hi stor y due to
internal corruption and foreign invasion. This decline has been ignominious for a people of
abiding face and pride, igniting a strong determination across generations to modernize China
(Schell & Delury, 2013). Earlier efforts after the Opium War in 1840 to liberate Chinese
intellectuals called to eradicate Confucian heritage and bring in principles of Western science
a nd de mocr a c y in ord e r t o fig ht fo re i g n a gg r e ssi on. Ef for ts af t e r the f oundi ng of the P e ople’ s
Republic of China in 1949 reorganized colleges and universities into state-run institutions, so
that they could closely serve the manpower needs of a centrally planned economy (Min, 2004).
The rapid expansion of colleges and universities in the late 1950s reflected the long-frustrated
and overambitious dream of catching up with the West
1
. The ten-year Cultural Revolution that
broke out in 1966 attacked higher education as places disseminating Western ideologies as well
as traditional Chinese feudalism (Min, 2004).
Changes in higher education since the late 1970s have followed a combined strong state
and free market development model in order for modernization as fast as possible (Mok, 2005a).
The objective was steered away from battling political ideologies and focused on economic
pr oduc ti on. P ra g matis m such a s “ L e t som e p e ople g e t ri c h fir st” a nd “ B lac k or w hit e , a c a t t ha t
c a tche s mi c e is a g ood c a t” ma de e c onomi c de ve lo pment the c e ntra l g o a l. The e c onomi c a nd
pragmatic function of higher education has intensified. The focus on economic development was
further pushed forward with full speed by the then President Jiang Zemin and later Hu Jintao,
both of whom stirred a nationwide fever to get rich quick. The Project 211 and Project 985 were
launched to build world-class universities, which shoulders the responsibility to not only meet

1
From 1958 to 1960, the Chinese government launched a nationwide mass movement for economic development —
the Great Leap Forward for Socialist Construction. The movement triggered the Great Leap Forward in Higher
Education. The goal was to significantly increase the number of colleges and universities as well as higher education
enrollments to match the ambitious economic growth plan. During the period, the number of higher education
institutions increased from 277 in 1957 to 1,289 in 1960, and the enrollment increased from 441,181 to 961,263.
15

the need for technological and scientific innovation but also speed up modernization (Min, 2004;
Yan, 2009).
Most r e c e ntl y , P re sident Xi J inpi ng prop osed the te rm “ C hinese D re a m ” w hich means to
…g a in w e a lt h a nd pow e r , r e juvena te th e C hinese na ti on, a nd br ing h a ppine ss t o it s
pe ople… I t i s a dr e a m t ha t belong s to t he whole n a ti on a s we ll a s eve r y individual...Individuals have their own pursuit of dreams, but collectively, realizing the
na ti on’s gr e a t r e juvena ti o n is t he g r e a test dr e a m of the na ti on. (Minis tr y of Educ a ti on
[MoE], 2013)
Chinese Dream reflects the more-than-a-century-long determination for modernization and
rejuvenation. Higher education is indispensible to Chinese Dream by providing the manpower
for C hina’ s ec onomi c gr owth a s we ll a s the oppor tuni t y for indi viduals’ e c onomi c we ll be ing (MoE, 2013a).
Recent Developments
Chinese higher education has changed dramatically in terms of its philosophy, size,
structure and governance, finance, and accountability, due to a series of changes since 1985 that
have continuously strengthened higher education economic function. The changes are important
to take into account, as they provide the background for understanding the changing academic
profession.
Philosophy
The philosophy guiding Chinese higher education development has shifted from a
traditional focus on learning and self-betterment to a focus on pragmatism and experimentalism
(Zha & Hayhoe, 2012). Pragmatism is a clear divergence from the traditional emphasis on a
well-rounded humanistic development of moral, intellectual, physical, aesthetics, and labor
16

education (Wang, 2010). The demand for higher education to boost economic growth has led to
market-oriented reforms, such as commercializing research, vocationalizing curriculum, treating
students as consumers, which resembles general trends in higher education systems around the
world (e.g., Berman, 2012; Trowler, 1998; Kraatz & Zajac, 1996; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).
Further, pragmatism is also manifested in an overemphasis on quantity over quality and
on outcomes over processes. State and commercial rankings and other accountability agencies
e mphasiz e “ objec ti ve ” o utcome s, such a s st ude nt e mpl o y ment r a te a nd fa c ult y r e s e a r c h
productivity (Lai, 2009; Li & Zhong, 2013; Lin, 2011). Related to pragmatism, experimentalism
is manifested in assigning more prestigious institutions to pilot change initiatives which, if
successful, would be extended to a wider reach. This manner of experimentation also reflects the
rationale of practice-based reasoning through gradual reform in various spheres of current
C hinese socie t y , th e prin c ipl e of “ c rossing th e r iv e r b y g ropin g the stone” (Z h a n g , 2013)
Size
Chinese higher education has grown from an elite to a mass system, similar to the mass
higher education movement around the world to produce sufficient skilled workforce (e.g.,
Schofer & Meyer, 2005). The expansion was exponential from 1999 to 2006 when the
government initiated or even forced the growth, with an average annual growth of 25% (MoE as
cited in Lai, 2009). By 2004, enrollment had reached more than 20 million, making China the
largest higher education system in the world ever since. Such expansion, however, was
disproportionate to the development of physical and personnel resources. Concerns arose with
diminishing quality of undergraduate education. In 2007, higher education expansion has since
slowed down, annual enrollment growth is capped at 5%, and institutions are cautioned to
balance development between quantity and quality (Yang, 2008). By 2012, the enrollment had
17

reached more than 37 million, about 430 percent growth since 1978 when the college entrance
exam was reinstated after the ten-year Cultural Revolution, and 340 percent growth since 1999
(MoE, 1999, 2012).
Structure and Governance
The c ur r e nt g ove rn a nc e sy s tem is c ha ra c t e riz e d b y “ c e ntr a li z e d de c e ntr a li z a ti on,” consistent with the strong state and free market economy development model (Mok, 2005).
Centralized decentralization is also the characteristic of higher education system in other Asian
regions and countries (e.g., Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea), where the state controls used
to be excessive (e.g., Mok, 2005a, 2011; Shin, 2012). In countries where institutional autonomy
used to be strong (e.g., U.S. Australia, UK), increasing accountability pressures have led to
increasing influences of the state on higher education (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009;
Lane & Kivisto, 2008). In the broad sense, there seems convergence internationally in terms of
the role of state in higher education governance.
Centralized control exists in several aspects. First, the central or provincial government
appoints the Academic President and the Secretary of the Communist Party Committee for each
institution, depending on the affiliation. The dual leadership governance structure exists at the
institution as well as the school or department level. The dual governance defines institutions as,
on one hand, gearing towards academic quality and, on the other hand, synchronized with the
national political apparatus (Marginson, 2010). The academic and the party leadership line have
relatively equal power, and at some institutions it is the party secretary who makes the final
decision (Lai, 2009). Second, the central or provincial government conducts performance
evaluation of institutions, departments, and national laboratories every five years. These
evaluations are conducted in a similar manner as accreditation in the U.S. and lead to similar
18

results as those concluded by accreditation (e.g., approval of institution or degree programs),
except that in Chinese higher education the evaluation agency is appointed by the Ministry of
Education. Third, another centralized control is exercised through the allocation of key resources,
for example, instructional and research funding as well as assigned numbers of enrollment.
Since 1985, institutions have slowly gained autonomy
2
. The central government has
transferred responsibility for many colleges and universities to provincial and municipal
governments. Greater decision-making authority has been granted to individual campuses,
particularly those elite ones in the Project 211 and Project 985, with the objective that they could
find out ways to improve competitiveness as fast as possible domestically and internationally
(MoE, 2008). Institutions now have more operational autonomy, for example, what to offer in
their programs, whom to hire on what terms, and how to allocate budgets. Some elite institutions
do not participate in the national college entrance exam, and use their own exams and criteria to
admit students.
Finance
Finance in Chinese higher education has gone through similar and different changes
compared to the international context. Similar to many other countries, the cost driven by mass
hig he r e duc a ti on ha s g ro wn a t ra tes b e y ond wha t most c ountrie s’ public r e ve nue stre a ms ca n
keep pace (e.g., Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009). Institutions have to increasingly rely on
tuitions, private donations, industry collaborations, and other forms of fund-raising sources. In
China, prior to 1989 when higher education started to charge tuition, institutions were almost
fully funded by the state (Min, 2004). In 1992, the state proportion was 92% and tuition

2
Before the higher education reform initiated in 1985, Chinese higher education was highly centralized. The state
planned and decided on all major aspects, ranging from the number of students to enroll nationally and at each
institution, to the kind of majors to offer, to curricula, to job placement, to the number of faculty and staff to be
employed and to promoted, to budget and funding decisions (Min, 2004).
19

accounted for 6% (Wang, 2012). The subsequent years have seen the declining proportion of
state funding and the increased proportion of tuition as well as other revenues. From 1999 to
2005, state funding decreased from 60% to 40% for institutions affiliated with the central
government, and 63% to 40% for institutions affiliated with local government (MoE as cited in
Chen, 2009). For the same period, tuition increased from 10% to 20% for centrally affiliated
institutions and from 18% to 40% for locally affiliated ones (MoE as cited in Chen, 2009). In
addition to increased revenues from tuitions, institutions are encouraged to diversify their
funding from industrial collaboration and private donations. In 1992, these additional revenues
only accounted for 2%, whereas now they account for more than 20% of total revenues (Wang,
2012).
A unique characteristic of Chinese higher education finance is its structured nature. Tier
one institutions, i.e., those 39 universities in the Project 985, receive more state funding,
particularly for research. Tier two institutions, i.e., those 73 universities in the Project 211 but
not in the Project 985, also receive some additional funding from the provincial government.
Within each tier, funding is further structured based on ranking. For example, the Project 985 has
allocated about 15 billion RMB (approximately $2.1 billion) for each of the three phases since
1999 (MoE, 2008). During the first phase from 1999 to 2003, Tsinghua University (THU) and
Peking University (PKU), the two elitist institutions in China, each received 18 billion Chinese
RMB (approximately $200 million), whereas others received three to 14 billion RMB depending
on their ranking (MoE, 2008). In the second phase from 2004 to 2009, THU and PKU each
received nine billion RMB (approximately $120 million), followed by two to six billion for other
institutions (MoE, 2008). In the current third phase starting from 2010, THU and PKU each
received 40 billion RMB (approximately $600 million), followed by four to 26 billion for other
20

institutions (MoE, 2008). The rationale for tiered funding structure is that those more elite
universities are more academically prepared to increase international research standing as fast as
possible with concentrated financial support (MoE, 2008, 2012).
Accountability
Similar to many other countries, greater public demands for accountability in Chinese
higher education have prevailed in the past two decades. Many of the above-mentioned
developments have pushed the accountability movement in China, including exponential growth
of enrollment, skyrocketing tuition, and increased private funding (Li, 2004; Wang, 2000; Yang,
2007). Ironically, declining state investment has not led to decreased state control. The manner
of state control has shifted from monitoring the process to supervising outcomes. Like in many
higher education systems around the world, institutions in China are obliged to demonstrate their
quality through standards-based evaluation with a focus on quantifiable outcomes in research,
teaching, and student learning. Demands for greater accountability appear to be particularly
strong f o r the na ti on’s be st uni ve rsiti e s (e .g ., thos e in t he P roje c t 985), whic h ha ve the be st
students and faculty and have been provided significantly more financial resources (MoE, 2008).
Widespread accountability mechanisms in Chinese higher education are also similar to
those used in other countries. First, government report cards collect such mandatory information
as retention rate, graduation rate, job placement rate, faculty research productivity, and
international exchange in students and scholars. Second, various state and commercial rankings
have mushroomed, which use similar templates as those popular ones internationally (e.g., U.S.
News a nd W or ld R e port, S ha ng ha i J iaotong ’s Ac a de mi c R a nking o f W or ld Univer sit ies, a nd
Times Hig he r E duc a ti on Ranking ). T hird, sta rting in 2003, M OE’ s Eva luation C omm it tee f or Undergraduate Education assesses the quality of undergraduate education for all 112 institutions
21

in the Project 211 every five years. In 2007, the Quality Project was officially announced,
requiring all 112 institutions to improve quality of undergraduate education while strengthening
research capacity (MoE, 2007a).
Scholars have documented the widespread of the accountability movements in many
public sectors including higher education —a n e x pa nsion of “ a udit c ult ur e ” ( S hore , 2008;;
Strathern, 2000). In theory, accountability is not necessarily inimical to institutions or academics.
In pract ic e , howe v e r, “ [ t he ] sli ppa g e be tw e e n a ud it a s a me thod of f inanc i a l ver ifica ti on a nd
bookke e pin g a nd a udit a s a ge ne r a li z e d model a nd tec hnolog y o f g ove rn a nc e ” ( S hore , 2008, p.
290) has caused several consequences. In countries where higher education has traditionally
enjoyed a high level of autonomy (e.g., U.S., UK, Australia), heavy bureaucratic control is
de lete rious to a se ns e of a c a d e mi c c omm unit y a n d fa c ult y ’s tra dit ional inv olveme nt i n a c a de mi c governance (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Gallagher, 2010). In Chinese higher
education where the pendulum of authority has never swung to academics, increased
accountability pressure has further intruded the limited professional autonomy (Lai, 2009; Lin,
2010).
The Changing Academic Profession
No change in higher education can succeed without well-qualified and committed faculty.
The above-described developments have created new kinds of expectations and work habits for
academics, and have formed new kinds of dynamics between academics and institutions as well
as between academics. The academic profession has become increasingly differentiated and
segmented (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009). The following review on the changing
22

academic profession in China focuses on academics working at research universities
3
. I begin by
discussing the power dynamics between faculty, administration, and political party line. This
unique governance model is important to foreground further discussion on faculty hiring,
expectations and evaluations for teaching and research, funding for research, promotion, and
salary. This section lays the ground for proposing the problem statement and research questions.
Faculty-Administrative-Political Party Dynamics
While academics deplore that accountability mechanisms are intruding professional
autonomy (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Gallagher, 2010), the changing dynamics are
more complex in Chinese higher education, where a third line of leadership —the political
party — a lso compe tes for a uthorit y . Th e Te a c he rs’ L a w g ives f a c ulty the right to teach, do
research, participate in academic affairs and in governance, and to express and exchange
academic ideas. By law, academics decide what and how to teach, choose their research topics,
determine where to publish, and participate in appointment and promotion decisions. The
practice, however, is less promising.
The dual leadership system consists of the academic administrative line and the
Communist Party line at all institutions and at all academic levels within an institution. While the
state has delegated some decision-making power to institutions, such power is concentrated at
the top dual leadership team at the institution, and further down at the dual leadership team at
individual academic units (Marginson, 2009). While the power relationship between the
a c a d e mi c a dmi nist ra ti ve li ne a nd the Com muni st P a rt y li ne va rie s a c ross i nsti tut ions, fa c ult y ’s
academic power has not been comparable to either of two leadership lines (Ding & Levin, 2007;
Lai, 2009; Zhang, 2009).

3
If by Carnegie classification, these institutions would be Doctoral-granting Universities, including those with very
high research activity and high research activity.
23

The conflict between faculty and the academic administrative line is due to two main
reasons. There has been an expansion of bureaucratization in Chinese higher education, similar
to what higher education systems in many countries have experienced in an age of accountability
(e.g., Hoecht, 2006; Meek, 2003; Strathern, 2000). Faculty-administration conflicts have
accordingly increased. More importantly, the conflict also arises from an ill-defined scope of
work and responsibility. Administrative line leaders at all levels are in charge of personnel and
administrative responsibilities, while having advanced academic titles at the same time (usually
associate or full professor).
The conflict between faculty and the Communist Party leadership line also exists for two
main reasons. First, the party leadership line has two objectives: ensuring ideological conformity
and disseminating policies or thoughts from the central party administration. Both objectives are
achieved through holding many campus- and department-wide activities to learn and discuss
state documents. These activities clearly take away faculty time. While participation is voluntary,
academics who are party members are expected to participate. The percentage of academics who
are party members has increased over the past decades (Xinhua, 2011). For example, in all
colleges and universities in Beijing, the percentage by 2010 was 55 percent of all faculty, over 60
percent of full professors, and over 60 percent among academics younger than 35 (Xinhua, 2011).
Second, ensuring ideological conformity is also achieved through allocating research grants and
teaching or research awards to politically and ideologically correct proposals (Lai, 2009). This
practice has been deplored by academics as it hinders free exploration of knowledge, particularly
in humanities and social sciences (Lin, 2011).
Currently, there are two central conflicts between faculty and both leadership lines:
allocation of scarce resources (e.g., funding, awards) and promotion. The increased state funding
24

for research and teaching is concentrated on academics that hold administrative or party
leadership positions (Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011). Once in academic leadership positions,
administrators have an advantage when competing for awards and research grants. For example,
ninety of the 100 recipients of the 2009 National Outstanding Teacher Award held administrative
or party leadership positions (Yangtze Daily, 2009). Further, academics with no administrative
or party positions have little participation in promotion decisions, a key area that should be
regarded as a prerogative of academics.
The faculty-administrative-party power dynamics are changing, albeit slowly. Some
institutions plan to distinguish between administrators and faculty, with different tracks of hiring,
promotion, evaluation, salary and compensation. In July 2010, the National Education
C onfe re nc e a pp rove d the Outli ne of China’ s Na ti o na l P lan f or Med ium a nd L on g -Term
Education Reform and Development (2010–2020). According to this outline, colleges and
univer sit ies should st re ngthen f a c ult y ’s r i g hts i n a c a de mi c g ove rn a nc e , b y e nha nc in g the r ole o f
academic committees and councils in institutional decision-making. The establishment of
academic senates on some campuses is a good start to increase faculty role in governance.
Hiring
Most Chinese colleges and universities are public institutions, whose academics and
administrators are government employees. Faculty hiring and contractual relations have been
modified dramatically over the past few decades. In the 1950s and 1960s, academics were
employed by the state as were other workers in the country. Once hired, they expected to be
e mpl o y e d unti l re ti r e men t, a kind of e mpl o y ment known a s the “ iron ric e b owl.” I nsti tut ions also
provided housing, and had affiliated kindergarten, schools, and retirement plans (Ma & Wen,
2008). An institution appeared as a big socialist family.
25

Since the higher education reform started in the mid-1980s, the lifetime employment
policy has been modified. A few pilot attempts recruited faculty on contracts in order to break
the guaranteed lifetime employment. Academics started to work under fixed-term contracts,
usually three years. Contracts could be renewed or terminated, based on performance and
institutional needs. Starting in 1999, the state gave all institution three years to adopt the contract
system. However, the move to mass higher education also started in 1999, resulting in severe
lack of teachers across institutions. In practice, impact of the new contract recruitment policy had
little impact due to the need for additional faculty. The lifetime employment guarantee has more
or less continued.
The hiring criteria have changed dramatically over the past few decades. Like many other
developing countries (e.g., Vietnam, Malaysia), there has been a lack of qualified academics in
Chinese higher education based on current standards (e.g., holding a doctoral degree) (Altbach,
Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009). Faculty hired during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) were
more likely based on ideological correctness than intellectual qualifications, and many highly
qualified academics lost their jobs, particularly when institutions were completely shut down
from 1966 to 1970. There was a severe lack of academics after colleges and universities resumed
e nr oll ment in 1977. Ac a d e mi c s with onl y a b a c he l or ’s de g r e e w e re the re fo r e hire d. The thre shol d wa s late r in c re a se d to a ma ster ’s de g r e e unti l t he mi d -1990s, when the shift from
teaching to research swept across research universities. With the expansion of doctoral programs,
research universities now only hire individuals with doctoral and post-doctoral degrees from
Chinese or overseas institutions. Currently, about 70 percent of the academics at top research
universities hold doctoral degrees, and only nine percent for the whole academic profession in
China (MoE, 2008).
26

While the majority of academics are hired under the traditional track described above,
three recent national recruitment programs have used markedly different employment systems to
attract global talents. The Recruitment Program of Global Experts, known as the 1000 Plan,
recruits overseas talents, particularly Chinese, who are world-class in their research and technical
abilities, primarily at the Ph.D. level, at universities and research institutes abroad (1000 Plan,
2008). The Recruitment Program of Global Early Career Experts, known as the 1000 Early
Career Plan, is a sub-program of the 1000 Plan. It targets overseas Chinese who are under 40,
have an overseas Ph.D., and have worked three to five years in research or academic positions
overseas (1000 Plan, 2008). Approximately 400 early career individuals have turned each year
under this sub-program. The Recruitment Program of Foreign Experts, another subprogram of
the 1000 Plan, recruits non-ethnic Chinese talents in science and technology. It targets
individuals who hold full professorship or the equivalent at prestigious foreign universities or
research institutes, or is in senior technical or managerial positions at internationally renowned
companies, or holds intellectual property right or key technologies, or possesses entrepreneurial
or innovative expertise in areas mostly needed by the state. All of three recruitment plans hire
individuals on a nine-month, three-year term, and work out favorable policies in terms of start-up
package, salary and compensation, taxation, insurance, housing, and children and spousal
settlement (discussed later in the sections on research funding, salary and compensation).
Additionally, a few elite institutions
4
in the Project 985 have launched the tenure-track
system which mimics that of the U.S. in order to attract overseas returning Ph.D. graduates. This
new practice is concurrent with the national effort to attract overseas Ph.D. graduates, as
discussed previously. Since this policy has only been recently adopted a few highly selective

4
For example, Tsinghua University, Peking University, Fudan University, Shanghai Jiaotong University, and
University of Science and Technology of China have all explored the tenure-track system for overseas returning
Ph.D. graduates.
27

institutions, research on issues related to its implementation and influence does not exist.
Although this policy has triggered heated discussions among Chinese academics, it is unknown
how effective it is in attracting overseas Ph.D. graduates, how it is being received by existing
academics working on the traditional Chinese track, how widespread it is going to be
implemented in the future, and simply whether it will continue in the future.
Expectations for Teaching and Research
Academics at research universities now work under three tracks in terms of expectations
and evaluations for teaching and research: teaching, research, and teaching/research or
research/teaching (the order does not imply the importance). Teaching and teaching/research
faculty are the majority. A very small number of academics are hired under the research track,
and are only expected to conduct research. They may be also expected to advise graduate
students. The bifurcation between teaching and research is due to historical and disciplinary
concerns. A significant portion of senior academics hired prior to the shift to emphasize research
(the mid-1990s) do not have doctoral training, and were originally hired to teach. A large portion
of academics in political science and English departments are hired to primarily teach required
general education courses at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Up until early 2000s, a
m a ster ’s de g r e e w a s suff i c ient to be hire d to t e a c h these c ourse s a t re s e a r c h univer sit ies ( Mi n,
2004). Overall, these academics can choose to work on either a teaching track or a
teaching/research track, and are evaluated accordingly. As they often lack advanced research
skills due to the lack of doctoral training, they often choose the teaching track.
Evaluation for teaching usually includes the number of courses taught, the number of
students in each course, the number of textbooks published, the number of funded projects on
curriculum innovation, the number of teaching awards at local and national levels, and student
28

course evaluations. In other words, there similar lacks sufficient mechanisms to evaluate the
process of teaching. Additionally, the rapid expansion of enrollment has resulted in increased
teaching and advising load for faculty, because the growth of the number of academics has
lagged behind. For example, the student-to-faculty ratio doubled from 9:1 in 1995 to 17:1 in
2012 (Chinese Education Yearbook, 1997; MoE, 2012).
The majority of academics at research universities work on the teaching/research track,
who are expected to both teach and do research. A greater emphasis is given to research
productivity (Kuang, 2007; Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011; Li, Lai, & Lo, 2013). Expectation for teaching
for this track is minimal, usually including teaching a few courses and advising some students.
Expectation for research on this track has been growing, as the case at research universities
across the globe (e.g., Marginson & van der Wende, 2007; Paradeise & Thoenig, 2013). The
number of publications, the number of national and provincial grants received, and the number of
conference presentations are primary indicators (Kuang, 2007; Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011; Li, Lai, &
Lo, 2013). Several domestic and international citation indexes are used as proxies for quality,
including Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Chinese
Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI). Within SCI, journals are further differentiated into four
levels by Chinese Academy of Sciences based on impact factors. Academics at higher ranks are
expected to publish in journals with higher impact factors in their respective field. Additionally,
academics are also expected to engage in scholarly collaboration with faculty at overseas
institutions.
The growing emphasis on research has led to rapid increase in the share of world research
articles produced by Chinese academics. The number of articles in international, peer-reviewed
journals published by Chinese researchers has grown at 16 percent annually for the past ten years
29

(N a ti ona l S c ienc e F ound a ti on [ NSF ] , 2012) . By 2 007, C hina’ s ar ti c le outp ut m ove d int o sec ond
place behind the U.S., up from the 14
th
place in 1995 (NSF, 2012). In 2012, international, peer-
re view e d p a pe rs b y C hinese a c a de mi c s a c c ounted f or 14 pe r c e nt of the wor ld’s sha re , up f rom 9
percent in 2009, 5.6 percent in 2002 and less 0.5 percent at the start of the 1980s (NSF, 2012;
Thomson Reuters, 2014). Additionally, invention patent applications by Chinese researchers
have also increased from 40,000 in 2003 to over 400,000 in 2012 (Thomson Reuters, 2014).
Funding for Research
The e c onomi c func ti on o f Chinese hig h e r e du c a ti on ha s made incr e a sin g i nsti tut ions’
research and technological capacity the priority. Total funds for research and development have
therefore rapidly increased from 277 million in 1986 to 3.9 billion in 1995 to 117 billion RMB in
2013 (approximately $80 million, $467 million, and $18.9 billion
5
, respectively) (MOE, 1995,
2013). Between the late 1980s and early 1990s, the proportion of state funding gradually
decreased from 51 percent in 1986 to 45 percent in 1995; afterwards, the proportion of state
funding has gradually increased, reaching 60 percent in 2013 (MoE, 1995, 2013). Overall,
applied research takes up the majority (51 percent) of funding, followed by basic research (34
percent) and other kinds of research (MoE, 2013a).
A series of national projects have been implemented to allocate specific research funds.
The State High- Te c hnolog y R e se a rc h a nd D e ve lo pment P rog r a m, known a s “the 863 P rogr a m”
(a reference to the date when it was founded, March of 1986), is tasked with closing the
technology gap by developing advanced technologies in a wide range of sectors so as to ensure
C hina’ s indepe nde nc e f r om for e i g n tec hnolo g ies. The Na ti ona l B a sic Rese a rc h P ro g r a m, known
a s “the 973 P ro g r a m” ( a re fe re nc e to t he da te whe n it wa s founde d, Ma r c h of 1997) , supports
ba sic r e se a r c h for me e ti ng C hina’ s strategic needs. These two programs have become two of the

5
The dollars are calculated based on exchange rate in the corresponding year.
30

major funding sources for higher education institutions and research institutes. The numbers of
individuals with the title of Chief 863 Program Scientists and Chief 973 Program Scientists are
reporte d on ins ti tut ion’s we bsit e s, and c ounted in state a nd c omm e r c ial ra n king s.
Thr e e n a ti ona l pro g ra ms spec ifica ll y a im to i nc r e a se hig he r e du c a ti on ins ti tut ions’
research and innovation capacity. The Project 211, initiated in 1995, identified 112 institutions to
spearhead the development with increased state funding, particularly for research. Of those 112
institutions, thirty-nine were further selected into the Project 985, initiated in 1998. The two
projects have different and structured foci. The Project 211 aims to facilitate the overall higher
education development, while the Project 985 concentrated on a small elite group with abundant
state funding to increase international competitiveness
6
(MoE, 2012). Altogether, the 112
institutions host one third of unde r g r a dua te stude nt s, two t hirds of master ’s students, four f ifths
of doctoral students, 96% of national laboratories, and consume over 70% of state research
funding (MoE, 2008). Most recently in 2011, the Plan 2011 was launched as an extension of the
Project 211 and the Project 985 (MoE, 2012). Open to institutions of all kinds, the Plan 2011
a im s to establis h “ c oll a bora ti ve innovation ce nte r s” whe r e inst it uti ons a re the ma jor platf or m fo r
implementation in collaboration with research institutes, local industries, local governments, and
ove rse a s re se a rc h o r g a ni z a ti ons. The P lan 2011 di sc a rds the “ t e nure status ” of insti tut ions
selected into the Project 211 and the Project 985 by carrying out evaluation every four years. The
a pprov e d “ c oll a bor a ti ve inn ova ti on c e nter s ” r e c e iv e spec ial fu ndin g f rom the sta te.
Aside from these national research funding schemes that usually target institutions, two
major state funding sources for individual academics include the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NNSFC) and the National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC). Based

6
Institutions are thus categorized into three tiers, with those in the Project 985 as tier one, followed by those in the
Project 211 as tier two, and the rest vast number of institutions as tier three.
31

on most recent statistics, NNSFC had an average approval rate of 21%
7
in 2012, and NSSFC had
an average rate of approval of 13%
8
in 2013 (NNSFC, 2013; NSSFC, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).
Therefore, funding from provincial government and industrial collaborations constitute a
sig nific a nt porti on fo r a c a de mi c s’ r e se a rc h fun din g . Additi ona ll y , both gra nts s pe c if y topi c s for research proposals, thus guiding the general scope and direction of academic s’ r e se a rc h.
Promotion
Promotion tracks can be differentiated in two ways, as indicated by previous discussions.
The first way of differentiation is between the traditional Chinese track and the recently-
launched tenure-track. Academics on the traditional Chinese track are promoted from teaching
assistant, lecturer, associate professor, to full professor. The tenure-track mimics the promotion
criteria and pathways in the tenure-track system in the U.S. The majority of academics are hired
and promoted on the traditional Chinese track, which can be further differentiated between the
research, teaching, and research/teaching or research/teaching track. Faculty hired under each
track are evaluated and promoted based on different criteria, as presented previously.
Prior to the shift of focus from teaching to research in mid-1990s, promotion used to be
based on teaching and seniority (Min, 2004; Mohrman, Geng, & Wang, 2011). The fact that
faculty with poor quality teaching might get promoted based on seniority was not uncommon in
the past, because there were few sanctions or external assessment. Promotion criteria have
changed to focus on quantifiable research and teaching outputs, with increased demand for
research and accountability (Kuang, 2007; Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011; Li, Lai, & Lo, 2013). It is
therefore not uncommon for a faculty member to retire as a lecturer, particularly if his or her

7
The rate is calculated based on the official statistics of the total number of proposals (i.e., 177,000) and the number
of approved projects (i.e., 38,411) listed on the link in the reference.
8
The rate is calculated based on the official statistics of the total number of proposals (i.e., 28,678) and the number
of approved projects (i.e., 3,826) listed on the links in the reference.
32

research productivity is not up to par. Academics need to wait for a certain amount of years
before applying for promotion, for example, three years for promotion from teaching assistant to
lecturer, two to three years for promotion from lecturer to associate professor, and five years for
promotion from associate to full professor, when they meet minimum requirements. For
academics with exceptional research productivity, institutions usually have policies so that they
can skip regular paths and get promotion faster.
In 2006, the state introduced the concept of ranks and levels within ranks in faculty
promotion (MoE, 2006). The four ranks are the traditional ones from teaching assistant all the
way to full professor. Then, each rank is broken down into levels, with each rank consisting of
three levels and the full professor rank consisting of four levels. There are 13 levels altogether.
Promotion between ranks is more based on performance, whereas the promotion between levels
within a rank is more based on years of service within that rank (Mohrman, Geng, & Wang,
2011). Faculty with exceptional performance outcomes to the required standards can apply to
skip a certain rank or a certain level within a rank (MoE, 2006). The proportion of faculty at each
rank and at each level with a rank is set by the state. Level two to four within the full professor
level is set to 1:3:6; level five to seven within the associate professor rank is set to 2:4:4; level
eight to eleven within the lecturer rank is set to 3:4:3; and Level twelve and thirteen within the
teaching assistant rank is set to 5:5 (MoE, 2006). This fixed proportion is possible, because
academics retire must retire by 60 for men and 55 for women.
Salary
Salaries include fixed base pay, compensations, and bonuses. The state provides the fixed
base pay in accordance with the national four-rank-thirteen-level system, as discussed previously.
The salary for a given rank and a given level within that rank is the same at all colleges and
33

universities, with adjustments for regional differences in the cost of living (Ma & Wen, 2008).
Salary increases are significant with promotion between ranks, but small with promotion
between levels within rank (Ma & Wen, 2008; Mohrman, Geng, Wang, 2011). Academics
receive the full amount of base pay, unless they fail to meet the minimum job requirements.
Compensations and bonuses exceed the base salary provided by state at many universities,
depending on institutional affluence and individual performance (Lai, 2009; Liu, Yuang, Pei, &
Gan, 2004; Ma & Wen, 2008). Although fixed base pay increases with rank and with levels
within rank, increased flexibility in compensations and bonuses creates instances in which
academics at a lower rank or lower level earn more than those above them (Ma & Wen, 2008).
Additionally, academics also supplement their salary by engaging in consulting, outside lecturing,
or other entrepreneurial activities.
Compensations are provided by institutions and schools. This portion can (but does not
always) include cost of living adjustments, housing allowances, variations based on number of
courses taught. The amount thus varies significantly between institutions as well as between
schools within the same institution, depending on academic reputation, entrepreneurialism, as
well as disciplinary and regional differences (Ma & Wen, 2008). Top institutions pay their
academics more than less prestigious one. The top ones are not only generously supported by the
state, but also derive money from a diversified revenue stream (Lai, 2009). Entrepreneurialism
also plays a part. Institutions or its schools and departments that seek consulting and research
projects are likely to generate more revenue to be shared with faculty. Disciplinary differences
play a part in entrepreneurialism. Certain academic fields (e.g., engineering, law, and business)
lend themselves more readily to engage in entrepreneurial activities than others (e.g., humanities
and social science). Universities or schools of foreign languages usually engage in offering
34

preparation courses for various English tests such as GRE, TOEFL, and IELTS (International
English Language Testing System) that create significant additional revenue. Additionally, due
to the vastly unequal economic development in various regions in China, institutions located in
more developed regions such as Shanghai and Beijing provide a greater amount of housing
allowances (Ma & Wen, 2008).
Bonuses are provided by the state and individual institutions. From the state, bonuses are
given through two avenues: to recipients of national or provincial research awards, and to
nationally distinguished scholars. For example, the bonus for receiving the Exceptional Prize in
the National Award for Science and Technology Progress is 1 million RMB (approximately
$150,000) from the state. A famous category of nationally distinguished scholar is the Chang
Jiang (Yangtze River) Scholars Program, which provides additional salary to selected well-
known professors from China and other countries working in Chinese higher education. Each
year about 150 Distinguished Chang Jiang Scholars and about 50 Visiting Chang Jiang Scholars
are selected. The 150 faculty are honored with a five year term, with an additional salary of
200,000 RMB (approximately $30,000) per year. The 50 faculty are honored with a three year
term, with an additional monthly salary of 30,000 RMB (approximately $4,500). For academics
hired under the 1000 Plan, as discussed previously, the state gives one-time cash awards of up to
500,000 RMB (approximately $80,000) in addition to research funds of one to three million
RMB (approximately $150,000 to $450,000) within three years.
At the same time, institutions incentivize publications and competition for national or
provincial research and development awards. Although empirical research does not exist, a brief
skim of institutional policies
9
suggest that different from compensations, the amount of bonuses

9
I skimmed relevant documents of 30 universities among the 112 institutions in the Project 985 and/or Project 211,
considering location and ranking. I did not test the correlation, given that this is not the focus of this study.
35

does not appear to be associated with such factors as reputation or regional differences. For
example, the bonus for a publication in Nature or Science ranges from 50,000 to 200,000 RMB
(approximately $7,000 to $30,000). The bonus for receiving the Exceptional Prize in the
National Award for Science and Technology Progress ranges from 300,000 to 5 million RMB
(approximately $45,000 to $450,000). Overall, bonuses for academics in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics fields are much higher than those in humanities and social
sciences. For universities where academics produce a sufficient number of publications, bonuses
are differentiated between journals based on impact factor. Additionally, bonuses are usually
higher for publications in international, peer-reviewed journals than in Chinese peer-reviewed or
non-peer-reviewed journals.
It should be noted that average salaries of Chinese faculty are much lower than that in the
wealthier, more developed countries in North America and Western Europe (Altbach, Reisberg,
& Rumbley, 2009). A recent study found that differences of average salaries are in some cases as
much as eight times higher (Rumbley et al., 2008). The state has over the past decade raised the
base salary in order to counteract the lure of engaging in external activities and to attract
excellent graduates to academe. Nevertheless, salaries are still relatively low and are not keeping
up to levels that encourage the best to join the professoriate (Liu et al., 2004). For example,
academics in Beijing earn less than civil servants, despite salary reforms in 2006 (Miao, 2009).
Additionally, working conditions and physical facilities at less developed regions in China are
also not on par with those in developed world. These conditions have historically contributed to
the brain drain (Cao, 2008). China has introduced several national award programs with
competitive bonuses (e.g., the Plan 1000 and its subprograms, as discussed previously) to attract
high-level overseas Chinese academics.
36

Problem Statement and Research Questions
The developments reviewed thus far lead to at least three major challenges. First, the
desire of the national and institutional leadership to improve research capacity and ranking as
fast as possible has led to an overemphasis on outcomes to the neglect of processes. Universities
are encouraged to search for unique and innovative paths to improve quality and pursue
int e rna ti ona l pre sti g e a s f a st as the y c a n. I n thi s “a c c e le ra ti onist ” mode o f development (Mok,
2005a), quality is gauged by quantity. Institutions and academics appear to have no option but to
focus on tangible interests and outputs and succumb to a spirit of utilitarianism (Zha & Hayhoe,
2011). The pursuit of institutional excellence and the winding path of scientific inquiry are
forced into a predictable timetable. Institutions and their academics are facing the dilemma:
pursuing fastest growth in tangible results at the risk of undermining the foundation of quality,
creating an institutional culture of utilitarianism and expediency at the risk of destructing a
culture of passion, patience, and perseverance which is indispensible to excellence.
Worse still, the push to publish more and as fast as possible, coupled with the multiple
national and institutional incentives for research productivity, has inevitably caused unethical
behaviors (Guo, 2009; Hao, 2006; Liu, 2010). Reports abound regarding fabrication of research
findings, plagiarism, a nd “ bu y in g” publi c a ti ons (G uo, 2009;; Ha o, 2006). Scholars argue that
inst it uti ons a nd a c a de mi c s ar e be in g c oe r c e d a nd s e duc e d int o va rious “ shortc uts” to demonstra te
productivity (Liu, 2010). There is a looming crisis with respect to defining intellectually
meaningful growth objectives and adopting appropriate paths to attain them. In the words of a
C hinese univer sit y pr e sid e nt, “the univer sit y spi rit i n Chi na is re a ll y lost . I t’ s a r e fle c ti on of the
whole socie t y , whic h ha s g ott e n lost in ut il it a ria nism . I t’s in a sta te o f spir it ua l deh y dr a ti on ”
(CNN International, June 25, 2010).
37

Second, the low base salary and the growing entrepreneurial opportunities have led to
instances where academics devote too much time to money making, while neglecting their
fundamental responsibilities in teaching and research (Lai, 2009). These activities include
running their own companies or collaborating with private ones, both of which aim to
commercialize their research or professional knowledge. These incidents have cause laments
among academics and inflamed criticisms among the public. Some concern that engagement
with entrepreneurial activities, which is mainly about knowledge application, can undermine
scholarly development in the long term (Li, Lai, & Lo, 2013; Zhang, 2013). Others deplore that
entrepreneuri a li sm un de r mi ne s the pur suit of disint e re sted sc hola rship a s w e ll a s ac a d e mi c s’
fundamental responsibility of educating students (Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011).
Third, in a n e ra o f “ a udit c ult ur e ” ( S tra th e rn, 20 00 ), Chinese a c a de mi c s, li k e their pe e rs
in many countries, are invited or forced to perform in accordance with the externally defined
performance and quality indicators. Similar to the case in many other higher education systems
(Slaughter & Leslie, 1997), new management practices have emerged at Chinese institutions,
relying on the use of standardized evaluation mechanisms across disciplines (Lin, 2011). In
countries where higher education used to possess significant autonomy, the sweeping
accountability movement has swung the pendulum of authority from academics to administrators
and politicians (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009). The evaluation of academic work is
movi ng outsi de the pur vi e w of pro fe ssi ona l ex pe rt ise, c a usin g the “ d e - pr of e ssi ona li z a ti on” of the academic life (Shore & Wright, 2000). In Chinese higher education where the state authority has
always been strong, the increased evaluation of academic work based on externally defined,
quantifiable indicators likely creates problems of de-professionalization.
38

These changes —the shift of focus on research productivity, entrepreneurialism and
commercialization of research and professional knowledge, and increased demand for
accountability —are disruptive to traditional roles, responsibilities, identities, and work habits of
Chinese academics. These changes have occurred in a relatively short time period. They emerged
and developed slowly in the late 1980s along with the start of the higher education reform in
1985, and have diffused rapidly since the late 1990s. For example, while the rapid growth of
research productivity of Chinese academics since 2001 is remarkable (see NSF, 2014 and
Thomson Reuters, 2014, as discussed previously), such growth has likely created substantial
disruptions and confusions among academics.
Historically speaking, these changes are continuous attempts to modernize Chinese
hig he r e duc a ti on, so t ha t i t ca n ser ve th e e c onomi c f unc ti on in t he na ti on’s c e ntur y -long dream of
rejuvenation. The incurring challenges and problems —overemphasis on quantifiable outputs,
academic capitalism, and de-professionalization of academic work —are also common in many
other higher education systems around the world, as accountability and prestige concerns have
also prevailed (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Hazelkorn, 2009; Sadlack & Liu, 2009).
The difference in China lies in the strong role of the state in pushing these changes and creating
these c ha ll e n ge s, on t he pr e mi se of hi g he r e duc a ti on’s hist or ica l m iss ion of f a c il it a ti ng C hina’ s
modernization and rejuvenation. Recently, the state has also launched new initiatives to take on
these challenges and problems, by pushing the shift of focus to quality over quantity, regulating
a c a d e mi c s’ e ntr e pr e n e ur i a l ac ti vit ies, a nd st re n g th e ning a c a d e mi c s’ r ol e in university governance
(MoE, 2011).
Theoretically speaking, the changes and the incurring challenges are essentially contests
between multiple logics —the state, the market, the corporate, the Confucian family, and the
39

academic profession —over the role of academic profession and the legitimacy of academic work.
In theory, these logics compete with one another in defining the purpose of action and serving as
basis for decisions (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). For example, based on Thornton,
Oc a sio, and L ounsbur y ’ s ( 2012) de finiti ons of the se lo gics, the state logic would emphasize
bureaucratic regulation of academic work, whose function should be to increase the public good.
The market logic would view academic work as useful only to the extent that it has economic
utility in the market. The corporate logic would view academic work as products of potential
market value proprietary to the university as a firm, whose goal is to increase its ranking in the
academic market. The Confucian family logic
10
would emphasize collegiality and loyalty, with
which academics collectively pursue knowledge, develop moral perfection, and bring honor to
the community. The academic professional logic would emphasize the pursuit of knowledge and
disinterested scholarship whose value should be judged by peers.
Facing these conflicting logics, how do universities and academics respond? Several
theorizations have been provided to conceptualize intra-organizational responses to multiple
institutional logics (e.g., Besharov & Smith, 2013; Pache & Santos, 2010). Empirical research,
however, is scarce regarding how these different logics interact to affect the changing academic
profession in China or more broadly. The Chinese government has attempted to synchronize
these c onflic ti n g de mand s unde r “ a utho ritar ian lib e ra li sm” ( Mo k, 2005), so that higher education
c a n de v e lop as f a st as po ssi ble in se rving it s ec on omi c f unc ti on in C hina’ s mod e rniz a ti on. I t i s
unknown how these logics interact in practice. How do universities couple their policies with the
changing demands from different logics? Do they emphasize one logic over another, and why? Is
there more convergence or variation in their responses? How do academics interpret these

10
In Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury ’s (2012) seminal book on institutional logics, family is an institutional logic.
I added the Confucian component considering its widespread influence in Chinese society. I further explained the
rationale and meaning of Confucian family logic in Chapter Two.
40

organizational responses as well as conflicting demands from different logics? To what ends and
with which tools do they make decisions? Is there consensus within the university about
a c a d e mi c s’ inter pr e tations a nd re sponses? I f not, wha t fr ictions a nd c on flicts mi g ht occ u r? Lacking answers to these questions in the literature undermines the understanding of how
disruptive changes —the shift of focus on research, entrepreneurialism in academic work, and
increased demand for accountability —affect the Chinese academic profession in practice. My
overall objective is to contribute to a better understanding of these issues through a case study.
Research Questions
I focus on a Chinese research university, which has undergone significant policy changes
regarding faculty hiring, evaluation, and promotion. I examine the interface between external
demands and inte rn a l pol icie s of e va lu a ti ng a c a d e mi c s’ w or k, a nd the e x tent to which a c a d e mi c s
align their interpretations and actions with these policies and external demands. In other words, I
attempt to explore the extent of coupling between institutional policies and national initiatives
for C hinese hi g he r e duc a ti on, be twe e n a c a de mi c s ’ int e rpr e tations a nd ins ti tut ional poli c ies, a nd
be twe e n a c a d e mi c s’ r e sp onses a nd ins ti tut ional po li c ies. This i s poss ibl e b y looki ng a t t he underlying logics that shape institutional and individual decisions and actions.
I investigate five research questions: 1) To what extent are institutional policies about
academic work aligned (or unaligned) with the logic of the state, the market, the corporate, the
academic profession, and Confucian family? 2) To what extent is such alignment (or lack thereof)
c onst ra ined a nd e na bled b y the inst it uti on’s loc a li t y in C hinese hi g he r e duc a ti on (e . g ., re put a ti on,
geographic location, etc.)? 3) To what extent do academics align their interpretations and
responses with these logics? 4) To what extent is such alignment (or lack thereof) constrained
and enabled by their locality in the institutional and societal structure (e.g., professional status,
41

gender, age, discipline, etc.)? 5) What tools do academics have in constructing their
interpretations and responses?
I emphasize two departures from the majority of existing research in investigating each of
the five questions. By including five logics, I challenge the common duality view in studying the
changing academic profession, for example, the state versus the academic profession (Hallet,
2010), or the market versus the academic profession (Sauder & Espeland, 2009), or the
corporation versus the academic profession (Townley, 1999). Further, I go beyond
acknowledging the multiplicity of logics (Greenwood et al., 2010). Rather, the more intriguing
and important task is to investigate how and under what conditions multiple logics interact to
affect academics. Overall, investigating the five research questions sheds new light on the
perennial concern about how organizations and their members interact with their complex
environments.

42

Chapter Two Theories
In this chapter, I review relevant organization theories and introduce the theoretical
framework that combines multiple organizational perspectives. I structure this chapter with three
parts. In the first part, I synthesize institutional approaches, including the old and the new
institutionalism, the inhabited institutionalism, and institutional logics (Table 1 presents a
summary of institutional theories). I give greater attention to institutional logics, as this is the
primary perspective that this study relies on. In the second part, I discuss four additional
organizational perspectives, including principal agent, resource dependency, organizational
culture, and sensemaking (Table 2 provides a summary of assumptions of these perspectives). I
give greater emphasis on sensemaking and organizational culture, as these two perspectives are
later integrated with institutional theories to develop the theoretical framework. Principal agent
and resource dependency theories have also proved useful to enrich the interpretation of findings
and discussions. In the third part, I introduce the theoretical framework that combines elements
from inhabited institutionalism, institutional logics, organizational culture, and sensemaking. I
discuss their complementarity for studying the changing academic profession in China. As
organizational reality is too complex to be understood by any single theoretical approach,
combining multiple perspectives is often necessary (Tolbert, 1985).
Institutional Theories
The Old Institutionalism
The old i nsti tut ionalis m view s or g a niz a ti ons a s se ts of “ socia l re l a ti ons de li be ra tel y created, with the explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals or
purpo se s” ( S ti nc hc ombe, 1965, p. 142) . Or g a niz a t ions ar e f or m a l func ti ona l i n the e c onomi c
43

se nse, a nd a lso c oope r a ti ve a nd soc ial in i ts i nf or mal se nse, w he re a “ shad ow la nd of infor mal
int e ra c ti ons” be a rs on f o r mal tasks (Se lz nick, 1949, p. 260) . The infor mal r e lations hips and
subgroup interests can be manipulated to either contribute to or hinder the achievement of formal
goals of economic rationality. The nature of authority must then emphasize cohesion and
pe rsua sion t hr ou g h c oopt a ti on. “ C ooptation i s the pr oc e ss of a bsorbin g ne w e leme nts i nto t he leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its
a bil it y or e x ist e nc e ” (Selz nick, 1948, p . 34). Organization is therefore a defensive mechanism
with different groups attempting to defend or regain formal authority through cooptation. These
internal struggles may result in the weakening or displacement of formal goals (Selznick, 1948,
1957). A proper understanding of organizational process must interpret how changes in the
formal system —new appointments or policies —reverberate into the informal relationships
within the organization (Selznick, 1948).
The old institutionalism is not widely used in education research. Nor is this theory
directly applicable to studying the changing academic profession, for two reasons. The tension
between formal authority and informal social power is recognized as important only to the extent
that they are deviation from the formal organizational functions and processes (Selznick, 1948).
The relationship between structure and agency is understood from a structural-functionalist
pe rspe c ti ve throu g h th e n oti on of c onst ra int s, that i s, “w h y m e n in ce rt a in c irc umst a nc e s must act
the w a y the y do” (Selz nick, 1948, p. 31) . F u rthe r, old i nsti tut ionalis m assu mes a c losed -system
view of or g a niz a ti ona l pr oc e sses. The l e ve l of a n a l y sis is i nter na ll y o rie nte d to foc us on “ the
tot a li t y o f inte ra c ti ng gr o ups a nd indi viduals” ( S e lz ni ck, 1948, p. 27). Therefore, old
inst it uti ona li s m’s f oc us on pe ople, dive r g e nt i nte re sts , a nd c ooptation m ust be vie we d in a n e w
44

light for studying the changing academic profession, where agency is given more weight and
organizational processes are understood as interacting with the external environments.
The New Institutionalism
The new institutionalism argues that organizations attempt to achieve institutional
rationality, sometimes even at the expense of economic rationality (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
I nsti tut ional r a ti ona li t y e mphasiz e s leg it im a c y , w hich is “ a g e ne ra li z e d pe r c e pti on or assumption
that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed
system of norms, values, beliefs, and de finiti ons” (Such m an, 1995, p. 574). Sources of
legitimacy usually include the state, the profession, and culture (Suchman, 1995; Zucker, 1977).
The state determines regulatory legitimacy through policies and laws. The organizational field or
the profession sets normative legitimacy through rules and values. Culture sets cognitive
leg it im a c y , in t ha t “the re is l it tl e que sti on in the mi nds of actors that it serves as a natural way to
effect some kind of collective a c ti on” ( Ha nna n & C a rr oll , 1992, p.34) . I f re g ulator y le g it im a cy is
coercive and normative legitimacy is professional, cognitive legitimacy is taken for granted.
Gaining legitimacy rather than improving efficiency and short-term economic benefits
drives organizational change and determines survival (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer &
Rowan, 1977). For example, hiring a Nobel Prize winner brings normative legitimacy to a
univer sit y . This i s par ti c u lar l y tru e in t oda y ’s inter na ti ona l ra nkin g s that em pha siz e the numbe r
of Nobel Prize winners a university hires (e.g. Academic Ranking of World Universities). The
celebrated name may lead to research grants and better reputation. Such hiring, however, lowers
technical efficiency, because the expenditure lowers the instructional return, or may come at the
expense of hiring multiple academic faculty or advisors who can improve student learning.
45

S ince leg it im a c y ma y c o me f rom “ a ll sorts of inc ompatibl e struc ture e lem e nts” ( Me y e r & Rowan, 1977, p. 356), some of these structure elements are incorporated only symbolically to
protect the internal technical core from constant change (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). For example,
organizations may create an office to give the appearance of legal compliance (Edelman, 1992)
or develop policies that may or may not be adopted (Westphal & Zajac, 2001). Loose coupling or
symbolic compliance is possible when the internal work activities are hard to monitor or evaluate
(Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Thus, loose coupling is more common in professional organizations,
such as hospitals, law firms, and universities. These organizations actively encourage
pr of e ssi ona li sm, s o that their tec hnic a l per fo rma n c e be c omes a “ m y th” b e y ond the unde rsta ndin g of the general public. The myth is sustained by conducting ceremonial evaluations and invoking
good faith (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). An additional notion of loose coupling particularly
applicable to higher education is the fragmented or loosely-coupled schools or departments
(Birnbaum, 1989a). If the change (symbolic or substantive) adopted by a school and department
is unsuccessful, loose coupling protects other parts of the institution from being affected.
As organizations of the same field face similar legitimacy concerns, symbolic change
overtime leads to isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The isomorphic force can be
coercive, normative, and mimetic. Coercive isomorphism arises from the need for regulatory
legitimacy. The chief coercive force is the state via legal and financial impositions. Normative
isomorphism results from professionalization. Mimetic isomorphism results from standard
responses to uncertainty and the need for cultural and normative legitimacy (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983). When organizational technologies are poorly understood or when goals are ambiguous,
organizations tend to model themselves after other organizations that are perceived as more
successful or legitimate (DiMaggio & Powel, 1983). Hence, a less elite university may model a
46

new program after similar ones adopted at more elite universities, not because such program has
proved effective but because it is considered legitimate.
The strengths of new institutionalism for understanding the changing academic
profession are twofold. First, new institutionalism helps to explain the macro-structural
resemblance in higher education. The normative legitimacy concern helps to explain why
research universities have become increasingly similar (Morphew, 2009). The belief of higher
education as the economic engine has led to worldwide erosion of historical models of the
European university that focus on liberal arts education, and has given rise of the market-
oriented model that emphasizes generating human capital (Ramirez, 2006). Second, concepts of
loose coupling and symbolic change help to explain why schools, colleges, and universities
remain similar despite many reforms (Bidwell, 2001). Universities may provide the
“ a c c ountabili t y talk” wh e n re spondi ng to pol ic y m a ke rs, a c c r e dit ing a g e nc i e s, and donor s,
without substantive change in practice.
There are also two weaknesses of new institutionalism for understanding the changing
academic profession. This theory emphasizes macro-structural symbolic convergence to the
neglect of human agency (Hirsh & Lounsbury, 1997; Stinchcombe, 1997). People are taken out
of organizational analysis. However, organizations exist b e c a use “ …som e bod y som e wh e re re a ll y c a re s to h old an or g a niz a ti on to t he standa r ds an d is o fte n pa id t o do that” ( S ti nc hc ombe,
1997, p. 17). Ignoring the work of people would only lead organizational analysis to abstract
e mpi ric ism , i.e., “ e mpi ric ism withou t t he c ompl e xi t y of r e a l l ife ” ( S ti nc hc o mbe, 1997, p. 6) .
Further, overemphasis on macro-structural homogeneity also fails to explain local variations in
organizational change (Hirsh & Lounsbury, 1997). Organizations facing similar events
sometimes respond with isomorphic actions, and other times respond with non-isomorphic
47

a c ti ons (G e or ge , Chatt op a dh y a y , S it kin, & B a rde n , 2006) , be c a us e “ o r g a niz a ti ons a re oppor tuni sti c c oll e c ti ons of dive r g e nt i nter e sts ” ( S c ott , 1967, p. 23) . L ik e wi se , univer sit ies f a c in g accountability and prestige concerns may choose to respond in similar ways in some aspects and
in di ff e re nt w a y s in o ther s (Par a de ise & Tho e nig , 2013) . I n sum , stud ies should “[ put] the
or ga niz a ti on ba c k int o or g a niz a ti on theor y ” a nd p a y c lose a tt e nti on to “ a c ti on, c ha n g e , a nd the
inner wor kin g s of or ga ni z a ti ons” (H irsc h & L oun sbur y , 1997, p. 79 ).
Inhabited Institutionalism
Inhabited institutionalism
11
attempts to bridge the old and the new institutionalism. This
theor y vi e ws or ga niz a ti ons a s “inha bit e d” by people doing things together and their interactions
(Hallett, 2010; Hallett & Ventresca, 2003). In the old institutionalism, the focus is on the internal
struggle for dominance, particularly from the leadership point of view. People act, at times in
concert and at times in conflict, within the confines of an immediate working context and within
the organization. In the new institutionalism, institutional myths are commonly treated as
e x og e nous a nd “ a na l y ti c a ll y r e moved f rom the m or e a c ti ve stru gg l e s ove r mea ning” ( L ounsbur y ,
Ve ntre sc a , & Hirsc h, 200 3, p. 72) . I nha bit e d inst it uti ona li sm re tains t he old i nsti tut ionalis m’s
interest in internal micro- leve l powe r stru gg les a n d c ombi ne s it with t he ne w inst it uti ona li sm’s
interest in macro-cultural myths, by giving attention to the interface between the macro and
mi c ro. A tt e nti on to t his i nter fa c e is nec e ssar y not onl y to g a in “ a r iche r un de rsta ndin g of a c ti on,
int e ra c ti on, a nd me a ning” ( Ha ll e tt & Ve ntr e sc a , 2 006), but also t o a c c ount for c ompl e x organizational changes and realities in an era of accountability.

11
Hallett and Ventresca (2003) coined the term, though other scholars also side with this perspective without
specifically using this term (e.g., Binder, 2007; Greenwood & Hining, 1996; Heimer, 1999; Sauder & Espeland,
2009; Selznick, 1996).
48

Several recent works have demonstrated the utility of a combined old and new
institutionalism for understanding the changing academic profession under increased demands
for accountability and/or prestige. Hallett (2009) conducted an ethnographic case study about the
change processes associated with a top-down initiative to increase accountability at an urban
elementary school. He studied what happened at that school, when conformity to accountability
was no longer symbolic. The data revealed recoupling, through which the myth of accountability
a nd or g a niz a ti ona l pra c ti c e s that we re onc e loosel y c onn e c ted b e c a me tig ht l y li nke d. Ha ll e tt ’s
study shows how organizations are inhabited with people, their work activities, social
interactions, and meaning-making processes.
Sauder and Espeland (2009), using a case study of law schools, explain why rankings
have permeated law schools so extensively, and why these organizations have been unable to
buffer these external pressures from rankings. They showed how rankings are changing the
perceptions of legal education, and how legal educators are struggling with their professional
identities during this change. Their findings suggest that decoupling is not determined solely by
the external enforcement of institutional pressures or by the capacity of organizational actors to
buffer or hide some activities. Instead, legal professionals have consciously or unconsciously
internalized these pressures facing increased demands for accountability and prestige.
O’ Mea ra a nd B loom g a rd e n (20 11) e x a mi ne d how fa c ult y pe r c e ived the c ha ng e to pu rsue greater prestige defined by rankings at an elite liberal arts college. They focused on how faculty
perceived the origins of the pursuit of prestige, its influence on organizational identity and
direction, and its influence on their work and life. They found that efforts to pursue higher
ranking status significantly affected the internal core processes, including student admission,
49

teaching, reward, and tenure, all of which then affected faculty perceptions of their professional
lives and identities.
Gonzales (2013) examined the faculty perspective of a liberal arts, teaching-focused, and
Hispanic-serving college (SWU, a pseudonym) that strived to become a tier-one research
univer sit y . Gonz a les f ou nd that de spit e a dmi nist ra tors’ c a ll to a c hieve su c h st a tus i n “ a n S W U
wa y ,” f a c ult y c onsi stentl y r e jec ted su c h sl oga n. F a c ult y p e rc e ived “ a n S W U w a y ” a s im possi ble,
because institutionalized ways of a tier-one research university have been deeply and widely
ingrained. Therefore, there would be no other way to achieve that status without significantly
altering the mission, the work, and the internal procedures currently adopted at SWU.
Institutional Logics
Institutional logics perspective is another recent attempt by institutional theorists to
remedy the criticisms against the new institutionalism. The main goal is to explain organizational
change by restoring the sensibilities of the role of actors and their agency (Thornton, Ocasio, &
Lounsbury, 2012). Compared to inhabited institutionalism that focuses on internal organizational
processes, the institutional logics perspective is more ambitious. Scholars attempt to develop a
meta-theory to explain organizational change at multiple and cross levels, including the micro,
the meso, and the macro (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012).
Given that this is a case study about how a university and its academics respond to
increased demands for accountability and prestige, I focus the following review on theorizing
how an organization and its members respond to top-down, exogenous demands from the
organizational field and the society. I also give some discussion on conceptualizing change at the
organizational field level, in order to understand the changing academic profession more broadly.
50

Given that institutional logics perspective is still at its infancy, I point out three areas for future
development, for which this study is going to address.
Definition
Institutional logics perspective suggests that individuals and organizations are embedded
in the society consisting of various institutions (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012).
Institutions are supra-organizational forms rooted in material practices and symbolic systems, by
which individuals and organizations produce and reproduce their material lives and render their
experiences meaningful (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). Scholars have identified six institutions
including the family, community, religion, state, market, profession, and corporation (Thornton,
Oc a sio, & L ounsbur y , 20 12). Ea c h inst it uti on ha s it s c e ntra l log ics, i.e., “ th e socia ll y c onst ru c ted, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which
individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and
pr ovide me a nin g to t he ir socia l re a li t y ” ( Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). For research
purposes, different institutional logics are conceptualized as ideal types (see Table 3).
Assumptions
Institutional logics perspective has four interrelated assumptions: a) the inter-institutional
system; b) partial autonomy of structure and action; c) integration of symbolic and material
aspects of institutions; and d) historical contingency of institutions (Thornton, Ocasio, &
Lounsbury, 2012).
First, individuals and organizations are located at the intersection of these multiple
institutional orders, including the family, the community, religion, the state, the market, the
profession, and the corporation (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). This affiliation with
multiple institutional orders makes organizational identities idiosyncratic. For example, a public
51

research university located in an urban setting in the U.S. has to attend to multiple pressures from
the state, the profession, the market, and the community. Similarly, as an individual identifies
with multiple institutional roles and responsibilities, his or her identity becomes idiosyncratic
and dynamic, entailing the need to balance multiple goals, interests, and roles (Binder, 2007).
F or e x a mpl e , a f a c ult y ’s identit ies a nd a c ti ons a re a ff e c ted b y e x pe c tations fr om at lea st t he family, the state, the market, and the profession. The key point is that organizational and
individual identities and actions are not conceptualized as purely localized or institutionalized
phenomena, but are shaped dynamically by local and broader forces (Binder, 2007).
Second, individuals and organizations possess partial autonomy in relation to the multiple
institutional orders in which they are embedded (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012).
Therefore, complete commitment to or constraint by a particular logic is never the case.
P re va il ing lo g ics pla c e c onst ra int s on i de nti ti e s and a c ti ons. At t he same ti me, “ l ogics are not
purely top-down: real people, in real contexts, with consequential past experiences of their own,
play with them, question them, combine them with institutional logics from other domains, take
what they can from them, and make them fit their ne e ds” ( B inde r, 200 7, p. 568). The embeddedness in the system of inter-institutional orders is both a source of institutional
constraint and a source for significant change to occur (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012).
Third, logics are abstractions, which become manifested and enacted through the ongoing
material and symbolic productions in concrete settings (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton,
Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). Available logics serve as the basis for both actions and the
construction of values and beliefs. For example, the increasing presence of the market logic in
higher education has led to the increasing belief of the economic value of research and the
widespread practice of commercializing research (Berman, 2012). At the same time, the ongoing
52

symbolic and material organizational processes can reproduce existing logics, transform them, or
even create new logics (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). For example, while the spread
of the corporate logic in higher education has led to the wide use of contingent faculty, recent
collective mobilization has begun to challenge such practice as well as the underlying corporate
model of faculty hiring (Kezar & Sam, 2013). It remains to be seen how the dynamics between
the professional and the corporate logic will shape the meanings, legitimacy, and practices of
hiring contingent faculty.
Fourth, historical dependency speaks to logic emergence, reemergence, and change. Each
institutional order has a different age of origin, and the inter-institutional system evolved
interdependently over time (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). Institutional orders are not
static structures impervious to change. For example, the market logic has experienced significant
elaboration with the rise of shareholder value orientation and the primacy of financial markets
(Zajac & Westphal, 2004 as cited in Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). Similarly, the
history of American higher education also suggests significant elaboration of the academic
professional logic with emerging focus on equity and social justice (Thelin, 2004).
Micro-Foundations of Organizations
As multiple and competing (if not conflicting) logics are at play for actions, whether one
action is legitimate depends on which logic it is assessed against (Binder, 2007; Heimer, 1999).
For example, under the market logic, a utilitarian perspective based on the costs and benefits is
appropriate. Under alternative logics (e.g., family, religion), goals and actions driven by self-
interests or by a rational calculation of costs and benefits are not appropriate. Therefore, the co-
existence of multiple logics creates ambiguity for action (Heimer, 1999; Thornton, Ocasio, &
Lounsbury, 2012; Weick, 1976).
53

Adding to the ambiguity is the bounded, embedded, and situated nature of decisions and
actions. Decisions and actions are not only bounded by the limited cognitive capacity for
processing information (Simon, 1947), but also bounded by coping with multiple interests, goals,
and identities affiliated with the organization, work group, professional field, political party, age
cohort, family background, ethnicity, and so forth (Battilana, 2006; Binder, 2007; Heimer, 1999).
To the extent that a new logic is being introduced (e.g., performance-based faculty salary with a
focus on re s e a r c h pro duc ti vit y ), indivi dua ls ne e d to m a ke de c isi ons a bout “ whe ther to st ick w it h
the old log ic, e mbr a c e the ne w one , o r f i g ur e out s ome w a y to h y br idi z e ” ( Thor nton, Oc a sio, & Lounsbury, 2012, p. 142). For example, the increased emphasis on innovation and technology
transfer of research under the market logic has affected different disciplines and academics in
different ways (Berman, 2012). Further, the same actors may be guided by different logics under
different situations. For example, academics may use the professional logic when interacting
with colleagues, and may use the market logic when pitching their ideas to foundations and
private donors.
Facing top-down organizational change, varied extent of coupling is expected between
actions and the new logic, existing logics, as well as self-identities and goals. Institutional logics
guide the allocation of attention by shaping what issues get attended to and what solutions are
likely appropriate (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). Further, the positionality of the
individuals bounded by their prior experiences, identities, and goals makes some knowledge and
solutions more accessible than others to interpret events and craft decisions (Battilana, 2006;
Binder, 2007; Weick, 1995). However, readily available and accessible knowledge and
information do not determine actions. Conformity to regulative forces or avoidance of normative
sanctions can constrain adherence to specific actions, even if individuals do not identify with the
54

logics or identities underlying such actions (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). Therefore,
top-down change can never be fully implemented, despite that certain logics are made dominant
in organizational life surrounding new policies (Hallettt, 2010; Trowler, 1998). Interpretations
and actions are shaped in a bottom-up manner through sensemaking, sensegiving, or collective
mobilization (Gonzales, 2013; Hallett, 2010; Trowler, 1998; Weick, 1995).
Three Paths of Change
There are three paths of organizational change at the micro- and macro-societal level,
including institutional entrepreneurs, structural overlap, and historical event sequencing
(Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). Each path of change helps to explain the changing academic
profession in general or at a specific university.
Institutional entrepreneurs. Given partial autonomy, human beings are constrained by
mul ti ple inst i tut ional log ics, w hich a lso provide so ur c e s fo r ma nipul a ti on a nd use to one’ s
advantage (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). Institutional entrepreneurs can be an
individual, a group, or an organization, which use different logics to either advance or resist
change by manipulating the ambiguity of meanings created by the inter-institutional system
(Battilana, 2006; Friedland & Alford, 1991; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005). For example,
Suddaby and Greenwood (2005) studied how institutional entrepreneurs used rhetorical
strategies to credit or discredit a new multidisciplinary partnership between accounting and law.
They found that proponents and opponents intentionally used words and referential texts to
expose contradictory logics embedded in historical understandings of professionalism —one
based on normative and moral legitimacy emphasizing professional identity and the other based
on a market logic emphasizing commercial interests.
55

Although existing logics are usually used to resist a new logic, resistance does not
necessarily lead to rejection. Rather, resistance may actually facilitate assimilation of the new
logic into existing ones (Sauder & Espeland, 2009; Townley, 1997). For example, Sauder and
Espeland (2009) found that under increasing accountability pressures, law schools were unable
to buffer the influence of rankings and had internalized rankings and the market logic. The
internalization was facilitated not only by voluntary attempts to embrace rankings, but also by
the anxiety that rankings had produced and the active resistance that ranking had provoked.
Similarly, Townley (1997) explored how the logic of liberal academia in the UK provided
mechanisms of resistance to the corporate logic underlying performance appraisals. Townley
found that while all the universities under study adopted performance appraisal under
government mandates, the particular form of appraisals deviated from what the corporate logic
would suggest. Universities articulated their mission on research and teaching excellence as well
as shared governance as a clear departure from the corporate logic. This departure facilitated
resistance to the corporate logic and the assimilation of it into academia.
Individuals and organizations are not equally capable of being aware of multiple logics or
using them to their advantage. Those who have been exposed to different organizational contexts
are less likely to take for granted the functioning of their current organization (Battilana, 2006;
Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002). They are more apt to be aware of heterogeneous
institutional arrangements and recognize opportunities for effecting change. In other words,
individuals with low levels of socialization or commitment to an institutional order are more
likely to depart from it and rely on alternative logics in making decisions and actions (Rao,
Monin, & Durand, 2005). Referring to Table 3, this means that individuals and organizations
56

with exposure to more horizontal categories are more likely to be institutional entrepreneurs
(Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012).
Structural overlap. Structural overlap occurs when previously distinct roles and
functions are forced into association, triggering a change in dominant logics in organizational
thinking and action (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999). For example, mergers and acquisitions usually
force individuals into contact with prevailing logics in different organizations or organizational
fields (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). These changes increase the awareness of contradictions
between logics to different parties involved, which lowers constraints from dominant logics and
enables actors to become institutional entrepreneurs (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). In China, the
many mergers between universities around 2000 to create comprehensive research universities,
joint-degree programs with overseas institutions, and university-industry partnerships have likely
created opportunities for institutional entrepreneurs.
Historical event sequencing. This refers to the sequential unfolding of events that
dislocate, rearticulate, and transform the meaning of cultural symbols and socioeconomic
structures (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). For example, Berman (2012), drawing from historical
research, showed how a market logic was slowly ushered into the field of U.S. research
universities over several decades, leading to the shifting conception of science as resource to
science as engine. Berman showed that during the late 1970s, a confluence of events —industry
concern with the perceived deterioration of innovation in the U.S., a growing body of research on
the importance of innovation, and the stagnation of the economy —led to a broad political
interest in fostering innovation by capitalizing the economic value of science. By the early 1980s,
universities were nurturing rapid growth in areas such as faculty entrepreneurship, patenting, and
university-industry research centers.
57

Similarly, the rapid change in Chinese higher education to view and rely on academic
research as economic engine has been stimulated and legitimated by a confluence of events since
mid-1990s, as reviewed in Chapter One. These historical events include: the change from a
planned to a market economy, the worldwide recognition of the knowledge economy, the broad
worldwide expansion of the market logic in many fields where it once played minor role (e.g.,
healthcare, transportation, education), and the increased recognition of science and technology in
C hina’ s mod e rn ization and rejuvenation. Since the late 1990s, Chinese research universities have
been actively engaging in entrepreneurism and commercialization of research, and this market
trend is likely to further increase in the future (MoE, 2013b).
The Change Outcome
Change triggered by existing contradictions between logics results in a new dynamic of
logics. In this sense, competing logics are both an antecedent and a consequence of
organizational change (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). At the organizational field level, any
institutional order becoming overly dominant suggests temporary instability, which is then reset
by the interdependence between institutional orders (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). The
outcome is countervailing or stabilizing tension between logics (Berman, 2012; Reay & Hinings,
2005) . B e rma n’ s (2012 ) e x tensive doc umenta ti ons of the c ha n g in g poli c ies a nd pr a c ti c e s of
academic science at American research universities provide an illustrative example. She found
that the market logic did replace the logic of science; rather, as market logic strengthened within
universities, it became more visible and legitimate than previously assumed. While academic
logic has moved toward the market end, it can only move so far. The market logic has plateaued
around the year 2000. The outcome has been an uneasy but fairly stable coexistence between the
science and the market logic.
58

At the organizational level, the ongoing changing dynamics between logics are enacted
differently in different organizations and for different individuals. The outcome is the
coexistence of some macro-structural convergence and significant intra- and inter-organizational
diversity and complexity (Besharov & Smith, 2013; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012).
Such complexity of logics can lead to organizational sustainability (Binder, 2007), hybridity
(Heimer, 1999), innovation (Jay, 2013), instability (Hallett, 2010; Sauder & Espeland, 2009),
paralysis (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008), or organizational demise (Tracey, Phillips, & Jarvis, 2011).
Besharov and Smith (2013) suggest one way to theorize about the heterogeneous ways
that multiple logics manifest in organizations and their outcomes for organizations. They propose
two dimensions to delineate the nature of multiple logics within an organization: compatibility
and centrality of logics. Compatibility refers to the extent to which the instantiations of multiple
logics imply consistent organizational actions. Centrality refers to the extent to which multiple
logics manifest in core features central to organizational functioning. The two dimensions then
interact to create four types of outcomes: contested (low compatibility, high centrality),
estranged (low compatibility, low centrality), dominant (high compatibility, low centrality), and
aligned organization (low compatibility, high centrality). They further suggest that variation of
compatibility and centrality of logics is influenced by nested and intertwined factors at both the
individual level (e.g., ties to field level logics, professional training and socialization, relative
power) and the organizational level (e.g., hiring and socialization, resource dependence within
and outside the organization).
Ha ll e tt ’s ( 2010) a nd S a u de r a nd Espe l a nd’s ( 2009 ) c a se studi e s o f how tea c he rs a nd
faculty r e spond t o c h a n g i ng inst it uti ona l l og ics c a n be c onc e ptualiz e d in B e shar ov a nd S mi th’s
(2013) typology, which also sheds light into this study. In both cases, the schools under
59

examination are contested organizations with low compatibility between central logics, the state
a nd the pr of e ssi on in Ha ll e tt ’s c a se of a n e leme nta r y s c hool, or the mar k e t a nd the pr of e ssi on in
S a ude r a nd Esp e land’ s c a se of la w s c hools . W it h these c ontestations, i ndivi dua ls hol d c ompeting expectations about appropriate goals as teachers or professionals, and grapple with different
guidelines as to which goals should prevail. As a result, clashes over issues of mission, strategy,
struc ture , pow e r, r e sourc e s, and identit y a re fr e qu e nt, cr e a ti ng “ e pist e mi c d ist re ss” a nd “ turmoi l”
(Hallet t, 2010) or “ a nx iety , unc e rta int y , meticulou s mon it or ing , a nd dis c ipl ine” ( S a ude r & Espeland, 2009, p. 79). In the case of how Chinese academics respond to external demands for
accountability and prestige in this study, contestations are expected between multiple logics of
the state, the market, the corporate, the Confucian family, and the academic profession. Whether
this would be the case and with which consequences will be explored in the remaining chapters.
Areas Warranting Further Research
As a recent development within the institutional theory camp, institutional logics
perspective is fundamentally different from previous institutional approaches. Though still in its
infancy, the notion of inter-institutional competition helps to theorize and explain how multiple
meta-forces permeate one another over time, creating organizational heterogeneity, stability, and
change (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). The strength of institutional
logics perspective for this study lies in its attention to the interface between organizational
processes and external demands, its account for the dynamics between these demands and their
implications for organizational thinking, actions, and identities.
Several issues, however, remain unaddressed, which I attempt to investigate in this study.
First, although institutional logics perspective proposes to account for organizational change at
multiple levels, the extant literature disproportionately focuses on the field level, for example,
60

medical education in the U.S. (Dunn & Jones, 2010), professional work of U.S. pharmacists
(Goodrick & Reay, 2011), higher education publishing (Thornton, 2004), and research
universities in the U.S. (Berman, 2012). Research that examines how logics are manifested in
and manipulated in intra-organizational dynamics is rare (Besharov & Smith, 2013; Thornton,
Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012) (e.g., Binder, 2007; Hallett, 2010; Heimer, 1999; Sauder &
Espeland, 2009). Organizations face a variety of pressures stemming from multiple institutional
orders, a situation particularly true with the increasing accountability pressures. Studies need to
get inside organizations and understand how micro-level dynamics shape understandings of logic
complexity, and how strategic responses to such complexity are adopted (Thornton, Ocasio, &
Lounsbury, 2012).Without adequate empirical attention to intra-organizational dynamics,
institutional logics perspective may experience similar macro-structural drift as new
institutionalism.
Second, the inter-institutional system is suggested as better suited than previous
institutional theories for international and comparative studies of organizational realities,
particularly those of non-Western context (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). However,
international and comparatives studies of non-Western contexts are scarce. International studies
should consider revising and adapting the ideal types of institutional logics and the elements for
each logic proposed by the extant research. In Table 2 shown earlier, these ideal types of
institutional logics may not be directly applicable to different non-Western contexts, for example,
non capitalistic economic systems. Further, international studies may need to address whether
culture is an institutional order, particularly for the more collectivist societies such as those
heavily influenced by Confucianism.
61

Third, although institutional logics perspective assumes the duality of symbolic and
material dimensions of organizational reality, extant research pays disproportionate attention to
the symbolic dimension (e.g., cognitive frames, symbols, and narratives used in texts, public
speeches, and documents). The material dimension (e.g., practices and implicit structures) is less
examined. Future research could explore the role of tangible material objects and practices in
reproducing and transforming logics (Jones, Boxenbaum, & Anthony, 2013).
Synthesis of Other Organizational Perspectives
Principal Agent Theory
Principal agent theory attempts to understand the contractual relationship where a
principal contracts with an agent to engage in certain functions that the principal cannot provide
due to the limited time, knowledge, or energy (Eisenhardt, 1989). Examples of such contractual
relationships include patient-doctor, client-lawyer, employee-employer, public university-
government, and faculty-institution. Ideally, the agent is trusted to make decisions and act in the
best interest of the principal. Two problems, however, usually compromise the ideal situation:
goal conflict and information asymmetry (Eisenhardt, 1989; Moe, 1984). Goal conflict arises
when preferences, interests, and desires of the agent are not fully aligned with the principal.
Information asymmetry refers to the issue that it is difficulty or expensive for the principal to
ve rif y wha t t he a g e nt i s a c tuall y doin g . The s e two pr oblems a c ti va te the pos sibi li t y of “ shirking”
from the contractual obligations. To correct such behavior, the principal must utilize an array of
oversight, incentives, and punitive mechani sms to ensur e the a g e nt a c ts i n the pr incipa l’s be st
interest (Eisenhardt, 1989). Yet, even with these mechanisms, there is still no guarantee that the
agent will not shirk on its responsibilities to the principal. The underlying assumption of
62

principal agent theory is the centrality of self-interest in organizational reasoning and behavior
(Perrow, 1986). Much of organizational life is based on self-interest, whether we like it or not.
Principal agent theory provides a useful conceptual tool to understand the dynamics
between universities and multiple stakeholders in two ways. First, assuming the centrality of goal
conflicts and self-interests, outcome-based contracts (e.g., performance-based funding for
institutions, merit-based salary for faculty and administrators) are likely to motivate the agent to
pursue outcome s that a re c ompatibl e with t he princ ipal’s g oa ls (Eisenh a rdt, 1989) . S e c ond,
colleges and universities used to have a high degree of autonomy from direct monitoring. This
freedom derives partially from the highly professionalized and specialized nature of academic
work, with faculty and administrators being viewed as experts. This expertise creates a
knowledge imbalance, as it is difficult for the principal (e.g., the government and other external
stakeholders) to monitor and evaluate whether faculty and administrators work in the best
interest of the principal, assuming their interests differ (Lane & Kivisto, 2008). Therefore, the
various accountability mechanisms exist to help provide sufficient information for assessment
and avoid shirking on the part of the faculty and administrators. For example, government
monitors university behaviors through an array of direct oversight, such as annual reports,
performance audits, budget reviews, and indirect mechanisms, such as investigative reports by
the press or legislative hearing (Lane & Kivisto, 2008). Further, in order to provide sufficient
information for evaluation as well as ease of understanding particularly to external stakeholders,
performance is more likely evaluated based on quantitative and comparable measures.
There are at least two major limitations of principal agent theory in understanding the
changing academic profession. First, critics argue that the centrality of self-interest and
opportunism in human behavior of this theory presents a narrow model of human motivation,
63

neglecting other motives such as altruism, trust, and intrinsic motivation (Perrow, 1986). This
limitation can be particularly problematic for understanding faculty work, as many studies have
shown that disinterested scholarship and intrinsic passion for research are major reasons for
faculty to pursue academic career, among other things (Liefner, 2003; Neumann, 2009). For
example, Liefner (2003) studied the effect of performance-based resource allocation on
a c a d e mi c ’s w or k a t si x u niver sit ies in t he U.S., S witz e rla nd, the N e ther l a n ds, an d Gr e a t B ritain.
Liefner hypothesized that a) academics that have been rather inactive before the introduction of
performance-based resource allocation will have to work harder, and b) departments and
academics will avoid projects with a high chance of failure and instead focus on activities where
success can be expected to meet a performance-based formula. However, Liefner found that
although the change in individual behaviors was predicted by the hypothesis, there was a weak
link between performance-based resource allocation and the success of universities. Qualified
academics respond less to monetary incentives than to their individual motivation and scientific
interests. Therefore, universities with a large number of highly motivated and qualified
academics will be successful regardless of the form of resource allocation.
The second limitation of principal agent theory for studying higher education is
concerned with the concept of shirking in an environment with multiple lines of authority,
multiple sources of funding, and multiple sets of goals (Lane & Kivisto, 2008). The shirking as a
problem on the part of the agent is based on the interests and goals of the principal. However, in
the case of higher education, should universities accept all the goals of the external stakeholders
without questioning their effects on academic freedom or other missions of higher education? As
colleges and universities usually multiple and sometimes irreconcilable external demands (Hersh
& Merrow, 2005), the concept of shirking exists but is exceedingly more complicated than that
64

of a single principal- a g e n t re lations hip. I n othe r w or ds, “shir king” ma y not necessarily be
detrimental.
Resource Dependency Theory
Resource dependency theory assumes that organizations are externally controlled, and
organizational action is to a large extent determined by the dependence on external resources
(Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). A central aspect of organization behavior is then to secure continued
or increased access to tangible resources. For example, colleges and universities are constantly
seeking new sources of revenue through online education, international students, technology
transfer, or new degree programs. Resource-poor organizations will experience a greater need of
change as a means of acquiring new resources. Further, resource dependency theory also
assumes that organizations, which depend heavily on external actors for resources (e.g., state
funding, endowments, industrial cooperation), will be responsive to the demands of those
external actors to enhance their survival (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). For example, this theory
would argue that public universities are paying more attention to the planning and accountability
demands of their state agencies than private universities, and are more likely to include these
realities in their structures and practices (Morphew, 2002).
An important aspect of a resource dependency theory is its emphasis on intra-
organizational dynamics to understand how organizations react and interact with their
environments. Organizations consist of subunits that have different capacity in acquiring or
maintaining sca rc e r e sou rc e s. “T h e c onte st of control within the organization intervenes to affect
the enactment of organizational environments. Since coping with critical contingencies is an
important determinant of influence, subunits will seek to enact environments to favor their
posi ti on” ( P fe ff e r & S a l a nc ik 1978, p. 261). A c e n tra l fa c tor th a t dete rmine s a subunit’s powe r in
65

relation to others is its centrality in gaining critical resources for the organization, or the extent to
which it controls resources important to other subunits (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974; Tushman,
1977). An individual or a subunit that is instrumental in obtaining critical resources for the
organization is in a powerful position to obtain scarce resources from the organization, which in
turn strengthens the power of that subunit. More powerful subunits attempt to maintain their
power by tightening control of scarce resources, while the less powerful subunits attempt to
decrease their internal dependence on others (Tushman, 1977). In this sense, resource
dependency theory relies heavily on a political view of inter- and intra-organizational
interactions, and their effect on organizational change and survival (Tushman, 1977).
Although organizations are assumed to be externally controlled, resource dependency
perspective rejects environmental determinism. Organizations have a capacity for change. Their
response to external demands is active and strategic in two respects. First, organizations are in a
relationship of interdependencies, wherein an organization also controls resources that other
or ga niz a ti ons ne e d. “ The potential f or one or ga niz a ti on influe nc ing a nother de rive s fr om i ts
discr e ti ona r y c ont rol ove r r e sour c e s ne e de d b y the other a nd the othe r’ s dep e nde nc e on the
resources and lack of countervailing resources and ac c e ss t o a lt e rna ti ve sou rc e s” (Pfe f fe r a nd
Salancik 1978, p. 53). The underlying model is one of countervailing power: the greater the
power of external stakeholders the greater the environmental determinism, whereas the greater
the power of controlling critical resources the greater capacity for organizational autonomy and
discretion (Hrebiniak & Joyce, 1985). Second, external environments are not objective,
uncontrollable realities. Organizations are governed by people who are boundedly rational. How
organizations learn about their environment, including its structure, resources, and constraints,
and how they choose to respond are shaped by how these external realities are perceived.
66

Assuming that organizations act strategically to manage their dependency on external
environment that control vital resources, this perspective takes a proactive view of the role of
leadership in organizational change. The role of leadership and the internal power distribution
determine how organizations change facing external demands and expectations. The context in
which an organization is embedded is the outcome of the actions of social actors who place many
constraints on the actions of others (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Behind every constraint is an
interest group that has managed to have that constraint imposed. The constraint is potentially
removable with sufficient resources. Therefore, one important function of management is to
influe nc e thes e other a c t or s as a mea ns o f de te rmini ng one ’s o wn e nviron ment. L e a de rs a r e cons ider e d “ a c ti ve ma nipul a tor” of or ga niz a ti ona l constra int s and r e sou rc e s who a lwa y s se e k to
enact or create an environment more favorable to the organization. In sum, understanding
or ga niz a ti ona l cha n g e e mphasiz e s not onl y inves ti g a ti n g the “ obje c ti ve ” r e so urce dependencies
and interdependencies, but also the way organizations perceive their environments and the way
leaders control and manipulate resources and constraints.
Research on organizational change in higher education has supported the resource
dependency perspective. The argument is that colleges, universities, and their schools and
departments will make changes so that resources (particularly important financial resources)
might become more available to them as a result of such changes. Morphew (2002) studied the
motivations of institutions to convert from a college to a university. He found that while securing
financial resources was not the motivation for this change, the number of graduate students was
the strongest predictor. This finding suggests that attracting more graduate students, who bring in
critical financial resource, appears to a motivation for the change. In studying 29 departments at
University of Illinois-Urbana Champagne, Salancik and Pfeffer (1974) found that departmental
67

power was most highly correlated with its ability to obtain outside grants and contracts; national
prestige and size of the graduate program followed closely in importance. They also found that
power was most used in allocating graduate student fellowships, the scarcest resource for the
institution. Tolbert (1985) studied the development of administrative offices in public and private
universities in the U.S. Her research showed how the pattern of administrative offices at private
universities was tailored to their environment and differed —as predicted by resource
dependence —from those of public universities.
Further, research on organizational change in higher education usually integrates resource
dependency theory with the new institutionalism (e.g., Gornitzka, 1999; Morphew, 2002; Tolbert,
1985). The two theoretical perspectives resemble each other in their view of organizational
adaptation to external demands, in the sense that resource dependency focuses on financial
resources while new institutionalism focuses on cultural norms and beliefs. Resource
dependency theory ultimately sees organizational actions as rationally and strategically based,
designed to maximize outputs (e.g., research outputs, etc.). However, colleges and universities
operate in an environment where normative and social definitions of organizational behavior and
structure are critical for survival. Therefore, while ensuring a stable flow of resources —usually
financial resources —from external environment is crucial, colleges and universities have to pay
close attention to non-economic demands. Close alignment between institutional policies and
e x ter na l envir onment ma y be to p e rf or m “ c e re mo nial” purp oses f o r le g it im a c y c onc e rns.
Cultural Theory
Parsons (1991) defines three essential elements of culture: knowledge (both empirical
and existential), values, and forms of symbolic expression. Different theories on organizational
c ult ur e wr e stl e with t he se thre e e leme nts i n diff e r e nt wa y s (se e Mar ti n, F r ost, O’N e il l, 2004).
68

The common ground is that culture is learned, shared by some organizational members, adaptive
to changing conditions, and focused on meanings rather than on material production (Levin,
1994; Schein, 1991). The emphasis on symbols and more importantly on the meanings
represented by symbols is a sharp distinction of the cultural approach from other approaches
discussed previously. Though symbols can be emblematic of culture, such as the association of
red wedding dress with luck and fortune in Chinese culture, it is not the objects themselves that
constitute culture, but the values, belief systems, and underlying sentiment that symbols
represent (Schein, 1991). Therefore, culture is about creating meanings, relationships, and
identities rather than material production.
The vast body of literature on organizational culture can be delineated into four strands:
managerial, negotiating, emancipating, and illusive, drawing on the categorization of other
scholars (see Bergquist, 1992; Hallettt, 2003; Martin & Frost, 1995). Managerial approach to
culture defines organizational culture as a pattern of shared assumptions (knowledge and values)
that have served the organization well in the past, that must be taught to new members of the
group, and that can be adapted to external circumstances (Schein, 1991). Organizational culture
is “a n int e rna ll y c onsi ste nt pac ka g e o f c ult ur a l m a nife statio ns t ha t g e n e r a te s orga niz a ti on -wide
c onsen sus, us ua ll y a roun d som e set of shar e d va lu e s” ( Ma rtin & F rost, 199 5, p. 603) . I n thi s
sense, values, beliefs, and shared meanings are variables that can be managed to change. This
consensus-driven, unified, monolithic, conflict-free portrait of culture resonates with
functionalist paradigm. Particular organizational culture is strategically adopted as a means to
enhance effectiveness. Leaders are the central agent in shaping the intended organization culture
so that employees internalize them to accomplish specific organizational objectives (Beckhard &
Pritchard, 1992). Investment in an organizational culture of employee dedication is deemed
69

valuable insofar as it ultimately advances profitability (Kunda, 2003). This managerial approach
to culture was dominant in the earlier days of cultural studies of organizations.
By contrast, negotiating perspective to organizational culture stresses conflict of interests
and values within an organization, resonating with interpretive and social constructivist
pa ra di g ms (Ma rtin & F ro st, 19 95). T he ne g oti a ti ng a pp roa c h vi e ws c ons e n sus as “ tra nsient and issue-specific, producing short-lived affinities among individuals that are quickly replaced by a
diff e re nt p a tt e rn of a ff ini ti e s” ( Mar ti n & F rost, 19 95, p. 609) . Or g a niz a ti ona l culture is t he re for e fragmented and fluid. Fragmented cultures are the reality; they are not necessarily positive or
negative, nor are they necessarily to be avoided. Culture as a negotiated order flows and emerges
through daily interactions between participants, an order influenced by those with the symbolic
power to define the situation in which interactions take place (Hallettt, 2003; Swidler, 1986).
Some scholars tend to focus internally on the fragmentation of cultures within an organization.
Others adopt a more open-system view. Individuals as social beings bring to the organization
multiple habits, values, and beliefs, which are manifested in, sustained, and modified through the
ongoing interactions in the organization. In this sense, the negotiating approach explores the link
between micro actions within organizations and broader social structures.
The emancipating approach takes negotiation one step further by addressing the conflict
of interest that lies at the heart of the relations between organizations and their members (Kunda,
2003). Resonating with the critical paradigm, this approach emphasizes the oppression
experienced by subcultures at the lower-level employees (Martin & Frost, 1995). Employees
shoul d be a c ti ve pa rticipa nts i n sha ping their o r g a niz a ti on’s c ult ur e : i ts kno wle dge , va lues, a nd
forms of symbolic expression (Martin & Frost, 1995). With this progressive orientation, this
approach aims to challenge the status quo and give greater voice to the shared meanings and
70

interpretations among the lower-level employees. This line of literature resonates with critical
paradigm which investigates power dynamics between dominant and dominated groups and
explores strategies of resistance and emancipation (Lincoln & Guba, 1994).
Postmodernist approach to culture shares with the negotiating perspective which views
organizational culture as socially constructed and subjectively interpreted. But it takes a step
further by emphasizing that such multiple interpretations are always chaotic and always
marginalize certain interpretations. In this sense, it shares with the emancipation approach that
wrestles with the oppression and marginalization of certain groups. Yet, it differs from critical
paradigm which views the conflict of interests as objective and the oppression experienced by
marginalized groups as real (Lincoln & Guba, 1994). Postmodernist approach views all research
attempts as illusive and incomplete, because organizational culture is too ambiguous, fluid, and
complex to be studied. Because truth is impossible to represent, as postmodernists argue, no
particular theory is better to get closer to the truth about the organizational culture, objective or
socially constructed (Martin & Frost, 1995). The postmodernist approach to culture is not
favored by both researchers and practitioners. Researchers criticize it for being too nihilistic and
relativistic, while practitioners and change agents find this approach with no pragmatic value.
In general, cultural theories highlight the context, values, beliefs, irrationality, and
emotion in organizational thinking and actions. These cultural dimensions provide change agents
some directions, such as studying the history and context of the organization before launching
any change initiative, raising consciousness, redefining the mission, and reinterpreting history
and organizational stories, so that the envisioned change is just a progress or development from
the past, rather than a disruption (Kezar, 2013). At the same time, creating shared cultural
meanings is time-consuming and requires a high investment, making change slow (Kezar, 2013).
71

Further, creating shared sense of commitment and solidarity can be manipulated and exploited,
as pointed out by the negotiating and emancipation perspectives. As individuals can dominate
others by taking advantage of their feelings of solidarity (Collins, 1992), culture-building
strategies may be inherently exploitative. The most successful exploiter is the one who makes
others feel that he or she has their best interests at heart (Collins, 1992).
Cultural theories have been widely used to study organizations and change in education.
For example, leadership studies in higher education usually combine the managerial and
negotiating approaches (e.g., Kezar & Eckel, 2002b; Tierney, 1998). These studies explore
multiple interpretations and potential conflicts of organizational reality among different groups,
reflecting the negotiating approach. These studies also assume that a specific type of
organizational culture (e.g., collegial culture) that works at one university may turn out to be a
hurdle for change at another university. The goal is to identify the deep structure with a set of
core assumptions, values, and beliefs of the organization, minimize cultural conflict, and foster
the commitment to shared goals. For example, Kezar and Eckel (2002b) studied the link between
organizational culture and change strategies at six different types of institutions that were all
engaged in intentional changes to improve teaching and learning. They found that the same
common strategies (e.g., senior administrative support, collaborative leadership, and staff
development) are enacted in different ways on campuses with different organizational culture,
highlighting the need of culturally-sensitive change strategies.
B y c ontr a st, Trow ler ’s ( 1 998) stud y of a c a de mi c s’ r e sponses to a top -down change at a
non-elite UK university relies on the negotiating approach, and to a lesser extent the
emancipating approach. Trowler attempted to give voice to universities that are ranked at the
lower institutional ladder and to academics that do not hold leadership positions. He found that
72

there are multiple different cultures operating simultaneously at different levels within the
university, undermining the attempt to assign a single label of organizational culture (e.g., the
four archetypes of academic culture by Berquist, 1992) to the university as a whole. He
concluded that a university is never a managerial or collegial culture; it is managerial at
sometimes, under some circumstances, in some departments but collegial in others. Therefore,
a c a d e mi c lea de rs’ job be comes much harder, the processes of change become much more uneven
and hard to manage and predict, as changes are interpreted and reacted to in different ways
within the university.
The negotiating perspective of organizational culture appears conceptually compatible
with institutional logics perspective discussed previously. Different logics create distinctive
social and historical patterns of assumptions, values, beliefs, which are manifested in symbols
and material practices (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999). As individuals resonate with different logics
in multiple ways, organizational culture likely becomes fragmented. The negotiation between
fragmented cultural groups is expected to be most intense in contested organizations where
multiple incompatible logics vie for centrality, and least intense in dominant organizations where
the prevailing logic subsumes other highly compatible logics (Besharov & Smith, 2013).
Tr owle r’ s (1998 ) stud y o f the f ra g m e nted c ult ur e a t t he univer sit y in i ts ch a nge of a dopti n g a credit framework, as discussed above, provides some illustration. He found that the fragmented
c ult ur e r e sult e d fr om ac a de mi c s’ dif fe re nt i de nti fi c a ti on with educ a ti ona l i de olog ies su c h a s
progressivism, vocationalism, traditionalism, and social reconstructionalism. Although he did not
use institutional logics theory, these educational ideologies represent different combinations
from the logic of the profession, the market, the corporation, and the state.
73

In the case study university or any public Chinese university, the managerial approach
appears to best describe the strategy favored by administrative team. Common overarching goals
in national and institutional policies include building consensus, ensuring conformity, and
maintaining harmony. In practice, organizational culture is likely more fragmented and fluid, as
predicted by the negotiating approach. Studies that take an emancipating perspective may be
difficult to gather data, given the limited freedom of speech. In addition, Confucian culture will
like l y pla y a si g nific a nt r ole in sha ping a c a d e mi c s ’ r e a c ti ons t o org a niz a ti ona l cha n g e , a s shown
in studies on firms, schools, and universities in Confucian societies (Hall & Xu, 1990; Hayhoe,
2005; Marginson, 2010).
Sensemaking
Sensemaking theory explores how change occurs through the process of constructing
mea ning s a nd int e rpr e tations ( Gioia & Thoma s, 19 96;; W e ick, 1995) . An or g a niz a ti ons i s “a n
attempt to order the intrinsic flux of human action, to channel it toward certain ends, to give it a
particular s ha p e , throu g h g e n e ra li z ing a nd ins ti tut i ona li z ing pa rticula r me a n ing s and r ul e s” (Tsoukas & Chia 2002, p. 570). This theory assumes contextual rationality of organizational
actions. When individuals try to make things rationally accountable to themselves and to others,
actions are rational only in reference to the context in which actions occur (Weick, 1993). Action
g a ins i ts “r a ti ona li t y ” a n d leg it im a c y throu g h c re a ti ng a nd sust a ini n g a pp r opria te me a nin g s fo r
individuals, groups, and organizations, which can become irrational and illegitimate later on as
news meanings take shape (Weick, 1993). Therefore, any major organizational change must be
accompanied by a significant alteration in the overall interpretations of the organization (Gioia &
Thomas, 1996).
74

Sensemaking occurs when the current state of the world is perceived as different from the
expected state of the world (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). This disruption makes the flow
of action unintelligible. Individuals therefore have to interpret what is going on through
retrospect, connections with past experiences, and dialogue with other individuals (Weick,
Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). In this way, change is gradually brought into existence. Individuals
then try to answer: so what do I do next? This question creates meaning that they hope is stable
enough for future action (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Further, in searching for meanings
throug h dialo g ue s with ot he rs, indivi dua ls also attempt “to influe nc e the s e nsema king a nd
meaning constr uc ti on of other s towa rd a pre fe rr e d r e de finiti on of or ga niz a ti ona l re a li t y ” ( Gioia
& Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). Through dialogues, individuals engage in an iterative process of
sensemaking and sensegiving. As cited by Weick, Sutchliffe, and Obstfeld (2005),
“ S e nsema kin g is a w a y st a ti on on the r oa d to a c on se nsuall y c onst ruc ted, c o or dinate d s y stem of
a c ti on” ( T a y lo r & v a n Ev e r y , 2000, p. 275) .
Successful organizational change, then, depends on whether sensemaking and
sensegiving can help individuals construct shared interpretations, identities, and actions espoused
by the change initiative (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). This process is not simple, because there
can be as many different plausible interpretations of what is happening as there are members
(Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Two important aspects are essential to create a shared
understanding of the impending organizational change: (a) collective sensemaking and
sensegiving between leaders and members, and (b) re-orientation of existing interpretive scheme.
Further, both aspects need to consider organizational culture, i.e., whether they are too deviant
from the taken-for-granted patterns of behaviors, beliefs, values, and assumptions.
75

First, although power equips some members (e.g., presidents and tenured professors) with
greater influence in sensegiving, successful change is built upon creating shared understandings
for the whole organization. Gioia and colleagues (1991, 1994, 1996) studied how a large, public
university responded to the change initiated by a new president to become a top ten university.
They found that the top management team and the strategic planning task force consisted of
faculty members engaged in alternating phases of interpretation and action —a process of
“ se nsema kin g f o r se lf” a nd “ se nse g ivi n g f or othe r s” ( Gioia & C hit ti pe ddi, 1991. p. 444). K e z a r
and Eckel (2002a, 2002b), in studying the change processes at six institutions, found that
sensemaking emerged as a super-ordinate strategy in core change strategies. Interest group
conversations were facilitated collectively to help members make sense of the proposed change,
and personalize the change in relation to their jobs and identities. By contrast, Hallett (2010)
studied how teachers at an elementary school responded to changes pushed by a newly appointed
principal to increase accountability. Hallett found that failing to create a shared understanding
between the new principal and teachers, and failing to recognize existing school culture
characterized by loose coupling, led to tea c he rs’ e pist e mi c dist re ss (i.e ., a d ispl a c e ment of meaning and certainty) and erosion of the change effort.
Second, a cognitive re-orientation of existing interpretive schemes is required to make
sense of the disruption to the taken-for-granted goals and activities (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991;
Gioia & Thomas, 1996). Because envisioned goals are usually ambiguous (e.g., improving
quality, increasing accountability, achieving international prestige), members look to
or ga niz a ti on’s hist or ica l l e ga c y and mission, peer organizations, organizations that have already
e stabli shed the intende d g oa ls, an d e va luatin g c riter ia impos e d b y the c h a n g e . I n Gioia e t al. ’s
(1994 ) stud y o f a publi c r e se a r c h univer sit y ’s que s t t o be a top t e n inst it uti o n, the stra te g i c
76

planning task force attempted to make sense of what a top ten institution meant for them, by
looking into their traditions as well as comparing their institution to those already in the top ten.
Gonzales (2013) studied faculty sensemaking at a regional, teaching-focused, Hispanic-serving
institution (SWU, a pseudonym) that strived to become a tier one research university. Faculty
relied on peer universities, the ranking criteria related to the tier one universities, and the
universities already in the tier one status to make sense of the organizational change.
Organizations, however, cannot propose any arbitrarily chosen goals or impose a future
identity that is a complete disruption for its members. Changes are constrained within
organizational cultural bounds (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000). Failing to attend to
organizational culture likely leads to diversion of change efforts and identity crisis (Ravasi &
Schultz, 2006). Humphrey and Brown (2002) studied a failed attempt to redefine general
perception s of a B ritis h inst it ute of hig he r e duc a ti on to ac hieve “ univer sit y status”. The y f ound
that members were likely to reject new conceptualizations that they perceived incoherent with
the inst it ute’ s hi stor y , t ra dit ion, and the ir se nse o f se lf.
Two cognitive tools —frames and narratives —are critical to the sensemaking and
sensegiving processes, and can be manipulated to resist or create change (Benford & Snow, 2000;
Boyce, 1995; Fiss & Hirsch, 2005; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Maitlis, 2005). According to
Goff man ( 1974 ), f r a mes a re “ s c he ma[ s] of inter pr e tation” tha t allow indi viduals “ to l oc a te,
pe rc e iv e , identif y , a nd la be l” e ve nts. W he n e x pli c it l y a rticula ted, fr a m e s ar e inher e ntl y poli ti c a l,
generating group identification and collective mobilization (Benford & Snow, 2000; Lichterman,
2005) . To f a c il it a te o r r e s ist a n org a niz a ti ona l cha ng e , v a rious a c tors e n g a ge in “f r a me c ontests”
to influence interpretations of the change in accordance with their interests (Fiss & Hirsch, 2005).
Narratives are a more concrete form of symbolic construction by reflecting specific practices,
77

including their origin, development, and ending (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). Individuals draw
on narratives to make sense of events, create legitimacy, and construct identities (Polkinghorne,
1988). Narratives can be crafted with intentional selection of frames, or it can emerge in the
process of social interaction as a result of sensemaking and sensegiving, a process by which
individual cognition is translated into collective stories (Boyce, 1995; Maitlis, 2005).
In sum, sensemaking theory bears some resemblance to cultural theories. Both
approaches emphasize the importance of meanings and interpretations embedded in the local
context. Researchers sometimes combine both approaches, as seen from a few examples given
above (e.g., Hallett, 2010; Humpherys & Brown, 2002; Kezar & Eckel, 2002b). The walls
dividing these perspectives have been eroded by scholars who resist cordoning these camps off
from each other in order to answer specific empirical questions. This body of research shows that
facilitating change through sensemaking and sensegiving needs to consider organizational
culture. Organizational culture influences the sensemaking activities by providing the culturally
contingent toolkits (Swidler, 1986). At the same time, organizational culture is instantiated,
sustained, and modified by sensemaking efforts and actions of individuals.
Sensemaking theory is also compatible with institutional logics perspective, which
emphasizes cognitive micro-foundations of organizational change (Thornton, Ocasio, &
Lounsbury, 2012). Any espoused change initiative supports some logics over others within the
organization, creating disruption to goals and routines for some individuals. This disruption
invokes sensemaking, which in turn relies on available and accessible logics. For change agents,
sensemaking frames and narratives can be intentionally crafted based on an institutional logic or
some of its components (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). A few studies reviewed
78

previously demonstrate the compatibility of these two theoretical perspectives and the utility of
using them together to explain intra-organizational change (e.g., Binder, 2007; Hallett, 2010).
A major advantage of sensemaking theory for this study lies in is its attention to intra-
organizational dynamics and its ability to conceptualize change. Changes at Chinese universities
due to ac c ount a bil it y a nd pre sti ge c onc e rns ha v e li ke l y c re a ted disruptions to ac a d e mi c s’ e x ist ing roles, identities, and actions, as similar research in various national contexts have suggested (e.g.,
Hallett, 2010; Sauder & Espeland, 2009; Trowler, 1998). Surrounding this kind of changes is the
transformation or redefinition of assumptions, givens, and past and present events, where
sensemaking and consciousness-raising are critical (Kezar, 2013; Levitt & March, 1988).
S e nsema king theo r y ther e for e p rovide s the c o g nit ive tool t o unde rsta nd a c a de mi c s’
interpretations and actions facing the changing academic profession. It also provides the tool to
examine how the changing academic life unfolds on the ground.
The Theoretical Framework
The theoretical tool for this study consists of two components: the five ideal type
institutional logics (see Table 4) and the theoretical framework (see Figure 1). Table 4 presents
the five societal-level institutional logics, which I expect are affecting the changing academic
profession at various Chinese universities. The five logics include the state, the market, the
corporate, the academic profession, and the Confucian family. Four of the five logics are adapted
from the seven ideal type institutional logics proposed by Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury (see
Table 3). I also add the Confucian family as a separate institutional order in coexistence and
competition with other logics.
Figure 1 presents the framework for theorizing how academics interpret and respond to
the changing policies and practices of academic life at the case study university. In their seminal
79

book on institutional logics, Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury (2012) provide two models to
theorize organizational change: the cross-level model of institutional logics (p. 85) and the model
for endogenous change (p. 136). I adapt these two models to account for organizational change
triggered by top-down initiatives, by incorporating sensemaking and organizational culture (the
negotiating perspective, in particular). The link that makes combining the three theoretical
approaches viable is the cognitive micro-foundation of human behavior assumed by all three
perspectives, as discussed previously.
I build this theoretical framework following interpretive paradigm (e.g., Morgan &
Smircich, 1980). Interpretive paradigm is consistent with the theoretical perspectives integrated
in this framework. Sensemaking theory and the negotiating approach to organizational culture
usuall y r e l y on int e rpr e ti ve pa ra di g m ( e . g ., Gioia & Thoma s, 1996;; Mar ti n , F rost, & O’ N e il l,
2004). While institutional logics perspective as a meta-theory follows different paradigms
depending on the level of analysis, studies of intra-organizational dynamics follow interpretive
paradigm (e.g., Hallett, 2010; Heimer, 1999). I will elaborate the use of interpretive paradigm in
this study in Chapter Three.
The Five Ideal Type Institutional Logics
An ideal type is an analytical construct, an abstract representation of a pure case in which
the relevant features are distinct and unambiguous (Weber, 1946). An ideal type is formed
through comparing historical cases and abstracting the essential attributes (Weber, 1946)
12
. The
pure case then serves as an analytical tool to compare empirical observations of a wider reach.
However, an ideal type cannot find its direct correspondence with social reality, because

12
Weber constructed the ideal type of bureaucracy through comparing bureaucratic organizations in different
h is to r ical co n te x t s in a n cie n t E g y p t, C h i n a, an d R o m e ( W eb er , 1 9 4 6 ) . B u t th e id ea l t y p e o f b u r ea u cr ac y , “ t h eir ‘ p u r e’ types, after all, are to be considered merely border cases which are especially valuable and indispensable for analysis.
Historical realities, which almost always appears in mixed forms, have moved and still move between such pure
t y p es” ( W eb er , 1 9 4 6 , p . 2 4 4 ) .
80

empirical observations approximate the ideal type in terms of adequacy (Weber, 1946). The
concrete forms are contingent upon cultural and historical contexts. In research on institutional
logics, an ideal type logic is extracted from existing literature and/or archival documents, and
then serves as the analytical construct to evaluate the influence of this logic across empirical
observations (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999).
In this study, I conceptualize the five ideal type logics (see Table 4) based on the existing
literature (see Berman, 2012; Goodrick & Reay, 2011; Townley, 1997; Trowler, 1998). For each
ideal type logic, some categories are directly borrowed from those in Table 3, and others are
e x tra c ted ba se d on e x ist i ng studi e s, such a s “c ontr ol over knowle d g e , ” “ pe r for manc e st a nda rds, ” “ c ontrol of w o rk pr oc e sses,” “ g oa l o f pr a c ti c e ,” “ e ntr y to p ra c ti c e ,” a nd “ e mpl o y m e nt st a tus”
(see Goodrick & Reay, 2011). The cells under each logic are elaborated to reflect the application
to the academic profession.
I add the Confucian element to the ideal type family logic defined by scholars in the West
(see Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012, or Table 2), for two considerations. Existing
organizational studies in East Asian countries, including China, have illuminated the significant
influence of Confucian culture on organizational thinking and behavior (e.g., Hall & Xu, 1990;
Hayhoe, 2005). The few studies in East Asian countries using institutional logics perspective
also highlight the influence of Confucianism (Bhappu, 2000). Further, adding the Confucian
element to the family logic rather than to other logic (e.g., Confucian family versus Confucian
state) is theoretically appropriate. In Confucian societies, family is the center of all relationships
and the backbone of social solidarity (Liu, 2004). Confucianism also originated from studying
family relationships (Liu, 2004). There is therefore natural and historical affinity between
Confucianism and family in Chinese society.
81

The Theoretical Framework
I propose five hypotheses. First, I expect that three of the five logics —the state, the
market, and the corporate —centrally blend to define academics and academic work, and this
blended centrality competes with the logic of the academic profession. The low compatibility of
these four logics, in theory, creates extensive conflict and confusion in defining, assessing, and
pursuing a c a d e mi c wor k, making the unive rsit y “ a c ontested o r g a niz a ti on” (B e sh a rov & S mi th,
2013). In practice, however, the state and the market logic are likely blending with each other,
given the prevailing model of a combined strong state and free market economy that has
penetrated various spheres in Chinese society, including higher education. The corporate also
blends with the state and the market logic, given the increased government demand for
e va luatin g univer sit ies’ p e rf or man c e so t ha t t he y b e st s e rve the e c onomi c n e e ds of Chi na ’s
modernization. I expect a less important role of the academic profession in creating many
conflicts — at least not highly visible —with these three logics, particularly the state given that
Chinese academics have never possessed much autonomy under the state control (Lai, 2009; Lin,
2011). Additionally, I expect the Confucian family logic to compete primarily with logics of the
academic profession and the market. Overall, it is an intriguing question to examine how these
logics interact to shape academic life at the case study university.
S e c ond, mul ti ple log ics c oe x ist to sh a pe both uni v e rsit y poli c ies a nd a c a de mi c s’
interpretations and responses. At the university level, which logic is available, accessible, and
actually activated in the change to increase accountability and pursue prestige depends on the
position of a university within this field (e.g., ranking status), the ownership and governance
structure of the university, the professional background and interests of the university leadership,
and the structural dimensions of Chinese higher education as a field (e.g., centralized,
82

decentralized, fragmented, etc.). At the individual level, which logic is available, accessible, and
a c tuall y a c ti va ted d e pe nd s on t he indi vidual a c a de mi c ’s soc ial a nd pr of e ssi ona l bac k g round s,
training, and identities. For example, the academic professional logic and the state logic likely
have different influence on academics with different ideological views of or exposure to shared
governance and academic freedom.
Third, a c a d e mi c s’ inter p r e tation of the top -down change initiatives to academic life is
shaped by their focus of attention and sensemaking individually and socially. Individually, such
cognitive processes are shaped by varied availability and accessibility of logics depending on
their social and professional backgrounds, training, identities, and power configurations at the
university. For example, facing a top-down change of performance-based salary with an
emphasis on research productivity, the focus of attention and interpretation will likely different
between deans and faculty or between teaching faculty and research faculty. Socially,
sensemaking and sensegiving become iterative as academics interact with one another. Frames
and narratives about the changing academic profession in general or at the case study university
are crafted or emerge naturally in the social sensemaking and sensegiving processes. These
frames and narratives appeal to some individuals but rejected by others. They are not necessarily
correct or true. But they serve to create fragmented identifications and provide the base for
potential collective mobilization that has greater power to shape the change direction.
F ourth, a n a c a d e mi c ’s g o a ls, i de nti ti e s, and powe r c onfig u ra ti ons a t t he uni ve rsit y will shape his or her decisions and responses in important ways. In other words, interpretation does
not necessarily predict decisions and responses. For example, someone may disagree with a
policy change that increases monitoring of teaching but still chooses to comply, because not
83

doing so might result in the loss of employment, or when doing so would help achieve other
individual goals.
Lastly, there is no fixed or monolithic university identity, be it research university, world-
class university, or modern innovative Chinese university as commonly proposed by policy
makers in China. Rather, the university identity is fragmented and contested, because individual
academics adhere to different combinations of multiple logics and have different interests and
goals for their work. Accordingly, they employ multiple and sometimes competing strategies to
attain these goals. Any proposed changes to faculty hiring and promotion will appeal to certain
identities, practices, and logics, while soliciting oppositions from others. As a result, the enacted
change will inevitably be a compromise between the multiplicity and contestation of logics.
Overall, this theoretical framework deals with organizational phenomena of decoupling
and recoupling via sensemaking as universities and their academics face increased accountability
and prestige demands. This framework captures the varying extent of coupling at multiple levels:
between societal-level and field- leve l l o g ics a nd th e univer sit y poli c i e s, bet we e n a c a d e mi c s’
int e rpr e tations of the se lo g ics a nd univer sit y poli c y goa ls, a nd be twe e n a c a de mi c s’
interpretations and responses. The varied extent of coupling speaks to the intricacies of
embedded agency across the micro, meso, and macro levels. It also challenges the traditional
dichotomous assumption of schools and universities as decoupled system. Academics are
influenced by multiple logics in different ways under different circumstances. Any change to
increase accountability or pursue prestige will resonate with some logics, identities, and practices,
but invoke resistance from others, leading to varied forms and extent of coupling. More
importantly, such dynamics will change, as new events in or outside the university create new
84

opportunities for sensemaking, decision-making, and collective mobilization. These intra-
organizational processes therefore create fragmented and fluid organizational realities.

85

Chapter Three Methods
I follow interpretive paradigm in organization research and utilize an instrumental case
study approach. In broad terms, I adopt a qualitative approach to examine the intra-university
dynamics facing top-down, exogenous policies for accountability and prestige. Traditionally,
hig he r e duc a ti on poli c y r e se a r c h ha s be e n r e li e d o n qua nti tative a na l y sis ;; y e t, an “ ove rr e li a n c e on one pa rticula r r e s e a r c h a pproa c h c a n le a d to bl ind sp ots i n the f ield” ( H e c k, 2004, p. 181) .
When it comes to studying the changing academic profession in China as well as more broadly,
the “ bli nd spot s” a re the l oc a li z e d, va rie d pro c e sse s maske d b y stru c tura l si mi lar it y in m a n y universities around the world (e.g., increased performance assessments, disproportionate
emphasis on research over teaching, increasing emphasis on technology transfer and economic
value of research, etc.). As such, qualitative research is well-suited to develop a
complementary —and equally powerful —understanding.
In what follows, I first discuss interpretive paradigm in organizational research and its
applicability in this study. Next, I discuss the case study tradition, its application to studying the
changing academic profession, and its utility for this study. Then, I outline the steps that I have
used to collect and analyze data. Lastly, I lay out ways that I have used to ensure trustworthiness
and address ethical and political considerations.
Paradigmatic Assumptions and Positionality
Interpretive paradigm in organizational research views individuals as socially and
symbolically constructing their own organizational realities (Morgan & Smircich, 1980).
Therefore, interpretive paradigm assumes subjective and multiple truths inextricably intertwined
within the social contexts. An empirical study is a particular rendering or interpretation of the
socially constructed reality (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Further, this particular interpretation is not
86

only co- c onst ruc ted a mo ng or ga niz a ti ona l m e mber s, but a lso deve loped thr oug h r e se a rc he rs’ dialogue with his or her theoretical orientations and the data under collection (Bigdan & Biklen,
2007; Riessman, 2008). Therefore, the goal of organizational research is not to capture an
“ objec ti ve ” re a li t y , but t o g e n e ra t e mul ti ple inter pr e tations of e ve nts and the ir implications for
ongoing actions (Gioia & Pitre, 1990).
For this study, my assumption is that any university policy change to faculty hiring,
promotion, evaluation, or development is an evolving process mediated by interpretation. The
change on the ground varies in the extent to which change agents provide fixed meanings, the
extent to which new meanings are negotiated, and the extent to which alternative meanings are
created or made available. For example, a university may have a new or revised faculty
promotion system, an action plan, and an official symbol that signifies its espoused mission to
become more accountable or more prestigious. However, individuals act not according to what
the university officially claims it to be, but according to how they see it. For some, the change
may provide an opportunity to advance their career; for some, the change may create epistemic
distress; for some, the change may be just another slogan or fad. The possibilities go on. The
point is that the way individuals view the change in relation to their own goals, interests, and
identities shape their actions, although the formal rules may set certain limits in their actions.
Therefore, my objective is to understand through the eyes of the participants what the changing
policies of faculty hiring, promotion, and evaluation mean to them and to their ongoing actions.
At the same time, this study is also an interpretive act shaped by my subjectivity in
several ways. As a former college faculty in China, I share and understand some of the
pa rticipa nts’ thou g hts an d a c ti ons. As a n e du c a ti o n re se a rc he r, I view th e c a se a s use ful da ta to
illuminate the hidden complexity of changing faculty life in China masked by the structural
87

similarity. Further, I develop an interpretation of the case through making choices on which
theoretical perspectives to use, how to collect and analyze data, and what meanings to infer and
convey to readers. In other words, I make interpretive decisions at every step of the research
process. Each interpretive decision renders some aspects of the story more apparent and other
aspects invisible. Throughout this chapter, I make explicit to readers my assumptions and
rationales for these decisions.
The Case Study Tradition and Its Utility for Studying the Changing Academic Profession
Case study serves as an appropriate form of inquiry for this study for four reasons,
including (a) in-depth focus on a single phenomenon, (b) anchoring in real life context, (c)
attention to particularity, and (d) developing a narrative of the case (Bigdan & Biklen, 2007;
Stake, 1978, 2005; Thomas, 2011). First, case study is not a method in itself. Rather, it is a focus
on one thing, be it a group, an institution, a policy, looked at in depth from multiple sources (e.g.,
observations, interviews, surveys, and documents) and at great length. As Stake (2005) suggests:
C a se stud y is no t a me th odolog ica l c hoice but a c hoice of w ha t i s to b e stu died…B y whatever methods we choose to study the case. We could study it analytically or
holistically, entirely by repeated measures or hermeneutically, organically or culturally,
and by mixed methods —but we concentrate, at least for the time being, on the case. (p.
443)
I n othe r w or ds, c a se stud y r e se a rc he rs “ thi nk sm a l l but drill de e p” , usi ng di fferent methods and
drilling from different directions, in order to elevate a view of the case in its complexity (Thomas,
2011). This advantage lends itself well to studying the change process to improve quality at this
case study institution which is inevitably complex, dynamic, and requires extensive and in-depth
focus.
88

Second, case study (indeed all forms of qualitative inquiry) stresses understanding the
case in real life context which gives historical and cultural significance of the case under study.
Organizational change to improve quality involves action. Action is best understood when
observed in the setting in which it occurs. These settings must be understood in the historical life
of which they are a part, i.e., where, how, and under what circumstances these actions have come
int o be ing ( B o g da n & B ikl e n, 2007) . F or c a s e stud y r e se a rc h, thi s setti ng b e c omes the “ bound e d
s y stem” (Cre sw e ll , 2007) in whic h r e se a rc he rs “ m a rk out” th e c a se to b e st udied (T homas, 2011 ).
For this study, the case is bounded by the phenomenon (i.e., policy changes in faculty hiring,
promotion, and evaluation), the unit of study (i.e., this participating university), the finite number
of people that can be studied, the location (i.e., a major city in China), and the larger context (i.e.,
the historical, geo-political, and socio-cultural environment in which this university is embedded)
(Yin, 2009).
Third, c a se stud y f o c uses on the pa rticula rit y ( Tho mas, 2011) . I n S take ’s ( 1 995) wor ds,
c a se stud y is “stud y of pa rticula riz a ti on” ( p. 8). W ha t i s hap pe ning a nd de e med importa nt wit hin
a bounded system —the emic —is considered vital and usually determines what the study is about
(Stake, 1978). Researchers focus on what individuals in the setting experience the case, how they
interpret their experiences, and how they structure the social world in which they live in (Thomas,
2011) . Unde rsta ndin g s of the c a se e mer ge inductivel y f rom r e s e a r c he rs ’ imm e rsion in and
holistic regard for the case (Stake, 1978). The attention to particularity makes generalization of
finding s not the g oa l of c a se stud y . Thr ou g h de s c r ipt ions o f the c a se “ thi c kl y ” a nd vica riousl y ,
re a de rs r e c o g niz e e leme n ts of the c a se that a re o f inte re st t o them, a nd e n ga g e in “ na tura li sti c g e n e ra li z a ti on” ( S take , 1 978).
89

Fourth, case study researchers usually develop a narrative to make sense of multiple data
sources and present the particular case in its complexity (Thomas, 2011). A narrative is a line of
inquiry running through the study, which helps researchers decide the extent to which the case
has been understood, what pieces are missing, and when data collection reaches saturation
(Thomas, 2011). Through developing a narrative, researchers make connections among disparate
data, identify the interrelatedness of emerging themes, and construct a whole story of the case.
Hence, developing a narrative is essentially making arguments to understand and present the case.
The quality of a case study is determined by the extent of integrity and coherence in how data are
weaved together from multiple sources to address the narrative (Thomas, 2011).
Case study has been frequently used to understand the changing universities and their
faculty facing accountability or prestige concerns. I have discussed many of these studies in
Chapter Two. For example, Gioia and his colleagues (1991, 1994, 1996) used case study to
understand how members of a public research institution made sense of its attempt to become a
top ten institution. Sauder and Espeland (2009) conducted a case study to understand how law
schools at multiple institutions respond to rankings under increased accountability pressures.
Tr owle r ( 1998 ) studied a c a de mi c s’ v a rie d re spons e s to a top -down change initiative at a
university in UK. Gonzales (2013) studied how faculty at a regional, teaching-focused, Hispanic-
serving institution made sense of their identities, when the institution strived to become a tier one
re se a rc h unive rsit y . O ’M e a ra a nd B loom ga rde n (2 011) foc used on th e purs uit of pr e sti g e a t a
liberal arts college and examined how faculty perceived the origins of such pursuit and redefined
their institutional and professional identity. These researchers were able to develop compelling
stories of organizational change through integrating rich data from multiple sources bounded
within a particular setting.
90

Case study has been the most frequently used form of inquiry in the limited number of
studies about changing academic profession in China. Most of them use qualitative case study
methods (Gong & Li, 2010; Lai, 2010; Li, Lai, & Lo, 2013; Li, Li, & Sun, 2013; Lin, 2011;
Yang & Welch, 2012; Zhang, 2013; Zhou & Zha, 2010), and a few use quantitative methods
(Kuang, 2007; Li, Li, & Qu, 2006; Li & Zhong, 2013). These studies focus on a single university
(e.g., Yang & Welch, 2012; Zhang, 2012) or multiple ones (usually three) of similar or different
ranking status (e.g., Gong & Li, 2010; Ho, 2006; Mohrman, 2011; Zhou & Zha, 2010). These
studies pay a greater attention to structural changes adopted by universities, relying on existing
documents available online or only accessible to researchers. With only a few exceptions (e.g.,
Li, Lai, & Lo, 2013; Li, Li, & Sun, 2013; Lin, 2011), these studies are usually atheoretical, more
descriptive than analytical. Relying on official documents and lacking interpretive data, these
studies tend to suggest similarity across institutions over nuanced dynamics. However, it should
be noted that given the political sensitivity of conducting micro-level empirical research in China,
these studies have significantly contributed to a better understanding of the changing Chinese
universities and their academics facing accountability and prestige concerns.
Research Design
Before presenting the detailed design, I foreground this study in terms of its purpose,
approach, and process in broad case study methodological terms (Stake, 2005; Thomas, 2011).
First, the purpose of this case study is instrumental, exploratory, and explanatory. It is an
instrumental case study (Stake, 2005), because it not only helps to explain changing faculty lives
at the university under study, but also illuminates issues for similar types of universities. It is also
instrumental in the sense that as one of the first to empirically examine the changing faculty life
in Chinese higher education, it is my goal that this study will help encourage more empirical
91

research on this topic. Further, this is an exploratory case study (Thomas, 2011) in terms of being
among the first to examine intra-organizational dynamics under top-down changes to faculty
lives. This is also exploratory in the sense that it is the first to apply multiple organizational
theories to Chinese higher education context, as discussed in Chapter Two. At the same time, this
is an explanatory case study, given the background provided by the case (Thomas, 2011). By
trading breadth of coverage for depth of understanding, this case study will have the potential to
offer explanations for the change processes and outcomes. Second, this study takes an
interpretive approach in that it seeks to understand the interpretations and actions of academics,
as well as to explicate why they choose to do so. Third, in terms of the process, this study is a
single organization case study.
Place and Use of Theories
Interpretive researchers struggle with the appropriate place of theory. Too much reliance
on theory makes individuals become exemplars of theoretical propositions, and blinds
researchers from discovering the particularity emic of the case (Stake, 1978). Too little attention
to theory makes research become an aimless, unsystematic piling up of accounts (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). In the words of Taylor and Trujillo (2001) in describing research under
interpretive paradigm:
The or y …is h e ld i n tension a s a r e sou rc e e stabli shing the si g nific a nc e of the ethnographic
a r g ument, a nd a s a powe rf ul “ha mm e r ” that ma y potentiall y shatter it s emi c c ha r a c te r. I n
thi s vi e w, the g oa l o f inte rpr e ti vist r e se a rc h is t o c ontribut e to…t he or y without succumbing to positivist tendencies toward totalization and reductionism. (p. 184)
Interpretive paradigm encourages researchers to immerse themselves in data and use theory more
as a theoretical orientation than a priori (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Researchers should suspend
92

the use of theory until they have first achieved a holistic initial understanding (Taylor & Trujillo,
2001) . I n int e rpr e ti ve c a s e stud y , r e se a rc h e rs use t he or y a s the “ g lue” to m a ke sense of th e massive amount of data from multiple sources (Thomas, 2011). Theories help researchers see
links between ideas, notice where patterns exist, abstract ideas, and develop a compelling
narrative of the case.
Before collecting data, I bore in mind multiple organizational theories, including those
reviewed in Chapter Two as well as contingency theory and political theory
13
, with particular
attention to institutional logics, inhabited institutionalism, sensemaking, and organizational
culture. I was aware that some may be more useful than others, or additional theories may turn
out important. This awareness was important, given that little empirical research on this topic
exists to provide clue of what theories may be useful. As Eisner (1991) suggests, in making sense
of qualitative data, no single theory is likely to be adequate, and no single theory can be
anticipated to be useful. It is through the dialogue between theory and data that a narrative, a
plausible, and convincing insight of what is happening gradually takes shape (Eisner, 1991).
As the study unfolded, I found that institutional logics provided an overarching
framework that best complemented by perspectives from inhabited institutionalism and
recoupling, new institutionalism and decoupling, and organizational culture. I also found that
sensemaking provided an overarching tool to link these perspectives. Ac a de mi c s’ soc ial a nd
professional backgrounds as well as other power positions provide anchoring points in
understanding individual sensemaking process. The theoretical framework and the ideal type
institutional logics presented in Chapter Two (see Figure 1 and Table 4) were built based on

13
I did not include contingency theory or political theory in Chapter Two, because they have proved less useful than
those included.
93

these preliminary findings during initial data collection, and proved to be useful and appropriate
as the guiding framework for data analysis and discussion.
Site
Research University of China (RUC, a pseudonym) is the case study university. On one
hand, RUC is a convenience case in that it is the only Project 985 university that I have gained
access to the top administrative team for the support of this study. On the other hand, RUC is
also a key case (Thomas, 2011). The scant research on changing academic profession in China
focuses on the few elitist institutions in the most economically developed regions (e.g., Tsinghua
University, Peking University, Zhejiang University). RUC is, arguably, more representative of
the large number of less elite universities in Project 211 and Project 985. With fewer financial
and personnel resources, these universities may struggle to emulate development paths of those
more elite ones, or they may be actively seeking their own innovative paths.
RUC
14
is a key national university located in a large city that is not Beijing or Shanghai.
It has 30 colleges that spans across science, engineering, humanities, social sciences, architecture,
and professional schools of management and law. Current enrollment reaches a total of over
50,000 st ude nts, o f w hic h 20,000 a re maste r’ s an d doc tora l st ude nts and 3 0,000 a re undergraduate students. RUC now hires a total number of 5,600 faculty and staff members,
among which about 2900 are full-time faculty. RUC is one of the Project 211 and the Project 985
universities with joint financial support from the central and local government. In 2013, RUC
was ranked between 10 and 30 in various national rankings of comprehensive research
universities in China. Its eng in e e rin g a nd a r c hit e c t ur e pro g r a ms ar e ra nk e d a mong the n a ti on’s

14
I slightly modified the demographic information to ensure anonymity. I made references to Beijing and Shanghai
for two reasons. These two most economically developed cities have the most well-known universities in China and
internationally. These two cities as well as the universities located in them are common reference points among
academics elsewhere in China, including the participants at RUC. In addition, these two cities are probably the most
well-known Chinese cities internationally, with the more collaboration with other universities around the world.
94

top ten. RUC strives to develop itself into a first-class comprehensive research university in
China, with unique characteristics and international fame.
Sampling and Participants
According the Merriam (1988), sampling for a case study includes sampling of the case
and then sampling participants within the case. To select participants, I used stratified, purposive,
and snowball sampling. Purposive sampling is based on the assumption that the researcher aims
to “disc ove r, und e rsta nd, a nd ga in i nsig ht and the r e for e must sele c t a sa mpl e f rom w hich the most c a n be lea rne d” (M e rr iam, 1998) . S tra ti fie d purpo sive sa mpl ing tak e s int o a c c ount
subgroups within the case and helps making comparisons across subgroups (Creswell, 2007). I
selected through three broad levels, including top administrative team, middle level academic
leaders and administrators, and faculty, with each group consisting further subgroups (discussed
below). I put greater effort to sample academics as they are the focus of this study. In addition,
snowball sampling was used through which I asked each participant if they could refer me to
other individuals that would be willing to speak with me (Merriam, 1998). Overall, the goal was
to gather multiple perspectives, and less about selecting a statistically representative sample in
relation to the administrative and faculty population at RUC.
The double appointment of faculty and administrative work should be noted for readers
unfamiliar with Chinese higher education. As pointed out in Chapter One, mid- and high-level
administrators are first and foremost academics. During the time of data collection, RUC was
initiating a personnel reform of strictly separating administrative and academic hiring and
promotion. Such change only affected the participants in this sample minimally. With four
exceptions, all administrators in this sample were also employed academically. Among the four
95

administrators, three of them used to be affiliated with an academic department before the
change, and one of them was hired after the initiation of the new policy.
Sampling top administrative team . RUC ’s top a d mi nist ra ti ve tea m consist s of te n
individuals, including a university president, a communist party secretary, an executive vice
president, an executive vice party secretary, two vice party secretary, and four vice presidents.
One of the vice presidents is in charge of the drafting strategic plan for comprehensive reform.
All the ten individuals are male, aging between 45 and 65 years old. All of them joined the
communist party early in their lives. Six of them graduated from RUC. The party secretary and
the vice president in charge of quality improvement are of education background; the rest of the
top administrative leaders are of science and engineering backgrounds. I had planned to include
the president and the vice president in charge of the strategic plan, both of whom were non-RUC
graduates, and the party secretary who graduated from RUC. However, only the vice president in
charge of the strategic plan was willing to participate.
Sampling middle-level academic leaders and administrators. Criteria for sampling the
heads of the 28 colleges and departments included discipline, ranking status, and size. First,
academic disciplines (e.g., hard pure, hard applied, soft pure, soft applied) (Biglan, 1973) are
known to have different ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions about
knowledge and different ways of defining and evaluating faculty work. I sampled all four kinds
of disciplines, with greater emphasis on engineering schools and departments which, as the
founding disciplines of RUC, employ the largest number of faculty and enroll the largest number
of students. Second, particular to this study is the varying prestige of different schools and
departments at RUC, given that the overarching goal is to improve domestic and international
recognition as a research university. I sampled both higher ranked and lower ranked schools and
96

departments. Third, the size of the schools or departments certainly influences its resources and
thus power dynamics with top administrative team. I sampled the large, medium, and small size
schools and departments. There were 14 mid-level academic leaders and administrators in the
sample (see Table 5). Some of them were recruited by snowballing sampling, and others were
recruited through an email invitation.
Sampling faculty. RUC currently hires about 2900 full-time faculty, among which 1800
are full or associate professors. Faculty sampling is an additional layer of sampling based on the
sampling of schools and departments. All three characteristics used to sample disciplines and
departments will certainly influence faculty responsibilities, role orientations, and work habits
(Biglan, 1973; Clark, 1997). Within each of the selected school and department, faculty will be
sampled based on faculty status (full, associate, lecturer), their education training background,
employment status (traditional Chinese track, tenure track), and gender.
First, faculty status will be an important consideration. Although Chinese higher
education does not have a tenure system, faculty are rarely fired. In fact, higher education faculty
are considered stable or even lifetime employment. However, more senior and higher status
faculty certainly possess different power, have formed different work habits and identities, and
are thus affected in different ways compared to younger and lower status faculty.
Faculty training and education background in terms of their terminal degree and where
they were trained is another important attribute to consider. As previously mentioned, until about
two decades ago, research Chinese higher education was concentrated in various science and
social science academies affiliated with the central government. Faculty at institutions such as
RUC were mainly in charge of teaching. Doctoral degree training was not a requirement for
faculty hiring until about more than a decade ago. With the increasing emphasis on research,
97

more recently hired faculty have earned a doctoral degree from a Chinese or an overseas
institution. In some soft- a ppli e d discipl ines, suc h a s Eng li sh, r e c e nt g r a dua tes w it h a master ’s
degree are still hired. Further, the issue of internal breeding used to be a serious issue across
C hinese hig he r e duc a ti on, including R UC (Mohr m a n, Ge n g , & W a n g , 2011 ). H iring on e ’s ow n
graduates used to be commonly accepted, mainly because of the under supply of doctoral
recipients during a time of rapid higher education expansion. Many universities now restrict
hiring their own graduates to a minimum, due to the increasing number of Ph.D. graduates from
China and overseas as well as the slowdown of higher education expansion since 2007.
Employment status is a critical factor in sampling faculty at RUC. One of the recent
major change at RUC was the initiation of tenure-track system in 2011 to recruit doctoral degree
recipients from overseas. As summarized in Chapter One, the tenure-track system is borrowed
from the U.S. system and usually uses the same 3+3 structure, using the end of third year as the
mid-term review. Faculty members hired on this track are paid a much higher salary than those
on the traditional Chinese track. The flipside is that tenure-track faculty members do not enjoy
the kind of “ iron - bo wl” p rote c ti on usuall y a ssocia t e d with tra dit ional C hinese tra c k. Additi ona ll y , in terms of sex, previous research indicates that female faculty sometimes prefer and are also
more often assigned heavier teaching loads then male faculty (Winslow, 2010). Thus, female
faculty may view the shifts to evaluate teaching and emphasize research outputs in different
ways than their male peers.
The majority of the final sample of faculty was recruited by a personal email invitation
and the rest was recruited by snowball sampling. They were recruited in three phases. First,
many difficulties arose in the recruitment process. My initial recruitment plans were all rejected,
including asking Office of the Personnel to send out an email invitation to all faculty on my
98

behalf, asking the Information and Technology Department to send out an email invitation to all
faculty on my behalf, and asking targeted individual departments and schools to send out an
email invitation to their faculty on my behalf. Therefore, in this phase I relied on snowball
sampling by asking faculty in the Institute of Higher Education to recommend participants. In the
se c ond pha se , I c oll e c t e d the e mail i nf or mation of a ll f a c ult y publi c a ll y a va il a ble on RUC’s
website. I then sent a personal email invitation to 100 faculty members with a balanced pool
based on departments, faculty rank, sex, and employment status. 30 of them responded and were
willing to participate. In the third phase, I continued sending personal email invitation with
emphasis on recruiting faculty underrepresented in the participation pool. I invited 50 faculty
with 15 of them responded and were willing to participate.
The final faculty participants with no administrative titles consisted of 45 faculty
members. Table 7 presents the detailed information of faculty background. There were 28 faculty
employed on the traditional Chinese track that consisted of 13 full professors, 12 associate
professors, and three lecturers. There were 17 participants employed on the tenure-track or
tenured, including 15 assistant professors and two tenured full professors. There were 11 female
and 34 male participants. 17 of the 45 participants hold a doctoral degree from RUC, compared
to 14 participants that hold a master ’s o r doc tora l d e gr e e fr om anothe r Chinese univer sit y a nd 20
participants that hold a doctoral degree or post-doc from an overseas university.
Data Collection
I collected data through documents, interviews, open-ended questionnaires, and
observations, all of which are customary and commonly used data collection methods in case
study research (Stake, 1995; Thomas, 2011; Yin, 2009). Case study methodology collects data
from mul ti ple sour c e s in o rde r to g a in a full pi c tur e of “ wh a t i s hap pe nin g ” (Sta ke, 1978;
99

Thomas, 2011). Collecting multiple sources of information is important because no single source
of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective (Patton, 2002). Multiple
sources also contribute to the triangulation of the data —an important process and criterion to
ensure the trustworthiness of case study qualitative research (indeed all qualitative inquiries)
(Stake, 1995). Not only are the four types of data commonly collected in case study research, I
used them collectively to examine the varied extent of coupling between intra-organizational
identities, processes, and actions, and external institutional logics. Official documents provided
information of what is said and unsaid; observation provided information of what is done
explicitly and tacitly; and interviews and open-ended questionnaires provided information of
what is said and unsaid, as well as to some extent what is done and undone.
I collected data in three phases. Between June and late August 2014 (i.e., before the
c a mpus visi t), I re view e d publi c doc uments a va il a ble on RUC’s we bsit e to fa mi li a riz e m y se lf
with the case and have an initial selection of schools and departments. The second phase was the
campus visit between late August and mid-November. I conducted interviews with the
participants described previously and conducted observations of events, activities, and facilities.
The third phase involved interviews with more participants over the phone or the internet as well
as follow-up review of their newly released documents. This phase began with the conclusion of
campus visit and lasted till March 2014.
Documents . Ac c or ding t o L incoln a nd Guba ( 198 5) , “ doc uments c a n be a r ich sour c e of
information, contextually relevant and grounded in the contexts they represe nt” ( p. 277) . As a form of previously-generated social data, documents have the ability to influence and structure
actions as effectively as individuals influence and structure the documents (Woodhouse, 2006).
Therefore, documents usually constitute as an important source of triangulating data in
100

qualitative and social science research. Documents are particularly useful to explore multiple and
conflicting voices as well as differing and interacting interpretations (Hodder, 2000). In this
study, I expected official documents to suggest a more uniform voice than diverse perspectives,
given the political control in Chinese higher education. Nevertheless, documents provided
valuable source of data about what is said and unsaid with which what is done and undone could
be compared and examined.
I collected four types of documents: current national policy documents, historical
university documents, current relevant university policy documents, and currently published
relevant news articles. Current national policy documents provided the general context and
policy directions for understanding the case at RUC. This set of data is important given the
overarching steering role of the central government. This set of documents included all relevant
documents available on the websites of three agencies: the Ministry of Education of China, the
National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the National Planning Office of Philosophy
and Social Sciences. Second, historical documents helped to situate the case at RUC. Historical
situatedness is essential to case study methodology, particularly under interpretative paradigm
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Historical documents included two books about the history of RUC
published by its own university press and documents about this history gathered from the internet.
Third, current policies about ongoing and impending changes to faculty hiring, promotion, and
evaluation were collected. This source of data provided insight into how changes were espoused
for implementation at the university as well as school and department level. These documents
we re ga ther e d fr om univ e rsit y w e bsit e . F ou rth, c u rr e nt re l e va nt ne ws a rticl e s on R UC’s we bsit e s, R UC’s of fic ial onli ne f or ums o n popular socia l m e dia ( e . g ., w e ibo t he C hinese e quivale nt o f
101

twitter), and news reports by other media were also collected. This source of data provided
information about how changes were presented to the public.
Interviews. I conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews to gather information that
could not be obtained through documents or observation. Interviews are usually the primary
source of data collection in case study research (Merriam, 1998). Open-ended, semi-structured
int e rvie ws pr ovide the fle x ibi li t y to prob e r e sponses, a da pt questi ons t o indi viduals’ unique experiences, and detect emerging themes and variations (Spradley, 1979). In this study,
interviews were the primary source of data which allowed me to capture how faculty, academic
leaders, and administrators interpret the changing faculty life. At the same time, through
interviewing participants at three levels, i.e., top administrative team, mid-level academic and
administrative leaders, and faculty, I was able to examine the extent of decoupling and
recoupling by focusing on how changes were publically defined or espoused, how they were
interpreted and then enacted.
Usually, interviews are digitally recorded to provide a sufficient amount of data via
transcription for data analysis. In this study, I did not record the interviews and instead relied on
my written notes during the interview and my voice summary notes after the interview. Before
collecting data, my assumption based on my knowledge of Chinese higher education was that
note-taking would create less fear and greater rapport with participants, given the political
control and limited freedom of speech. This assumption was repeatedly confirmed at the pre-
interview stage with participants, who asked me not to record but allowed me to take notes. I
instead took extensive notes and then recorded the notes as well as my initial interpretations into
voice memos after each interview. There were, however, two exceptions where participants were
102

quite comfortable of being recorded. Both participants had overseas learning experience in North
America, with one holding a Ph.D. and the other having a post-doctoral experience.
The interviews lasted between thirty-five minutes to two hours. Each participant was
interviewed once, with two exceptions. The vice president was interviewed twice, with each
lasting more than one and a half hours. One school dean was also interviewed twice, with each
lasting more than two hours.
Open-ended questionnaires. Open-ended questionnaire is a common form of data
collection method in qualitative research (Johnson & Turner, 2005; Patton, 2005). The strengths
include inexpensive for the researcher, quick turnaround time, and high perceived anonymity by
respondents; the weaknesses include vague answers resulting in the lack of depth of information,
non-response to select questions, and must be kept short (Johnson & Turner, 2005). In this study,
I did not initially plan to use this form of data collection. But three of the faculty participants
who agreed to participate after I left RUC suggested using open-ended questions in writing. They
suggested that this form was more convenient for them as they could choose to finish answering
the questions at multiple times at their ease. The questions were the major ones I asked during
interviews. Fortunately, the answers given by the three participants were sufficient and clear.
Observations. Formal and informal observations are considered the fundamental base of
qualitative research (Adler & Adler, 1994). In case study research, observations are conducted to
triangulate data collected through documents and interviews (Merriam, 1998). Observations
provide a source of data that is usually unique and inaccessible through interviews or documents.
For example, observations provide information about (a) routine practices that have become
taken for granted and become unaware of participants, (b) tacit rules that participants
intentionally avoid talking about but follow in practices, (c) the disconnect between what is said
103

and what is done, and (d) reference points for interviews (Merriam, 1998; Spradley, 1980).
Given the political control and limited freedom of speech in Chinese higher education,
observations provide a valuable source of data for these aforementioned advantages. However,
conducting observations is challenging. To begin with, observations are typically time-and
energy-consuming. Further, when conducting observations, researchers may find the gathered
data of limited relevance to the study (Stake, 1995). The value of observational data to the study
often cannot be seen until later stage, because connections among themes and variations in the
triangulated data usually do not emerge until the researcher enters the later stage of data analysis
or even writing up the results.
I collected formal and informal observational data, where I acted as a non-participant
observer in both settings. Formal observations included seven administrative meetings, five at
the department level with department or school leaders and a top administrative team, one at the
department level participated by academic leaders and faculty, and one at the university level
participated by the top administrative team and administrative representatives from each of the
academic and non-academic units. None of these meetings initially aimed to discuss faculty
related issues. However, these meetings were around the time of annual faculty promotion and
evaluation. Discussions of faculty issues emerged naturally, all in the form of department or
school leaders voicing concerns to the top leadership team or to other department or school
leaders. Besides taking extensive notes of these meetings, I paid particular attention to the
physical settings and artifacts in the environment, what was formally said and espoused, what
values and rules were tacitly emphasized for whose benefits, how the topics related to faculty
were brought up and discussed, and who participated in the discussion. In addition, no individual
104

asked me about who I was, my role or my intention of participation, probably assuming I was
employed by RUC.
Informal observations included observing physical settings and artifacts of RUC and ten
one-hour bus-ride with faculty between the main campus and the newly built campus in the
suburbs. Two of the ten bus-rides were scheduled due to that a few faculty participants worked at
the newly built campus. These two bus-rides were after the deadline of submitting materials for
faculty promotion at RUC. Eight of the ten bus-rides were prior to that deadline. I did the bus-
ride s int e nti ona ll y to g a t he r da ta a bout fa c ult y ’s i nf or mal dis c u ssions about the promotion
policies. Being former faculty at another Chinese university that also arranged bus-rides for
faculty between campuses, I knew that information gathered during bus-rides might be valuable.
This was also confirmed by an associate dean at a formal meeting, who asked the top leadership
team to take the bus-rides to understand faculty concerns. During seven of the ten bus-rides, I
obser ve d f a c ult y ’s c onv e rsa ti ons whe n the y w e re re late d to f a c ult y li f e . I n t he se oc c a sions ,
faculty members either next to me or behind me were having active conversations with others
including teaching, doing research, international exchange, the annual evaluation, among other
things. I took brief notes on my phone on the bus and extensive notes about what was discussed
after I got home.
During three of the ten bus-rides, no faculty member around me was having such
conversations. Instead, I struck up casual conversations with the one sitting next to me, without
revealing that my purpose of taking the bus-rides was to collect observational data. Brief
questions about my role and purpose of being at RUC as well as my dissertation came up
sometimes. Among the many things that were talked about, conversations related to this study
included the exchange of information about comparing life in the two countries, including
105

academic life, major trends in Chinese higher education since I left China in 2007, and
discussions of whether it would be wise to return to China as a faculty member after my degree. I
summarized the conversations into voice memos after the bus-ride and on the way home.
Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis is an iterative and recursive process where researchers go back
and forth between theory, data, and interpretations (Patton, 2002; Thomas, 2011). In qualitative
research, data analysis can begin at any given point in the study. In analyzing the large amount of
data from multiple sources, qualitative case study researchers aim to develop a meaningful and
convincing narrative (Thomas, 2011). Through developing a narrative, researchers make
connections among disparate data, identify the interrelatedness of emerging themes, and
construct a whole story of the case. Narrative thus is both a process, the ultimate goal, and the
criteria to determine quality of case study research by looking at the extent of integrity and
coherence in how data are weaved together (Thomas, 2011).
I took three steps to develop a plausible and convincing narrative. First, given the
unpredictability of data to be collected in relation to the proposed research plan, qualitative
researchers are encouraged to conduct an initial analysis of the emerging data in order to gauge
and modify research design if needed, such as the relevance of the theoretical frameworks and
the feasibility of prepared data collection plans. Gaining an initial understanding was particularly
important in this study, given the limited existing empirical research on this topic and the limited
application of proposed theories on this topic in Chinese higher education. As such, I conducted
an initial analysis of the data as they were being collected. After each interview, document
review, and observation, I took reflective notes in the margins, noting possible codes, themes,
questions, puzzles, as well as reference points for further data collection.
106

This step lasted throughout the entire data collection process and served different
purposes for each of the three phases of data collection. In the first phase of data collection prior
to the campus visit, initial data analysis of documents helped me to narrow the dimensions (e.g.,
whom to contact for what type of data) and to refine interview protocols. In the second phase of
data collection (i.e., during campus visit), initial data analysis was especially important at the
beginning as it helped me to revise the theoretical framework and to fine-tune the direction for
further data collection. For example, the logic of the corporation was added to the theoretical
framework midway through the campus visit after emerging as important. During the third phase
of data collection, initial data analysis up to the conclusion of the campus visit served to revise
the direction of further data collection in terms of whom to sample, and whether additional
interview questions should be asked.
The second step of data analysis involved compiling data from the documents, interview
and observation notes and uploading them into ATLAS.ti, a qualitative analysis software
package designed to organize and analyze large amounts of qualitative data. This step started
with the conclusion of the campus visit and concurrent with the third phase of data collection. I
used thematic analysis which includes inductive and deductive coding process (Boyatzis, 1998).
Deductive codes are those established by existing literature and theoretical perspectives;
inductive codes are those that gradually emerge from the data. I used deductive and inductive
coding dialectically, where I paid attention to what extent the literature and theory-driven codes
fit the data, as well as whether and how these deductive codes should be revised by emerging
codes.
The third step of data analysis started after completing coding all data. I attempted to
make sense of the coded categories and themes, bring order and meaningfulness to the data, and
107

develop and present a plausible, convincing, and vicarious story of the case. I paid less attention
to a the me’ s fr e que n c y than to unde rsta ndin g it s mea nin g a nd c ont e x t for pa rticipa nts
individually and collectively.
The five ideal types of academic profession determined by institutional logics (see Table
4) and the theoretical framework proposed in Chapter Two (see Figure 1) were useful tools in
these analytical steps. First, categories and concepts delineated by both tools provided a
comprehensive template of codes for analysis, particularly in step one and step two. Second, the
theoretical framework provided a map to organize the enormous amount of coded data, and to
disentangle the extent of alignment between university policies, individual interpretations, and
actions. Third, the ideal types of academic profession helped to explicate the underlying reasons
for conflicts.
Trustworthiness
All research is concerned with producing valid and reliable knowledge consistent with
research paradigms and traditions (Merriam, 1998). For qualitative research, researchers need to
ensure trustworthiness, i.e., whether the findings accurately capture what actually occurred in the
setting and are worthy of attention and consideration (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For case study,
trustworthiness can be achieved by carrying out the following steps and providing in writing: (a)
a rationale of why the case is selected, (b) paradigmatic assumptions, (c) information on
prolonged engagement in the setting, triangulating data collection, and analysis, (d) evidence of
the r e se a rc h e r’ s r e fle x ive dialog ue b e twe e n da ta a nd int e rpr e tations , ( e ) e vi de nc e that r iv a l
interpretations for the same observation are explored, (f) evidence on member-checking or peer
review, and (g) a vivid and compelling story (Bigdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2007; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Stake, 2005; Thomas, 2011). When case study researchers follow these steps to
108

ensure the rigor and present sufficient evidence for these steps in writing, it is up to the readers to
determine the value of the study (Bigdan & Biklen, 2007; Thomas, 2011) and engage in
“ na tura li sti c g e ne ra li z a ti on” ( S take , 1995, p. 95) .
I followed these steps to ensure trustworthiness of this case study. As shown in previous
sections, I explicitly discussed in detail my paradigmatic assumptions, the rationale of case and
participant selection, my data collection and analysis steps. In terms of member-checking, I
emailed each participant the sections where the information provided by he or she was used, in
order to check for accuracy, though less than one third of them responded. Finally, in presenting
the story in Chapter Four, I used thick description so that readers will be able to determine how
closely their situations match this case study situation, and therefore whether findings can be
transferred (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995).
In addition, I kept a research journal to keep track of my reflections and struggles and to
chronicle my decisions in each step of the study. This research journal was extremely valuable
on two accounts. First, it detailed my rationales for all decisions in data collection and analysis,
and revealed my assumptions through self-situating in social, cultural, and professional
background. As discussed earlier, this study was an interpretive act between me as the researcher
a nd the da ta b e in g c oll e c ted. “ …si nc e the re s e a r c he r is the pr im a r y inst ru ment for da ta c oll e c ti on, da ta ha ve b e e n filt e r e d th roug h his or h e r pa rticula r the or e ti c a l posi ti on a nd biase s” (Merriam,
1998, p. 216). In this sense, the research journal helped to curtail my subjectivity by revealing it.
Second, the research journal turned out extremely valuable in providing detailed steps and
strategies for gaining access and collecting qualitative data in a context with strong political
control and limited freedom of speech.
109

Ethical and Political Considerations
S take ( 1994) a r g ue s that “ qua li tative r e se a r c he rs a re g ue sts in t he priva te sp a c e s of th e world. Their manners should be good and th e ir c o de of e thi c s st ric t” (p. 24 4) . I n thi s ca se stud y ,
ethical and political considerations are important and challenging for a number of reasons. To
begin with, due to political control and limited freedom of speech, faculty and administrators
may feel a great deal of discomfort and even threatened when speaking to me about their feelings,
interpretations, and actions. Their rights are further unprotected in that there is no Institutional
Review Board (IRB) or similar type of organizational subunit in China, including RUC. Further,
higher education research through interviews is still underdeveloped in China. Individuals may
refuse to participate in this study or withdraw later due to unfamiliarity. As such, I took the
following steps to ensure ethical codes at each phase of this study, from gaining IRB approval to
disseminating research findings.
Submitting the study to IRB. Before data collection begins, I submitted my research
proposal to the IRB at University of Southern California (USC) and obtained permission for my
study. Although RUC does not have a similar subunit, I followed the same guidelines as if there
we re a n I R B . I shar e d wi th R UC’s top l e a de rship tea m m y re se a rc h obj e c ti ve s and plans dur in g our correspondence. I provided them with both an English version and a brief Chinese translation,
in orde r to e nha n c e r a ppo rt. I t shou ld be note d th a t I us e d wor ds such a s “un de rsta nd” a nd
“ e x plore ” a nd a void e d us ing wor ds su c h a s “ e x a mi ne ” a nd “ inv e sti g a t e ” du ring thes e correspondences. My rationale was that wo rds like “ e x a mi ne ” a nd “ investi ga te,” pa rticula rl y their Chinese translations, might connote a strong political and incorrect intention of this study,
a s if I we re to asse ss a nd moni tor the c a se . Additi o na ll y , wo rds suc h a s “un de rsta nd” a nd
“ e x plor e ” a nd their C hin e se tra nslati ons a r e the f r e que ntl y a c a de mi c lan g u a ge in C hina.
110

Using information sheet and informed consent. When conducting interviews and open-
ended questionnaires, I made clear my intentions of the study, and informed them of ways I
would use to protect their identities. Information sheet and informed consent in Mandarin were
provided in careful ways in order to create a safe enough space, where participants felt secure
and comfortable. On one hand, I made sure that the information sheet and informed consent were
easily understandable, and did not create potential discomfort due to their lack of familiarity with
this type of research. The potentially unequal researcher-participant relationship common in
qualitative research could be par ti c ula rl y s e rious in t his s tud y , g iven p a rtici pa nts’ unf a mi li a rit y with this type of protocol in education research. For example, the correspondence staff told me
that this was the first of such research that she knew, since she worked at RUC in that capacity
during the past six years. The challenge was to strike a balance between conveying the empirical
rigor of this study so that it would be taken seriously and creating a friendly and equal space so
that participants would not feel discomfort or uneasy.
On the other hand, while I used information sheet for all participants, I used informed
consent only with about one third of participants. These participants were either familiar with
this protocol, or wanted to participate but were fearful of having their identity exposed. My
rationale for not using the informed consent was that I was repeatedly told by faculty in the
Higher Education Institute at RUC and a few administrators not to use informed consent,
because it would likely cause confusion and fear. Therefore, I relied more on the information
sheet than the informed consent. Information on the information sheet was included in every
email invitation. In each interview, I also repeatedly let participants know their rights to
participate and withdraw from the study at any time. I also let them know that they could contact
IRB at USC if they felt threatened.
111

Disseminating results . I wa s ca re ful in prote c ti ng pa rticipa nts and RUC ’s i de nti t y . RUC was a pseudonym that connoted no identifiable information about its location or ranking status. I
also modified the demographic information of RUC and made its location more general to ensure
anonymity. These modifications were important, given that there are only 39 Project 985
univer sit ies. P a rticipa nts’ na mes w e r e taken off and a number was assigned instead. I also
modified the professional titles and academic backgrounds for some participants to protect
anonymity.
Limitations
Two limitations have remained unresolved despite the abovementioned efforts to ensure
quality, ethics, and trustworthiness. The first limitation has to do with failed attempts to gain
access to sufficient number of participants of certain subgroups. One such subgroup is the
academic and administrative team at the top and the middle level, who is difficult to recruit for
qualitative research. The other subgroup is the teaching faculty at the lecturer or associate
professor level whose chance of promotion is highly unlikely due to the shift of focus on
research over teaching. The difficulty of recruiting this subgroup of faculty is due to the lack of
their c ontac t i nf or m a ti on pr ovided on RUC’s we bs it e . As stated earlier, participants were
recruited by individual email sent to their personal or RUC mailbox publically available in their
profile p rovide d on R UC ’s w e bsit e . W hil e the a va il a bil it y of indivi dua l f a c ult y prof il e v a rie s b y departments and schools, the general trend is that faculty of higher academic ranks have more
complete profile. Overall, although I have gained access to some participants of these two
subgroups, data collection regarding these two groups has not reached saturation. Nevertheless,
the breadth and depth of perspectives provided by the existing participants is, to my knowledge,
more comprehensive compared to existing empirical studies on the changing academic
112

profession in China. I will continue reaching out to these subgroups for potential participants in
hopes of capturing the most comprehensive and diverse perspectives when I start writing the
dissertation into journal manuscripts.
The other limitation has to do with the lack of statistics or empirical data about other
research universities in China, without which institutional comparisons are difficult to draw and
the findings are difficult to situate in a broader context. I have manually collected some statistics
and data regarding faculty and their evaluation policies at other Project 985 universities, as
indicated in several places in this dissertation when making institutional comparisons. However,
such comparisons would be more robust and explicit, if more comprehensive faculty data are
made available by empirical studies or official statistics.

113

Chapter Four Findings
I organize findings in two parts. In the first part, I provide the overall story of the
changing academic life at RUC, including past and current policies. In the second part, I
summarize the findings around the four interrelated levels: 1) interacting logics in national
poli c ies, 2) int e ra c ti n g lo g ics in R UC’s poli c ies a n d the a li g nment with t he na ti o nal level, 3)
int e ra c ti n g log i c s in ac a d e mi c s’ be li e fs a nd int e rpr e tations of the c ha n g in g a c a d e mi c prof e ssi on
in g e n e ra l and a t R UC i n pa rticula r, a nd 4) int e r a c t ing lo g ics in a c a de mi c s’ a c ti ons. Ea c h lev e l
consists of several themes and variations. I give greater attention to findings at the third and the
fourth level. While the first level is not the staple, it sets a general context to understand the other
levels in a higher education system steered and supervised by the central government. The
second level is also important to lay the groundwork for studying the last two levels. Table 7
provides a summary of findings.
Three dimensions have em e rge d to af fe c t R UC’s policies, including the governance
structure of Chinese higher education, the academic prestige of the university, and the
socioeconomic context where the university is located. Four dimensions have emerged to affect
a c a d e mi c s’ inter pr e tations a nd a c ti ons, i nc ludi ng a g e , discipl ine a nd a c a de mi c r a nk, e mpl o y m e nt
track, and gender. These findings highlight varied extent of decoupling and recoupling between
univer sit y poli c ies a nd p r a c ti c e s as we ll a s betw e e n indi viduals’ inter pr e tations a nd a c ti ons for different academics and for the same academic at different time points.
These findings emphasize that say versus do or symbolic versus substantive change are
not as dichotomous as common conceptions of universities might predict, due to the increasing
demand for accountability and prestige. These findings also emphasize that the alignment
between ac a d e mi c s’ inter pr e tations a nd a c ti ons fa c ing top -down change is not as coherent as
114

organization theory might predict (see Besharov & Smith, 2013; Pache & Santos, 2013), due to
the governance structure and the current developmental stage of Chinese higher education. For
example, as will be shown in the following, participants may strongly oppose certain logic but
choose to tightly follow it due to their lack of power to co-opt or resist, or due to the fear of lost
opportunities that may result from nonconformity. Similarly, participants may closely and
opportunistically align their work with certain logic without full identification, if such action
helps to achieve their career objectives. Broadly speaking, this dissertation provides a glimpse of
the c ha n g in g a c a de mi c p rof e ssi on a lon g C hina’ s s trivi ng for modernization via a combined
strong state and free market economy.
The RUC Story
What is happening at RUC provides a glimpse of the many common policies and
practices of the changing academic profession reviewed in Chapter One. To recapitulate the
overall national context, the strong state and free market development model has been
penetrating all aspects of the academic profession, so that Chinese universities and their
a c a d e mi c s ca n b e st s e rve the na ti on’s e c onomi c g r owth a nd moder niz a ti on (MoE , 2010 , 2011).
Common current practices include performance-based salary aligned with research productivity,
commercialization of research, vigorous attempts to attract overseas Ph.D. graduates,
marginalization of teaching, widespread but decreasing inbreeding, continuing concentration of
resources and decision-making within party- and administration-led leadership team (Kuang,
2007; Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011; Marginson, 2010; Mok, 2005b). The change from government
monitoring the process to evaluating the outcomes has given universities greater autonomy (Min,
2004; Mohrman, Geng, Wang, 2011; Mok, 2005b). The strong government control has persisted
115

a nd, a r g ua bl y , inc re a se d due to t he ti g htenin g li nk be twe e n g ov e rnme nt fun ding a nd unive rsit y ’s
performance outcomes (Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011).
As one of the best universities in the city where it is located, RUC receives substantial
support from the provincial government. Academics are competitive for provincial-level research
grants and awards, and also have abundant opportunities for collaboration with the local industry.
Nationally, however, RUC is disadvantaged compared to those Project 985 and Project 211
universities located in Beijing or Shanghai. These disadvantages include fewer ties with the
central government, fewer opportunities for international collaboration (e.g., research exchange,
joint-degree program), and less attraction to academics in other regions of China due to its
location.
RUC has closely followed the commonly adopted practices, and is vigorously exploring
new policies that aim to lift its ranking as fast as possible. These attempts include: making
publications and government grants as the most important criteria in evaluation and promotion,
providing strong monetary incentives for publications in high-impact journals defined by impact
factors, placing greater emphasis on international, peer-reviewed journals in the Science Citation
Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) than Chinese journals, and recruiting
academics with strong publication records. To further stimulate more high quality publications
defined by impact factors, RUC follows the four-level categorization of journals issued by the
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) each year. Publications in journals at a higher level are
earn a greater one-time cash award. Further, due to its location, many academics at RUC used to
have no international exchange experience. To address this limitation, RUC used to link the
international visiting scholarship with faculty promotion. Promotion from lecturer to associate
professor used to require at least six-month international visiting scholarship, and promotion
116

from associate to full professor used to require at least one-year international visiting scholarship.
This policy was eliminated in 2012, since most of its incoming academics now have international
exchange experiences, and some even obtained their degrees from overseas. Additionally, similar
to widespread inbreeding in Chinese higher education due to historical reasons, a significant
number
15
of its academics are RUC alums who either obtained their doctoral degree or all of their
educational degrees from RUC. Since the late 2000s, RUC has started to address this issue by
capping the number to 25 percent when recruiting its own fresh Ph.D.s.
Interacting Logics in National Policies
The logics of the state, the market, the corporate, and the academic profession coexist in
national policies. The relationship is characterized by the centrality of the state, the blending and
“ mana g e d ” c ompatibi li t y between the state, the market, and the corporate logics, and rising
centrality of the academic professional logic. Creating harmony and synergy between these four
logics is central to national policies. The Confucian family logic is not invoked in national
policies.
Centrality of the State Logic
The state logic plays a central role in setting up the overall directions and parameters in
the a c a d e mi c prof e ssi on. Among the c a te g or i e s li sted in Ta ble 4, the state ’s c e ntra li t y most l y visibly exists in such areas as formal control mechanisms through laws and mandates, scope of
academic work, goal of academic work, employment status, and development opportunities.
Academics at public universities, which are the majority and the leading institutions in Chinese

15
This is a widely acknowledged fact among administrators and participants, though the official statistics could not
be obtained. For example, based on information that I manually collected from the website of one of its largest
schools, School of Mechanical Engineering, more than half of its faculty obtained their doctoral or graduate degree
from RUC.
117

higher education, are state employees. Therefore, they are subject to rules and regulations such
as entry- lev e l de g r e e r e q uire ments st ipul a ted b y t he Te a c he rs ’ L a w o f China, the prof e ssi ona l
ranks corresponding with the official ranks of the state employee, and the official retirement age.
R e g a rdin g a c a de mi c s’ w or k a nd de ve lopm e nt, t he objec ti ve of f a c ult y wor k throug h
research, teaching, and public service is set to collectively enhance economic and social
development of China, and to realize the century-old Chinese dream of revitalization. For
example, the two major funding sources, the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(NNSFC) and the National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC), provide guidance for
a c a d e mi c s’ r e s e a r c h. The dire c ti on is that “ a ny proposals must be ideologically correct first, then
sc ientific a ll y ri g or ous i n it s fr e e e x plora ti on of kn owle dge a nd truth.” I de ol og ic a l alig nm e nt wit h
the state is also central in evaluating key national- and provincial-level faculty development
awards and opportunities (e.g., the Recruitment Plan of Global Experts or the so-called 1000
Plan and the New Century Talents Project). These opportunities are led by the Organization
Department of the CPC Central Committee, and supported by relevant departments such as
Ministry of Education, Ministry of Science and Technology, and Ministry of Labor and Social
Security. Two central criteria for identifying these experts and talents are, first and foremost,
ideological correctness in their academic work, and then the significance of their work in
addressing the most pressing economic development issues in China.
The state lo g ic a lso ex e rt s it s influenc e in an inst it uti on’s a c tual ope r a ti ons i n the r e st of
the categories list in Table 4, such as faculty hiring, mobility, sources of power, performance
standards, and control over work processes. As discussed in Chapter One, this role is guaranteed
by the dual governance system with an academic president and a party secretary. While it is hard
to discern which line holds the deciding power based on the national policies, top and mid-level
118

administrators along both lines participate in academic affairs and governance decisions. For
e x a mpl e , the O utl ine of C hina’ s Na ti ona l P lan f o r Me dium a nd L on g -Term Education Reform
and Development for the period between 2010 and 2020 [hereafter the Outline] clearly states that
the goal is to improve the modern higher education system with Chinese characteristics. One of
the f our ma jor a re a s of w or k is “…im pr oving the g ove rna nc e s y stem. Continue carrying forward
and improving the academic president accountability governance system led by the Communist
P a rt y …Ex e c ute the l e g a l duti e s and r ig hts of th e p a rt y s e c r e tar y a nd the a c a de mi c pre sident.”
Logic Blending and Compatibility between the State, the Market, and the Corporate
In theory, the three ideal type logics have low compatibility (Besharov & Smith, 2013;
Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). In national policies, however, they nicely blend with one
another. This espoused compatibility between the state and the market logic is understandable,
given the prevailing model of a combined strong state and free market economy that has
penetrated various spheres in Chinese society, including higher education (Mok, 2005a). The
“ e spoused” c ompat ibility between the state and the corporate logic is also understandable, given
the inc re a s e d g ove rnm e n t dema nd fo r e v a luatin g univer sit ies’ pe rf o rma nc e so t ha t t he y b e st
se rve the e c onomi c ne e d s of Chi na ’s mode rniz a ti on.
Overall, national policies state that marketization and corporatization will be further
e x pa nde d a nd int e g ra ted in hi g he r e duc a ti on a nd i n a c a d e mi c s’ w or k. P oli c ies e nc our a g e the
following areas: speeding up technological transfer, exploring the establishing of university
council or board of directors, using non-state accreditation agencies for program evaluation,
utilizing academics employment system, providing incentives for academic work, pushing
forward reforms of outsourcing university logistic services, establishing annual quality report of
higher education institutions, and exploring collaboration with internationally-renowned
119

education evaluation agencies. At the same time, however, the logics of the market and the
corporate appear to accompany the logic of the state as well as the profession. In the Outline,
expanding the role of the market and the corporate logics are stipulated after reiterating the
central role of the state and the growing emphasis on the professional logic.
Rising Importance of the Academic Professional Logic
Chinese academics are known to have limited power in governing academic affairs and
controlling their own work (Lin, 2011; Lai, 2009; Min, 2004). Lacking autonomy has been
recognized as a major hurdle for Chinese higher education reform and development in national
poli c ies. W hil e inst i tut io ns ar e ope ra ti n g a t a tim e with “c e ntra li z e d de c e nt ra li z a ti on” ( Mok,
2005a), there is increasing operational autonomy in many of the areas listed in Table 4, such as
control over work processes, faculty hiring, mobility, and salary and compensations. With more
frequent call for greater autonomy and academic freedom, the professional logic appears to exert
increasing influence than the past, at least in an espoused manner. For example, in the Outline,
strengthening academic governance committee is stated as one of the key areas in modernizing
Chinese higher education system:
…F ull y uti li z e the important r ole of a c a de mi c c o mm it tee s in b uil ding a nd st re ng th e ning disciplines as well as evaluating academic work. Exploring effective ways of faculty
governing academic affairs. Make full use of the academics in teaching, research, and
university management. Strengthen the role of academic staff representatives, student
re pr e s e ntatives, a nd v a ri ous m a ss orga niz a ti ons…R e spec t ac a de m ic freedom and build an
open academic environment.
Echoing the Outline, MoE formulated and released the Governing Regulations for Establishing
Academic Committees in January 2014, the first public mandate of its kind. According to this
120

new policy, all public colleges and universities must start to set up such committees starting
March 1, 2014. The academic and party administrators should constitute no more than one fourth
of the committee members, and academics holding no particular administrative or party ranks
should constitute no less than half of the committee members. It also states that academic
committees must be the central and final decision-making bodies for all academic affairs at an
institution, ranging from faculty hiring, to formulating policies about teaching and research, to
evaluation and promotion, to international cooperation in research and teaching.
Creating Harmony and Synergy between Logics
National policies appear to promote harmony and synergy between the four logics. The
three other logics are synchronized by the centrality of the state logic, whose role can be
understood as that of the conductor in an orchestra. This espoused relationship between logics
can be seen in national policies which emphasize balance between educating students and
research, between theoretical advancement in research and technological transfer in practice,
between following the socialist ideological direction and free exploration of knowledge and the
pursuit of truth.
Of course, such an espoused relationship is inherently contradictory. For example, free
exploration of scientific knowledge under the professional logic cannot be achieved under the
heavy influence of the state logic that sets the parameters for knowledge and the scope of
academic work. The pursuit of market value of scientific findings also competes with the pursuit
of discovery for the sake of knowledge or with knowledge advancement in humanities and social
sc ienc e s. Ho w the se c ontra dictions influe nc e a c a d e mi c s’ w or k h a s bee n re v e a led b y e x ist i ng
research (Lai, 2009; Lin, 2010; Lin, Li, Lo, 2013). Findings summarized later regarding
academics responses will demonstrate the incompatibility of these logics. The incompatibility
121

and contradiction are the causes for difficulties in implementing these policies, and thus varied
extent of coupling between espoused and enacted policies.
There is an absence of the Confucian family logic in national policies regarding faculty
hiring, evaluation, and promotion or the development of the academic profession in general. This
can be a tricky deception. As a cultural and ideological concept, Confucianism likely exerts its
influence more as an informal protocol than as a clear regulative tool. Its influence is likely more
assumed, taken-for-granted than observable, and more tacit than clearly written. As I will show
later, the clash between Confucian family logic and the other logics, particularly the academic
profession and the market logic, is invoked to construct controversial policy interpretations. This
clash also contributes to the difficulty in achieving the intended results in policy implementation.
Interacting Logics in University Policies
Logics interact on two levels in the university policies regarding academic work. The
dynamics between logics at the national policies —the centrality of the state, the blending
compatibility between the state, the market, and the corporate, the rising centrality of the
academic profession, and the absence of Confucian family logic —are clearly manifested in the
publically a nnoun c e d uni ve rsit y do c uments (e . g ., pr e sidents’ spe e c he s, a nn ua ll y publi shed ke y work directions for a specific year). More internal policies, however, indicate a different set of
dynamics characterized by the centrality of the state, the market, and the corporate logic, the
struggling and periphery academic profession logic, and the accompanying role of the Confucian
family logic.
122

Centrality of the State, the Market, and the Corporate Logics
Like in national policies, the state logic also plays a central role in university policies
re g a rdin g a c a d e mi c s and a c a d e mi c wor k. S tate ’s l og ic c e ntra li t y is s e e n in e ve r y a re a li sted in
Table 4. The state logic exerts its influence at RUC in the form of mandates, funding and
development opportunities, and institutional decision making. The influence through mandates is
e x pli c it . F or e x a mpl e , in a ll R UC’s univer sit y poli c ies r e ga rdin g f a c ult y , fo ll owing the state directions is explicitly stated. The Organization Department of the CPC at RUC also organizes
mandatory events and meetings to disseminate policy directions laid out by the central
government.
W hil e the c e ntra li t y of th e state ’s lo g ic is e x pli c it a nd c oe r c ive like a ll f o r ms of st a te
regulations, the influence through funding and development and institutional decision making is
more subtle but equally strong. Since state is the major funding source for higher education and
for a c a de mi c s’ wor k, foll owing the state di re c ti on s is im porta nt. F or e x a mpl e , one of the two ke y criteria for faculty promotion at RUC is the number of nationally competitive grants from two
sources NNSFC for natural science and engineering research, and NSSFC for humanities and
socia l scie nc e s. Ac a d e mi c s ar e e nc our a g e d b y R U C ’s policie s to closel y f ol low the dir e c ti ons
and suggested topics by the two agencies, so that their studies are more fundable. Further,
identifying academics for national and provincial faculty awards and development opportunities
is led by the Organization Department of the CPC at RUC. The first and foremost criterion is the
a li g nment of a c a d e mi c s’ wor k a nd their ideolo g ic a l st a nc e with t he c e ntra l g ove rnme nt. The se policies can be both coercive and seducing, given that faculty base salary is low and academics
need to earn extra income from bonuses for publications, faculty awards, and funded research
projects (Lai, 2009; Mohrman, Geng, Wang, 2011; Ma & Wen, 2008).
123

While the market and the corporate logics play a more complementary role in national
poli c ies, the y a re c e ntr a l and c ritica l i n RUC ’s policie s. The ir c e ntr ality is seen in using strong
monetary incentives for hiring and academic work, assigning certain basic amount of research
and teaching every year to quantify academic work, emphasizing market needs of research,
speeding up the technological transfer of research, and imposing strict monitoring procedures for
teaching.
Using monetary incentives is prevalent in hiring and promotion, and more importantly,
these moneta r y inc e nti ve s ar e much hi g he r tha n R UC’s pe e rs or th e more e li te unive rsiti e s in
China
16
. Since 2010, RUC has implemented a new talent recruitment plan targeting overseas
Ph.D. recipients and started exploring tenure-track hiring system closely mimic those used in the
U.S. for those returning Ph.D.s. Those new hires along the track-track are paid at a much higher
annual salary than those employed on traditional Chinese track or the so- c a ll e d “ iron r ic e bowl.” For example, a tenure-track assistant professor earns about 200,000 RMB (approximately
$30,000) after various deductions and is equipped with 500,000 to 2,000,000 RMB
(approximately $77,000 to 300,000) startup package. A full professor on traditional Chinese
track earns about 80,000 RMB (approximately $12,000) after tax, pension, health insurance, and
other deductions. At the same time, academics can earn significant extra bonus by publications.
For example, a publication of SCI level 4 (the lowest level) is incentivized by 8,000 RMB
(approximately $1,200) and the higher the impact the higher the incentive. A publication in
Nature is incentivized by 200,000 RMB (approximately $30,000), which is about 1.5 times of the
salary of a full professor.

16
There is no statistics documenting the amount offered at different universities. I skimmed relevant documents of
30 universities among the 112 institutions in the Project 985 and/or Project 211, considering location and ranking.
124

All academics are assigned certain basic amount of research and teaching every year. The
amount is determined by the academic rank of lecturer, associate professor, or full professor.
Teaching and research is usually evenly divided. For example, an associate professor is required
to complete 720 units of work, with research and teaching each consisting 360 units.
Worked completed exceeding the basic amount will be compensated. Units that can be counted
for tea c hing in c lude c lass e s taug ht, und e r g r a dua tes ’ c a pston e proj e c ts advis e d, a s we ll a s the
number of ma ster ’s a nd d oc tora l st ude nts advised. Units that c a n be c ounted f or r e s e a r c h wor k
include publications. A publication at a certain level of journal is counted a certain number of
research units. For example, at some schools a publication in journals included by the Science
Citation Index is counted for 280 research units. Some schools at RUC allow academics to use
teaching units to substitute research units when one lacks units for research in other words who
lacks publications or research grants for a particular year. However, using research to substitute
teaching units is not allowed at these schools in that if allowed, academics with sufficient
publications will not need to teach anymore.
Being responsive to market needs and technological transfer is complex. RUC states that
it is important to deepen the collaboration with local industries, and academics are also
encouraged to do so in the general policy documents. There has been a graduate shift in recent
years to focus on national grants or the so- c a ll e d “ ve rtica l r e se a rc h” ra ther t ha n fun de d pro j e c ts
from industries or the so- c a ll e d “ horiz ontal r e s e a r c h.” W hil e both ki nds of r e se a r c h use d to be
valued in faculty evaluation and promotion at RUC, recent policies state that horizontal research
and collaborations are not counted anymore, unless the funding exceeds 2 million RMB
(approximately $ 300,000). As will be discussed later, academics are usually torn between the
pull in both directions, and have to reconcile in ways deemed useful for their own development.
125

Additionally, university policies strictly monitor teaching, including teaching evaluations
given by students and punitive rules in day-to-day teaching processes. Several teaching
behaviors are counted as different levels of teaching incidents that can affect the annual
evaluation and promotion of an individual as well as the school that he or she is affiliated with.
For example, severe teaching incidents include being late for class, ending class earlier than
scheduled time, rescheduling class time, and turning in grades late. These policies have been
established in 2010 to ensure that teaching will be in normal and proper order.
Struggling and Periphery Academic Professional Logic
The academic professional logic appears to compete with the other logics in complex
ways with only secondary influence. First, university policies regarding self-governance of
academics and academic freedom were almost non- e x ist e nt. P romoti ng a c a de mi c s’ g ove rn a nc e power was also not among the key directions based on relevant documents since 2007. Given the
centrality of the state logic, it is highly likely that RUC will improve its academic committee
council very soon, in accordance with the government mandate to do so starting in March, 2014,
as discussed previously. Based on information gathered from participants, RUC has already had
an academic committee or committee of full professors at the university level. This committee,
according to participants, includes the president, all vice presidents, several deans of key schools
or departments, a few renowned full professors, and directors of key personnel divisions. This
composition of academic committee is common in Chinese higher education (Lai, 2009; Lin, Li,
& Lo, 2013). This composition, however, clearly does not meet the shared governance
requirement in the newly released mandate. It remains to be seen the extent of changes to the
academic committee in accordance with the national mandate.
126

Second, as discussed earlier, incentivized research with correct ideological correctness
and matches the pressing market needs is valued more in promotion and evaluation than
disinterested scholarship or free exploration of knowledge. Further, there is an ever-increasing
demand to publish more in university policies, ignoring the winding path of research inquiry.
There has been a shift of focus since 2012 on the quality of publications than the quantity, where
nationally or internationally recognized publications, even if small in number, are valued more
than having a large amount of publications. But this quality is still measured purely by impact
factors and the categories issued by CAS each year.
Third, university policy documents show that the shift from teaching to research has
become a problem for faculty teaching introductory-level science courses, general education
courses, and English courses, all of whom used to hire to teach with heavy teaching loads. Many
strong complaints accompanied such shift among these academics for the lack of recognition for
their work, and accordingly lack of opportunity for promotion. To resolve these issues, RUC has
launched three different tracks for evaluation and promotion for those employed along the
traditional Chinese track: teaching, teaching and research, and research. While requirement for
publications is still required for the teaching track, the standards are lower in terms of the
number of publications and the level of journals. Teaching faculty instead need to demonstrate
excellence in teaching through such areas as receiving RUC or city-wide teaching excellence
awards, publishing textbooks, and developing city- or national-level key courses. While this
differentiation shows some influence of academics in revising university policies, the
differentiation also reflects the centrality of the market and the corporate logic.
127

Accompanying Role of the Confucian Family Logic
Unlike the absence of the Confucian family logic in national policies, the Confucian
family logic plays an accompanying role in institutional polices regarding faculty, albeit subtle.
As discussed previously, the recently launched tenure-track policy for attracting overseas
returning Ph.D.s provides much higher salary package compared to even full professors hired
along the traditional Chinese track. In order to appease the controversies and ensure harmony
and stability, two additional policies are later implemented. Those hired along the tenure-track
are encouraged to compete for national grants and research awards, but avoid applying for RUC-
and provincial-level grants and awards. Further, the monetary case awards for publications in
SCI or SSCI journals are not available to those hired on the tenure-track. These two policies are
against the professional logic of evaluating academic work based on quality. They are also
against the market logic of free competition. However, they are essential to appease controversy
caused by the income gap and are attempts to ensure harmony and integration between the new
hires and the seasoned academics.
In te r ac ting L ogics in Ac ad e m ics’ B e li e f s ab ou t and In te r p r e tat ion s of t h e Pr of e ssi on
There are substantial conflicts between logics in a c a de mi c s’ inte rpr e tations of the changing policies and practices and their beliefs about what the changing academic profession
should be. Importantly, despite diverse backgrounds of participants, their beliefs and
interpretations are more similar than divergent: 1) the academic professional logic should be
central and dominant in governing all areas of academic profession, particularly when compared
to the state logic; 2) the corporate logic should be curtailed; 3) the market logic ought to be less
emphasized, yet they suit the current situation in China and at RUC in particular; 4) Confucian
family logic competes with the academic professional as well as the market logic, with opinions
128

divided among participants; and 5) any positive change to the current situation can only come
from the top.
Academic Professional Logic Should be Central and Dominant
There is a strong consensus that the academic professional logic should play a stronger
and in fact a central role than the state logic in governing all spheres of the professoriate. The
centrality is perceived to be particularly crucial in setting up the performance standards,
controlling the scope of academic work, and institutional decision making. This consensus
echoes the direction set out in the national policy that academic committee should have the final
say in academic affairs, and that academics with no administrative or CPC roles should at least
hold equal power with those with such titles.
Academic Professional Logic in Setting up Performance Standards
Their strongest opinion is that academics should be able to formulate the performance
standards for hiring and promotion. Despite the frustration with quantitative measures, they also
agree that there would no better way. Their criticisms concentrate on three shortcomings of the
existing performance standards: a) lack of diversity and an overemphasis on comparability and
unification, b) lack of respect for the winding path of research or scientific discovery, and c) lack
of emphasis on teaching. They express strongly why changing these practices is important. They
attribute the reason for the excessive use of quantitative measures to administration-led
accountability evaluation.
Ensure diversity in performance measures. Participants, while agreeing that using
quantitative measures is perhaps the only viable option, share that there is a lack of diversity in
performance measures where different disciplines are lumped together and evaluated by impact
129

factors across the board. A tenure-track assistant professor in medical biology provided a
concrete example:
Impact factors are used in a very controlling and unproductive way. For example,
Infection and Immunity is a top journal in my field. Its impact factor is about 3 or 4, not
that high compared to other fields. A fresh Ph.D. with five publications in that journal
may not even get a lecturer level position in China, because the impact factor of that
journal is not high enough. In the U.S. with that level of publication, you may get a
tenure-track assist a nt pro fe ssor… I mpa c t fa c tor is j ust cit a ti on divi de d b y the numbe r of publications. So it is strongly related to the number of academics in that particular
fie ld…t he re shoul d be so me dif fe r e nti a ti on withi n the br oa d spe c trum of di sc ipl ines.
(participant #44)
The use of impact factors for faculty evaluation and promotion is common in Chinese higher
education, regardless of the research ranking of the university (Kuang, 2007; Lai, 2009; Lin,
2011). Many universities follow the four levels of journals in broad discipline specified by the
CAS, such as chemistry, biology, engineering and technology, medical science, and mathematics,
etc. This practice has been vehemently criticized by academics who argue that it ignores vast
heterogeneity within each broad field (Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011).
Further, participants in interdisciplinary field such as architecture express additional
concerns. A full professor in the field of architecture and design shared:
Architecture as a discipline is categorized under engineering in current academic system
in China. So we follow such categorization in evaluation and promotion at RUC. But
architecture is an interdisciplinary field that incorporates not only engineering and,
perhaps to a greater extent, fields in humanities such as art, history, culture, and
130

philosophy. Some faculty in our department had their academic background in fine art.
Many architecture journals with great distinctiveness and, in my opinion, top journals in
my field are not indexed by SCI. (participant #36)
Indeed, the current categorization of journals published by CAS does not differentiate
architecture as a discipline.
Respect the path of research. The current goal stated in national polices is to build a
modern higher education system and to establish international prestige of Chinese higher
education as soon as possible (MoE, 2010). Although national policies also caution that the
process should be gradual and step by step, in practice the push to develop as fast as possible
makes the investment in quality research a high risk for promotion and salary (Lai, 2009; Lin,
2011).
P a rticipa nts s ha re such a c onc e rn. Som e us e the te rm “ manuf a c turin g publi c a ti ons.” A
tenure- tr a c k a ssi stant pro fe ssor in ph y sics a na lo g i z e d suc h “ a c c e le ra ti onist ” ( Mok, 2005b)
development mo de l as “ i t i s li ke we a re h a ving th e Gr e a t L e a p F or wa rd
17
movement again in
a c a d e mi a ” ( p a rticipa nt # 16). T his par ti c ipant sha r e d that jus t as the Gr e a t L e a p F o rw a rd
movement neglected the principles of industrialization and manufacturing, a hasty development
model of research would not lead to meaningful output and scientific advancement. A full
pr of e ssor in m a thema ti c s e c hoe d, “ Mea nin g ful r e s e a rc h a dva n c e ment r e quire s patienc e a nd a
17
The Great Leap Forward (GLF) movement was launched by the CPC in 1958 to speed up industrialization and
modernization, with the goal to surpass Great Britain in industrial production in 15 years and the United States in 20
or 30 years. The general line that guided the movement w a s “ Go i n g al l o u t, ai m i n g high and achieving greater, faster,
better, and more economic al r esu lt s in b u ild in g s o cial is m ” (Chen, 1983). Heavy industry, especially iron and steel
production, was given greater priority over agriculture and light industry. Residents in both urban and rural areas,
young and old, men and women, were mobilized to increase iron and steel production. Peasant laborers either
moved to work in factories in the cities or attempted to manufacture iron and steel in their backyard blast furnaces.
As the GLF movement progressed, c lai m i n g n o n ex i s te n t a ch iev e m en t s b ec a m e a “w i n d o f ex ag g er atio n ” t h at b le w across the country. Production targets were then revised upward several times, reaching unrealistic levels. Later the
first signs of famine showed up in the winter of 1959 and grim reality gradually set in. China then suffered three
years of famine, causing a total number of premature deaths between 16.5 and 30 million which was the worst in the
loss of human lives in recorded world history.
131

great deal of time and effort. Some may end up in publications, while most of such effort is the
pr e pa r a ti on fo r it” ( p a rtic ipant #45) .
A full professor and nationally recognized talent in coal combustion echoed such concern
and shared his experience as an example:
In my field there is little in the literature to draw from outside China. Coal mining in
highly dangerous mines is not explored, in fact forbidden, in developed countries in
Europe, in the U.S. or in Australia. We have to do it in China, understandably so because
we are still a developing country with the largest population. So we are exploring a lot of
the things from scratch. Lots of the experiments we do in our lab are unheard of
internationally, simply because we are the only group of researchers who are doing this.
We have to even explore building our own equipments. All of these need serious time,
tremendous amount of patience and dedication, most of which may not all end up in
publications. It takes lots of time and efforts to do what we do, things that cannot be
quantified into hours or publications. (participant #59)
Similar to other studies have shown, Chinese academics strongly criticize current model that
emphasizes fast research (Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011; Li, Lin, Lo, 2013). They caution against the
danger of publishing too quickly, which they view is not genuine or quality research.
Participants, particularly faculty with no administrative roles, argue that the cause for the
abovementioned two limitations is the lack of centrality of the professional logic. Participants
criticize that state officials or administrators interfere with academic work too much. A tenure-
track assistant professor in medical biology shared:
The main cause for the excessive use of quantitative measures such as impact factors is
that the people who are making the decisions and who are formulating the standards are
132

usually not scientists or researchers themselves. So not surprisingly they would need the
number s to compa re a c a de mi c s’ w or k. Und e rsta n da bl y so, fo r a la y p e rson , a n im pa c t
factor of 5 is smaller than 8 but bigger than 3. (participant #44)
As discussed earlier, the government exerts its influence through various coercive legal mandates
and at the same time seductive funding opportunities and incentives. The state administrators
who have the final say may not be academics or at least may not be academics in the particular
field that a research proposal is written for. Therefore, participants believed that the excessive
use of quantitative measures is because those administrators need inevitably need numbers to
compare and make the i r de c isi ons. This kind of “ a dmi nist ra ti ve domi na ti on,” “ a dmi nist ra ti on -
led,” or “ stat e - led” p ra c ti c e of a c c ountabili t y ha ve a lso bee n fou nd a nd de p lore d b y other studi e s
(Ding & Levin, 2007; Lai, 2009; Zhang, 2007).
Lack of emphasis on teaching. Teaching at RUC is currently evaluated in two ways. The
major mechanism is student end-of-semester teaching evaluation, which consisted of closed-
ended questions and an overall score given by students. A complementary mechanism is through
the awards of provincial or national high-quality courses. While these two mechanisms are not
used in any government or commercial ranking system, they somewhat matter in faculty
e va luation and pr omot io n a t R UC. I n ord e r to g e t pr omot ion, a f a c ult y me mber ’s te a c hing evaluation score should be above certain line. At some schools, the line is the average score of
a ll of its fa c ult y m e mber s ;; at other s, the li ne is abo ve the 25th pe rc e nti le of a ll f a c ult y ’s te a c hin g scores. Any award in teaching is not required or encouraged but is a plus. Not surprisingly, many
participants view that teaching has been marginalized, a troubling phenomenon widely
documented in the literature (Ho, 2006; Lai, 2009; Lin, Li, & Lai, 2013; Ma & Wen, 2008; Min,
2004; Mohrman, Geng, Wang, 2011).
133

Many participants hired along the traditional Chinese line argue that educating students
should be the central purpose of a university. For example, a full professor in mathematics said:
“ Educ a ti n g a nd nu rtur ing t a lents i s the most f unda menta l m iss ion of hig he r e duc a ti on. Research
shoul d ser ve not over ride that pur pose… The c u rr e nt eva luation cr it e ria a r e wr on g ” ( p a rticipa nt
#45). When asked what they would do in an ideal situation, many participants on both
e mpl o y ment li ne s said “ s pe nding mor e ti me w it h st ude nts,” or “ e du c a ti n g students,” or “ nurtur in g more tale nts ” (pa rticipa nt #3, #11, #18, #19, #24, #33, #36, #38, #42, #45, #55, #56) .
A few participants hired as tenure-track assistant professors expressed greater interest in research,
but they also would like to invest greater efforts in teaching if there were less pressure to publish
or if teaching were more emphasized.
While participants emphasize the importance of teaching and educating talents, few of
them offer their thoughts about what kind of talents. A full professor in the School of
Mathematics and Statistics point out that what kind of talent RUC should nurture should be the
central question open to serious debate (participant #45). A full professor in the School of Public
Af fa irs point out t ha t t he “ The str ong state intervention has compromised the pursuit of critical
thi nking , c re a ti ve thi nking , a nd dif fe r e nt voi c e s, ” somethi ng that shoul d be nurtur e d b y hi g he r
education (participant #11). Academic and administrative leaders at RUC share this concern,
which argues that the exclusive reliance on employment rate deprives students opportunities of
true “ hi g he r l e a rnin g ” (p a rticipa nt #54, #55). The se view s cle a rl y indi c a te the inc ompatibi li t y between the academic professional logic and the state, the market, and the corporate logics in
defining the role of teaching.
134

Academic Professional Logic in Controlling the Scope of Academic Work
The statement that academics should direct the scope of their own work was mostly
strong among participants in social sciences. A lecturer whose research deals with non-
traditional security threats in the School of Public Affairs shared:
The int e rf e re n c e in ac a de mi c s’ w or k mi g ht not be that big of a d e a l fo r na tu ra l scie nc e s
whe re the a c a de mi c s’ ide olog ica l ori e ntations mi ght not b e crucial in their work. But it
can be crucial for humanities and social sciences. There should be no taboo zones in our
work. (participant #6)
As discussed previously, the state logic undergirds the scope of academic work mainly through
grants provided at the sta te le ve l, which most a c a d e mi c s’ f undin g f or re se a r c h c omes f rom a nd
their promotion is relied upon. These funding agencies provide a suggested list of topics for
academics to study. Therefore, without explicitly setting up what academics should do in their
research, the state controls the scope of academic work indirectly but powerfully. Such indirect
control is perceived more problematic humanities and social sciences, where ideological clashes
with the state may be intense at times, a concern also shared by several other participants (#11,
#49).
C riticism a g a inst the inte rf e r e nc e with ac a d e mi c s’ scop e of r e se a rc h is com monl y shar e d
a mong C hinese a c a de mi c s. Ac a de mi c fr e e dom i n ter ms of a c a de mi c s’ fr e e pursuit i n their research has been a long-standing challenge in Chinese higher education (Min, 2004; Zha, 2012).
Recent call among the domestic and international educational community for more academic
freedom in China has led the espoused change endorsed by the government. These policies state
that academic freedom should be at the core of university mission, because it is essential for
knowledge advancement and research innovation (MoE, 2011). However, due to strong
135

interference from the state through means iterated previously, academic freedom has been more
of an espoused goal than enacted, or in other words, it is disembodied from the practice (Lai,
2009; Lin, 2011; Yang, Vidovich, & Currie, 2007).
Professional Logic in University Decision-Making
There is a strong consensus among participants with non-administrative roles that
academics should have a stronger voice and power in decision making, particularly hiring,
evaluating for promotion, and identifying individuals for development opportunities.
Ac c or din g to pa rticipa nts, an a c a de mi c ’s pow e r is less affiliated with the academic title or rank
than w it h the a dmi nist ra ti ve r a nk, a lt hou g h one ’s pow e r doe s inc re a s e a s o ne c li mb up t he a c a d e mi c prof e ssoria te r a nk. I n ma n y pa rticipa nts’ mi nd, ther e for e , a f ull pr of e ssorship m e a ns
little power if not coupled with administrative rank (e.g., director of some division, dean or
associate dean, party secretary, etc.).
For example, an associate professor in the School of Environmental Science felt that:
“ L ik e man y lec tur e rs a nd a ssocia te pr o fe ssors, w e don’t have any voice in the decision making. I
be li e ve I will ha ve a voic e onc e I b e c ome a f ull pr of e ssor in a f e w y e a rs” ( pa rticipa nt #2). His
belief that power comes with the full professorship is, however, repeatedly contradicted by
participants who are full professors but with no administrative titles. The answer repeatedly
g iven is “ full prof e ssorsh ip m e a ns not hing ,” a nd in orde r to ha v e a voic e “ y o u ne e d to be one o f
those big pro fe ssors” (pa rticipa nt #13, #25, #27, #43). B y “ bi g p rof e ssors, ” the y r e f e r to
academics with either high administrative titles or nationally recognized titles (e.g., Yangtze
Scholar, Exceptional Talent, new century talents, etc.), and usually there is great overlap between
the two groups.
136

Some participants gave concrete examples about the lack of voice and power among
academics. An associate professor in the School of Computer Science shared:
Faculty should really have a bigger voice. Many decisions are made from the top down. It
is common to give a short period of time after a draft of policy is released in case any
fa c ult y would li ke to app e a l or ha v e su gg e sti ons f or a mendme nt. B ut hone stl y I ha v e n’ t
se e n a n y r e a l c h a n g e c o mi ng out of that. I t’s mor e of a s y mbol ic pr oc e ss. (pa rticipa nt #14)
A tenure-track assistant professor in the School of Physics shared:
We have no idea how the decisions are made, decision about funding, about hiring, about
evaluation. As Project 985 university, there is some funding for RUC which will then
allocate some funding for each school and department. A few days ago, at a faculty
meeting, we were told that funding has been used up. Lots of faculty members have no
idea how that has been used for what purpose. (participant #16)
The problem of too much interference from administration has been widely criticized in Chinese
higher education community (Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011; Li, Lo, & Lai, 2013; Zha, 2009). In fact, de-
administration has been one of key areas of governance reform initiated by the central
government (MoE, 2011, 2013). Progress has been achieved compared to twenty or ten years ago
(Min, 2004; Mok, 2005a). Many institutions including RUC are still exploring ways to carry out
such reform, albeit not meeting the expectations of its faculty members.
F rom the a dmi nist ra ti on’ s per spec ti ve , ho we ve r, i t is still not the time for substantial
change. The vice president of RUC who is also in charge of drafting the strategic plan shared his
concerns about giving greater autonomy to individual schools and departments:
It is not ready yet. Schools and departments have not established a sound and
comprehensive self-governance system of their own, a system that involves the greater
137

majority of its faculty. If we give too much power to individual academic units, we worry
that there would be power would be further concentrated within the hands of a few at the
sc hool’s top m a na g e ment leve l. S o we ha ve to do t his cha nge slowl y a nd st e p b y step.
(participant #46)
The vice pr e sident’s vie w, c ompar e d with fa c ult y ’s r e sponses discusse d p r e vious l y , c le a rl y show
the incompatibility between an administration-led change and an academics-led change.
Academics expect the change to come from top-down with the state limiting its role and giving
the centrality to the academic profession. The vice president, however, expects the change to
come from bottom-up so that a sound professional system would be in place first.
While the vice president argues about the readiness for self-governance, a mid-level
administrator who is also a full professor doing research in higher education governance argues
that “ …it is no t about ti mi ng . I t i s that such c ha n g e is no t i mpos sibl e f or n ow” :
We are talking about three kinds of power at play here in institutional decision making:
the administrative power, the political power from the CPC line, and the academic power
represented by faculty members. The lack of voice from the academic side will continue
to be the case as long as the state is still the major funding source of higher education.
(participant #53)
This par ti c ipant’ s ar g um e nt ca n be und e rs tood from the resource-dependency theory (see Pfeffer
& Salancik, 1978; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1974). Resource dependency theory argues that
organizations, which depend heavily on external actors for resources (e.g., state funding,
endowments, industrial cooperation), will be responsive to the demands of those external actors
to enhance their survival (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). As about 65 percent of funding for public
higher education comes from the central and/or the local government (MoE, 2013), this
138

parti c ipant’ s r e a soni n g a ppe a rs w e ll f ounde d. As for R UC, a bout 35 per c e nt of it s funding c omes
from the central government, 25 percent comes from the local government, and the rest comes
from other sources including tuition, private donation, and industrial cooperation. As universities
in China, including RUC, have been trying to diversify their funding sources and to target non-
government funding (Deng, 2003; Wang, 2000), partial self-governance is perhaps possible in
the long term when colleges and universities rely less on government funding.
Another mid-level administrator, who is an associate professor in higher education
governance, suggests that issues of shared-governance become complicated and hard to predict
depending on whether one speaks from an in divi dua l fa c ult y pe rspe c ti ve o r f rom a scho ol’s
perspective. He provided an example:
The dean of the School of Electric Engineering is a member of the Chinese Academy of
Engineering, one of the few nationally distinguished academics at RUC. Over the past
few years since he became the dean, he put all the funding sources together and allocated
funding f o r a r e a s that i n ne e d of d e v e lopm e nt fr o m t he S c hool’s pe rspe c ti ve , without much consultation with the faculty. The school has developed very fast, and has risen to
the top of the r a nkin g s na ti ona ll y . I don’ t know ho w the f a c ult y membe rs of that sc hool
fe lt a bout s uc h c on c e ntra ti on of powe r. From the a dmi nist ra tor’ s per spec ti v e , such r a pid
rise is something applauded by the administration at the university level. (participant #47)
From his view, the effect of ranking and the short-term productivity are clearly among the
pr ioriti e s for the unive rsi t y ’s a dmi nist ra ti ve te a m. F ur ther , it a pp e a rs th a t t he f a st rise in r a nking s
and self-governance are perceived in conflicts, as suggested by institutional logics theory and
existing research on the effects of rankings (Sauder & Espeland, 2009; Thornton, Ocasio, &
139

Lounsbury, 2012). Unfortunately, faculty of that particular school could not be reached for
sharing their experiences.
The Corporate Logic Must Be Curtailed to Minimum Influence
Participants expressed strong opposition against the excessive regulating and monitoring
of academic work processes, which they argues is meaningless bureaucratic procedure blocking
innovation in teaching and research. In teaching, academics are not allowed to reschedule classes
or invite others to teach any sessions. Any change in location, time, or instructor for any session
need to be petitioned first to the school or department and then to the Office of Academic Affairs.
Schools or departments usually do not support such petition, because it negatively affects the
evaluation score of the entire school or department at the end of the academic year.
The purpose of such regulation is to force faculty pay more attention to teaching as some
faculty members used to reschedule or even cancel classes to suit their entrepreneurial work
outside the university. The university fears that some academics engaged in too much outside
work to the neglect of teaching. Therefore, the classes are scheduled fairly spread out across the
weekdays. For example, if a faculty member teaches eight 45-mintue classes a week, the eight
classes are schedule into four time slots across the weekdays. While some participants see some
regulation of excessive entrepreneurial work as necessary, most regard the current policy as too
stifling and rigid. This rigidity causes conflicts with research activities, such as attending
workshops or conferences. A lecturer in the School of Public Affairs shared:
W it h m y c ur re nt sch e dule, I c a n ’t g o to wor kshop s or c onfe re nc e s. And pe t it ioni ng f or rescheduling classes is such a headache and is frowned upon by the school. I understand
the or ig inal pu rpose of su c h re g ulation. B ut i t’s too rigid. Not every faculty member is
engaged in outside work more than teaching. (participant #6)
140

Other participants shared this frustration (participant #10). The reason behind the excessive
regulation is apparently a lack of trust. Participants shared that this lack of trust is not entirely
unfounded. The rapid development of Chinese higher education and the market economy have
created many entrepreneurial opportunities for faculty members outside the academe (Ma & Wen,
2008). Faculty serving as board members, partners, or consultants is common, resulting in
criticisms that faculty over-engaged in outside work to the neglect of teaching. While the
regulation may help to re- or ient som e f a c ult y ’ s att e nti on towa rd te a c hing , t oo much r e g ulation
restricts other faculty members.
In terms of faculty work in general, participants voice frustration towards the excessive
paperwork in all areas of faculty work. Interestingly, only tenure line faculty members express
strong opposition; none of the participants hired on the traditional Chinese track voice such
opposition. Perhaps overseas returned academics are not used to filing the large amount of paper,
while those hired on traditional Chinese track are used to such practice. A tenure-track assistant
professor in the School of Architecture, who was asked to be in charge of international students
a t t ha t school, shar e d: “ T he re is t oo much pa p e rw or k to docume nt eve r y thi ng . I b a sica ll y spen t
m y f irst seme ste r le a rning to fil e a ll kinds of pa p e rw or k” (pa rticipa nt #30). A tenure-track
assistant professor in the School of Physics shared that when he was hired he went to get 24
approval stamps from the administrative units (participant #16).
The Market Logic Ought To Be Less Emphasized; Yet It Suits the Current Situation in
China and at RUC in Particular
Participants talked about several trends related to faculty work at RUC following the
market logic. These trends include: incessant pursuit of higher ranking status, encouraging
technology transfer of research findings to market needs, emphasizing collaboration with
141

industries, incentivizing faculty work through performance competition and monetary bonuses,
emphasizing research over teaching. These policies and practices have been widely adopted by
universities not only in China but also worldwide (Gong & Li, 2010; Hazelkorn, 2009; Ho, 2006;
Marginson & van der Wende, 2007; Sadlack & Liu, 2009). For example, striving for higher
ranking status has prevailed higher education from research universities to traditional teaching-
focused colleges (Gonzales, 2013; Sauder & Espeland, 2009; Sadlack & Liu, 2009). Creating a
market university, where scientific research is oriented towards the market, has been embraced
by many higher education systems (Berman, 2012). Linking faculty pay with performance
evaluations such as research output and student learning outcomes is also common practice
(Liefner, 2003).
While the market trends in higher education have been criticized by many academics
(Hazelkorn, 2009; Sauder & Espeland, 2009), participants do not strongly oppose any of these
trends. Participants reference to market logic mostly in three areas: a) incentivizing faculty
productivity, b) collaborating with industry, and c) hiring star faculty or those with overseas
Ph.D.s. The majority of the participants generally consider these trends inevitable, particularly
given the socioeconomic conditions of the city where RUC is located as well as the overall
socioeconomic development needs of China.
First, participants across groups are in agreement regarding using incentives to encourage
greater research productivity. The agreement is due to the slower increase of faculty salary at
RUC in relation to the rapid rising living cost. The unattractive faculty salary is acknowledged
by the government policies and improving faculty pay is in fact mandated by the government
plans (MoE, 2011). Participants constantly point out that meeting survival needs such as
purchasing apartments and raising children are the major struggle, particularly among junior
142

faculty who just started to raise a family. Therefore, incentivizing research is necessary, as it
provides additional source of income for faculty. Academics hired along the traditional Chinese
li ne shar e d that these in c e nti ve s “a r e a bsol utel y n e c e ssa r y ” b e c a us e “ f a c ult y a re so poor. ” (participant #2, #10, #25, #49). Academics hired along the tenure-line with much higher salary
point out that attractive salary is the primary reason for them to come to RUC (discussed later).
P a rticipa nts’ support f or the ma rket-based incentives in research should not be interpreted
merely as lack of intrinsic research interests. Many participants deplore the encroachment of
market principles and idealize disinterested scholarship. However, these sentiments are always
followe d b y a sens e of he lpl e ssness: “Prof e ssors a r e human be in g s too!” Th e r a pid e c onomi c development in China over the past three decades has led to rapidly widening income gap, with
Gini coefficient of .45. Given the skyrocketing cost of living in big cities, including the one RUC
is located, and the low faculty salary, participants are struggling to make ends meet. A principle
shared across diverse backgrounds and on both tenure-track and traditional Chinese lines is that
“ ge tt ing out of pov e rt y is t he f irst p rior it y , ” a nd “ r e se a r c h is s omething b e st don e a fte r f a c ult y ’s
li ve li hood is not t rouble . ”
S e c ond, pa rticipa nts a gr e e that R UC’s stre n g th i s in eng in e e rin g , so c oll a bo ra ti ng with
industry would increase technological transfer and improve faculty research. The amount of
collaboration, however, is divided among participants, depending on whether their ability to
secure external funding. For those not always competitive in getting national grants,
collaborating with industry helped faculty to meet the research and grant requirement in faculty
evaluation. Although these participants are aware that getting national grants is more valuable,
they also admit that not every faculty can get national projects. Additionally, collaborating with
industry also generates extra source of income for those who do not many publications and thus
143

less extra income from incentives. On the other hand, participants who are competitive in
securing national grants view too much industry collaboration as detrimental to their research
advancement. Existing research also echoes this divided view regarding commercialization of
research (e.g., Lai, 2009; Lin, 2011). For example, a study about faculty life at one of the two
most prestigious universities in China shows that academics criticize commercialization of
research, and choose to avoid it because they have never worried about getting funding (Lai,
2009).
Third, participants disagree regarding using market-based logic to attract and hire talents.
Participants hired on the tenure-track line unanimously share that the major reason that they
chose to come to RUC is because of its high salary. For example, a tenure-track assistant
pr of e ssor w o rking in m e dica l bi olog y sha re d: “T h e onl y a nd the f a st e st wa y univer sit ies lik e RUC can have a chance to compete with Tsinghua or Peking or anyone at the very top is to buy
tale nts. I t’s a mar k e t ec o nom y now” (pa rticip a nt #44). Anothe r te nu re -track assistant professor
wor king in c he mi c a l en g i ne e rin g shar e d: “RUC’s r e se a r c h re put a ti on is not t ha t hi g h, a nd it is
located here [which is much less developed than Beijing or Shanghai]. So without an attractive
sa lar y pa c ka g e , who w ou ld come to wor k he r e ? N obod y ” (pa rticip a nt #20).
When asked whether the tenure-track high salary policy is suitable for universities like
RUC, they unanimously share that it is the only option to attract talents for universities like RUC
to compete with more elite ones in better locations such as Beijing or Shanghai. They
acknowledge that universities in Beijing or Shanghai are more attractive due to the location, such
as more opportunities for collaboration with industry, with international collaboration, and better
educational opportunities if raising children. At the same time, they also recognize that living
144

expenses are extremely high compared to the limited faculty salary provided at these institutions.
Therefore, the pitch for universities like RUC is providing a competitive salary.
This is also confirmed by the administrative team who designed and pushed for this
policy as well as mid-level academic leaders who have overseas degrees. Both the vice president
and the director for recruiting overseas talent who obtained the Ph.D. from Europe shared that
due to the location of RUC, it would be hard to attract star faculty or overseas returned Ph.D.
graduates. Therefore, they emphasize:
RUC has to offer something that the more elite institutions in Beijing or Shanghai could
not off e r…T h e poli c y is t o use e c onomi c int e r e st or hig h sal a r y in ex c ha n g e f or r e s e a r c h
output, so that RUC can raise its research capacity in the shortest time and fastest way
possible. (participant #46, #48)
Participants hired on the traditional Chinese track, however, criticize the market-based
logic of recruiting star faculty or overseas returning Ph.D. graduates, for two reasons. Some
participants argue that building top-level research platform rather than offering high salary
should be the correct path to attract talents, which is aligned with the academic professional logic.
Many of these participants ar g u e that without a g o od re se a rc h platf o rm, the se ne w hir e s wouldn’ t
ha ve a g ood d e ve lopm e n t at R UC a nd would lea v e . The n, “ W he n that ha p pe ns, i t’s a wa ste o f
mone y f o r RUC, be c a use we spen d so m uc h mone y on them, without see in g the r e sult s” (participant #6, #13, #36).
F ur ther , som e pa rticipa nt s shar e d that to s ome e x tent R UC’s hiring the ove rse a s tale nts i s
like joining the bandwagon without really considering the development needs of RUC
(participant #6, #10). These participants argue that the new hires should be in areas of critical
importance to RUC, rather than anyone with an overseas doctorate and a few publications.
145

Interestingly, this logic is shared by academic and administrative leaders, who, however, also
acknowledge that they could not be too selective due to the unattractive location of RUC
(participant #46, #47, #57).
Confucian Family Logic Competes with the Academic Professional and Market Logic
Confucian family logic competes with the academic professional and the market logic in
shaping part icipa nts’ vie ws towa rd f a c ult y hiring a nd mobi li t y . P a rticipa nt s ar e c l e a rl y divi de d
between tenure-line and traditional Chinese line. While the tenure-line faculty favor professional
and the market logic, the traditional Chinese line faculty lean more toward the Confucian family
logic. The conflict is most intense in hiring star faculty or overseas returning Ph.D. graduates.
Participants hired on the traditional Chinese track emphasize the importance of integration and
harmony between these new hires and the existing faculty, as well as their long-term
commitment and loyalty to RUC. For example, a full professor in the School of Architecture
used an analogy, using transplanting big leafy trees as an illustration for recruiting star or
potentially star faculty.
Transplanting big trees is common for beautification of the environment. But for the
transplanted trees to continuously grow and thrive in the new environment, many
conditions must be present, such as weather, the care, the support, the overall conditions
etc. Otherwise, the trees would look beautiful only for a short period of time, but would
later wither (participant #36)
Othe r pa rticipa nts e c hoe d thi s a na log y b y c omm onl y using the met a phor o f “ takin g root a t R UC.”
Whether these participants really believe in the importance of harmony and integration is hard to
conclude, given the data collected. As discussed earlier, this hiring policy creates huge income
gap and thus tension between the two tracks of academics. What can be concluded, at least, is
146

that the Confucian family logic invokes conflicted interpretation, or it is intentionally invoked by
these participants to dismiss this policy.
Such emphasis on integration and long-term commitment, however, is usually not the
case for tenure-line faculty, especially those who family is not from the city where RUC is
located or the surrounding areas. Tenure-line participants seldom indicate their intention of
creating harmony or being integrated into the existing faculty fabric, except for a few
participants who have long-term plans to stay in RUC due to family reasons. These participants
of ten e mphasiz e the ne e d f or mobi li t y a s the ke y f or indi vidual’ s ca r e e r d e ve lopm e nt as w e ll a s
for the innova ti on of the univer sit y . “ Mobi li t y is good. I t c re a tes innova ti o n. Mobility is very
c omm on a mong U.S. uni ve rsiti e s. I don’ t see th a t as a prob lem. P e ople sho uld g o to pl a c e s
whe re the y c a n h a ve the be st deve lopm e nt opport unit y a nd the most r oom for g row th”
(participant #44). They argue that mobility should be the key t o univer sit y a nd a c a de mi c s’
development. Therefore, they share that if RUC does not suit their development needs, they
would be more than willing to go elsewhere in China or overseas.
This conflict of beliefs and interpretations become concretized, when it comes to an
incident of one RUC-trained top-level academic leaving RUC due to conflicts with a newly hired
star faculty who obtained his doctorate in North America and got his tenure at a U.S. university.
The leaving is considered normal among tenure lin e f a c ult y : “People c ome a nd g o. One tale nt
lea ve s, ther e will be mor e c omi ng in ” ( pa rticipa nt #44, #55). H owe v e r, the lea ving is consid e re d
a tragic and irreparable loss to RUC by faculty hired under traditional Chinese track. This loss is
not only in terms of talent, but also in terms of losing a sense of unity, harmony, cohesion, and
face, something that should be avoided (participant #10, #11, #13, #49, #52). The tenure-line
faculty, however, tend to view the incident as common. One participant (#52) pointed out that
147

“ pe rha ps t h e star f a c ult y ha s bee n in t he U.S. fo r so long . P e rh a ps he doe sn ’t unde rsta nd Ch inese c ult ur e .”
Further, the conflict between Confucian family logic and market and professional logic
also exists in interpreting the policy of recruiting new overseas returning Ph.D. graduates. The
much higher salary paid to faculty hired under the tenure line was certainly disruptive to the
existing salary structure, causing inevitable tension between traditional Chinese line faculty and
tenure-line faculty. Tenure-line faculty regarded that the higher salary was necessary to attract
talents to universities such as RUC, as discussed previously; they also argued that their higher
salary was deserved because they indeed outperformed most of the faculty hired on the
traditional Chinese track in terms of research output in the form of peer-reviewed publications or
winning nationally competitive grants. However, some participants on the traditional Chinese
track suggested alternative bonuses to these returnees without disrupting the existing salary
structure. Alternatives such as providing living allowances, cars, or vouchers for children to go
to schools would be equally valuable in monetary terms, but would not create the large salary
gap between the two tracks, thus maintaining harmony between the existing and the new faculty.
Positive Change Can Only Come From the State; Change Is Possible in the Long Term
Despite the many criticisms described above, participants acknowledge that many issues
are common across higher education institution in China, and they in general hold a positive
view of change in the long term. They usually point out that issues related to faculty work at
RUC are systemic issues of Chinese higher education, even of the entire Chinese society, such as
the overemphasis on quantitative assessment of faculty work, the overemphasis on publications
over teaching, increasing materialism and consumerism in higher education, and the increased
market competition in all spheres of organizational fields. Although located in RUC, participants
148

tend to discuss their interpretations in reference to higher education development in China as
well as the vast social and economic transformations over the past decades, without being
encouraged by me to give that grounding. A fifty-year old full professor in mathematics shared:
We should approach the current problems with dialecticism. There are many issues. But
we c a n ’t ig no re the r a pid de ve lopm e nt t ha t C hina ha s ac hiev e d. I star t e d te a c hin g he r e a t
RUC sinc e 1985. I ’m a m a z e d a nd g lad to witness a nd e x pe rie nc e a ll these c ha n g e s durin g such short period of time. (participant #45)
The positive note about the transformation is echoed by a forty-five year old full professor in the
School of Automotive Engineering : “T he sit ua ti o n is s o much be tt e r now c ompar e d to whe n I star ted w or kin g a t R UC. I t i s more op e n. The r e is a mpl e f unding oppo rtunit y ” (pa rticip a nt #12)
Then, a thirty-nine year old full professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering also said:
There are many great opportunities for funding and development in research and teaching,
especially for young faculty, opportunities like government-funded research exchange
scholarships overseas, international collaboration between universities. For example,
there are several joint-degree programs between my department and universities in
Europe, in Singapore, in the U.S. My research and teaching and my English language
skil ls have im pr ove d a lot f rom these oppor tuni ti e s… I t’s the b e st of ti me. If y ou re a ll y want to improve your research or teaching, you can really make it happen. (participant
#25)
The positive note is also shared by overseas returning Ph.D. graduates on the tenure-track line,
who nevertheless acknowledged that there is still much gap in quality between Chinese and top-
univer sit ies in m or e de ve loped c ountrie s. The s e pa rticipa nts po int out t ha t “the mom e ntum is
pr omi sing ” ( p a rticipa nt # 19) ( pa rticipa nt #23 ). T h e posi ti ve note sha re d b y re turne e s con tra di c ts
149

with the extreme cynicism found in a recent study on how Ph.D. returnees perceive the changing
faculty life in China (see Lin, 2011).
While participants believed that change is going to happen in the long term, they are
divided regarding who will be the major contributors for such positive change. On one hand,
participants hired on the tenure- tr a c k li ne , that is , o ve rse a s re turne e s, ar g u e t ha t “posit ive
challenge will happen gradually as more and more overseas graduates returning to work in
C hina.” ( pa rticipa nt #19, #23, #30, #44) On the ot he r ha nd, participants hired along the
traditional Chinese line argue that China-trained talents are the major force for the positive
change.
What participants on both lines agreed upon, however, is that in order for positive change
to happen, it must start from the central government. A full professor in the School of
Architecture shared:
All these quality measures are not from just one layer of hierarchy. It comes from the
department, then up from the school, then the university, then all the way up to the
central government. So many difficulties here at RUC to really improve the quality of
higher education are also being experienced by other universities in China. So there must
be changes to the overall governance system from the top. (participant #33)
As discussed previously, the state plays a central role in Chinese higher education, including its
influence in assessing and improving quality. It is therefore not surprising that participants
expect change to start from the top. In fact, top-down changes are more likely the rule.
Grassroots organizational changes without the buy-in from those in positional power are less
likely not only in a relatively centralized state such as China but also across educational and
political systems (Kerr, 1984).
150

A full professor from the School of Environmental Science and Engineering shared:
Change will happen, but very slowly, not just by the dean of a school, or the president of
a univer sit y , o r one te rm of the c e ntr a l admini stra ti on…The re ne e ds t o be c ha nge to t he overall sy stem…Now w e ha ve sol ve d the pr obl e m of qua nti t y in a fa irl y sh or t amount of
time. The change to enhance quality will be slow and take much longer. (participant #59)
According to statistics from the National Science Foundation (2012), the number of research
articles published by Chinese academics in international, peer-reviewed journals has grown by
16% annually. China surpassed Japan in 2007 and moved into the second place behind the U.S.,
up from 14th place in 1995. By 2009, China accounted for about 9% of world article output.
Since 2010, the government has started a shift to emphasize quality of research articles while
maintaining quantity (MoE, 2011). The shift of emphasis from quantity to quality, however, is
easier said than done and will take a very long time, pointed out by some participants. The
director of social science division and several other faculty members caution that the hasty
development model, which Chinese higher education including RUC have engaged in, might
pr e de te rmine a c a de mi c s’ de ve lopment in the long term. They point out the notion of path
dependency; once an academic becomes familiar with the path of manufacturing papers, he or
she will get used to it, and then it becomes difficult to switch to another path that emphasize
quality and requires patience.
In te r ac ting L ogics in Ac ad e m ics’ R e sp on se s: V ar ied De c ou p li n g an d R e c ou p li n g
An indivi dua l’s soc ial a n d pro fe ssi ona l i de nti ti e s and powe r re lations hips i n a n
organization are important factors for his or her decisions and responses (Thornton, Ocasio, &
Lounsbury, 2012). For example, an individual may disagree with a policy but still chooses to
comply, when not doing so would result in the loss of employment, or when doing so would help
151

achieve other individual goals. In this study, what has been discussed so far about their
interpretations and beliefs —favoring the centrality of the professional logic, condemning the
intervening state and the corporate logic, cannot help but accept the market logic and disagreeing
about the Confucian family logic —does not necessarily translate into actions.
The extent of coupling between actions and espoused policies varies by a confluence of
four factors including age, discipline and academic rank, employment track, and gender. These
four dimensions in ter twine to a ff e c t par ti c ip a nts’ wor k in re lation t o poli c ies. I n g e ne ra l, t he centrality of non-professional logics has caused frustration, anxiety, and passivity among
academics, particularly faculty with not administrative titles. Interestingly, while p a rticipa nts’
experiences as faculty members at RUC are influenced by the five logics to a greater or less
extent, the contested multiplicity of logics has not create as much confusion as one would expect
(see Besharov & Smith, 2013). Participants appear to be clear about their career goals,
development paths, as well as tacit and explicit strategies to achieve them.
Coupling Varied by Age
There are three distinct age groups. The first group includes participants who started
wor king a t R UC prior to C hina’ s higher education policy shift about quality in mid-1990s. These
pa rticipa nts we r e hire d a t a ti me w he n doc tor a l de g r e e or e ve n maste r’ s de g r e e w a s not r e quir e d
due to the short supply of faculty (Min, 2004). They were also hired during a time when higher
e duc a ti on’s ma jor re spon sibi li t y wa s t e a c hin g , le a ving r e s e a r c h c on c e ntr a te d in national r e se a rc h
inst it utes ( MoE, 2012) . The re fo re , thes e pa rticipa n ts ar e in t he ir ow n wo rds “ not re a d y to do
re se a rc h” whe n the polic y shift happ e ne d. A fif t y -year old full professor in mathematics shared:
I was hired in 1984, fresh out of my undergraduate education. That was only a few years
after China resumed the higher education system after the Cultural Revolution, a ten-year
152

gap of faculty supply. So there was a great demand for faculty to teach. I had no idea
what research was. So the change to emphasize research not quite long ago was quite a
c ha n g e f o r me … I wa s fo rc e d to l e a rn to do r e s e a r c h in m y mi d to l a te thirti e s… L u c kil y , I got my full professorship before that ch a n ge , so I ha ve n’ t be e n unde r imm e nse p re ssur e to do re se a r c h. I do it wh e n I f e e l l ike it, s ometim e s I don ’t. ( pa rticipa nt #45 )
I n thi s pa rticipa nt’s c a s e , the shift to empha siz e r e se a rc h ov e r te a c hin g wa s disrupti ve to her roles and responsibilities as a faculty member at RUC. The fact that she earned a doctorate after
such shift indicated such disruption. At the same time, however, what she had been doing as a
faculty since then is not tightly coupled with overall policy oriented towards research
productivity, thanks to her promotion to full professorship prior to the policy change. Further, the
tra dit ional C hinese li ne , whic h is comm onl y kno wn a s “the iron - ric e bo wl,” a lso provided he r
job security.
The second group includes participants who started working at RUC between mid-1990s
and earlier 2000s. This was the time when emphasis on research became more widely and
urgently emphasized (MoE, 2008, 2012). Participants in this group responded to the shift in
different ways. Some appeared to see the storm coming and shifted their work to focus more on
research, for example, by getting a Ph.D. at RUC or elsewhere, starting to forge international
collaborations in research, and working to improve their English writing skills. A full professor
in the School of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering shared:
I sta rte d wor kin g a t R UC i n 1999, mainl y to t e a c h …B ut I saw th e tre nd c o mi ng . S o I decided to get my Ph.D. from RUC. It took me three years. Research has since become
more important in evaluation and promotion. My advisor also had pressure to do more
research. So I worked closely with my advisor and others in his research team. I have
153

publications. I worked on grants. Looking back, I was very fortunate to have made the
right decision at the right time. Timing is so important. (participant #32)
I n thi s par ti c ip a nt’s c a se , the polic y shift had de e p l y a ff e c ted the dir e c ti on of he r a c a d e mi c c a re e r, revealing tight coupling. Such tight coupling with the urgent sense of timing is also emphasized
by an associate professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering:
I joi ne d RUC a fte r g e tt in g m y master ’s de g r e e f ro m anothe r unive rsit y . Th e n, I r e a li z e d
that I had to get a Ph.D. I did that at RUC. But time just flew and all of a sudden
doctorate was not enough and I had to get a post-doc, which I did. (participant #8)
Teaching, then, for this group of participants is more voluntary. An associate professor in
the School of Economics and Business Administration shared:
I spend more time on research than on teaching, oh definitely so. But I do put my effort
into teaching. I want to be the professor that students would feel they have learned
somethi ng f rom a fte r the y gr a dua te a nd st a rt wo rk ing . I don’ t w a nt t o be th e prof e sso r
that students still talked bad about years after graduation because they learned nothing
from me. (participant #3)
It appeared that investment in teaching for this participant is more out of conscience.
Others in this age group paid less attention to the policy shift and have failed to catch up
with the hurdle. I was not able to recruit any of those academics (i.e., lecturers or associate
professors roughly above age 45). Based on information shared by other participants, academics
“ who mis se d the tim ing ” ha ve not bee n b e ne fitin g fr om t he pol icy shift. They are now the
backbone of teaching faculty, whose work has been marginalized by current policies of quality.
Accordingly, most of them are stuck at the rank of lecturer or associate professor and will likely
154

remain so till their retirement. Other studies have indicated similar findings (Lin, Li, & Lai,
2013).
The third group includes the youngest group who started working over the past eight to
ten years. These participants all had obtained their Ph.D.s or even post-docs prior to joining RUC.
They are well socialized into the research oriented model, regardless of where they obtained their
P h.D. T he y sp e nd mos t of the ir ti me on r e se a rc h, be c a use “ that ha s b e e n th e ir tra ini n g ” a nd
because it is evaluated in their promotion. They treat teaching periphery and spend much less
time on it, because “teaching does not play an important role in evaluation. ” For example, an
a ssocia te pr of e ssor in the S c hool of P owe r Eng ine e ring sha re d: “ Te a c hin g t a ke s no more than 20% of my work time. Research takes about mor e than 60% ” ( pa rticipa nt #9). A n a ssocia te pr o fe ssor
in t he S c hool of Envir onmenta l S c ienc e a n d En g inee rin g e c hoe d: “ I spen d the ma jorit y of m y time on research. Teaching for me is less important. I still put effort into it because getting bad
evaluati ons fr om st ude nt s would m a ke me look ba d in fr ont of m y c oll e a gue s” ( pa rticipa nt #2).
Coupling Varied by Discipline and Academic Rank
The extent of coupling varies by discipline and the academic rank within that discipline.
The differences can be roughly categorized into the field of a) science and engineering, b)
architecture, social sciences, and law, and c) general education. It should be noted that the
disciplinary strength of RUC is in engineering and architecture.
Science and Engineering
In general, participants in fields of science and engineering tightly couple their academic
work with current policies emphasizing the concurrent state and market logic of publications and
rankings. The tight coupling increases as one moves up the academic rank. Further, science and
e ng in e e rin g a re R UC’s ta rge t di sc ipl ines f or im pr o ve ment in national a nd int e rna ti ona l pre sti g e .
155

Tight coupling is thus expected. Other studies on academics in science and engineering fields at
other Chinese universities also reveal tight coupling (Kuang, 2007; Lai, 2009). An associate
professor in the School of Computer Science shared:
S c ienc e C it a ti on I nde x is l ike the g uidi n g sti c k… The r a nkin g of jour n a ls c ha nge s eve r y year based on impact factor. I pay attention every year when the Chinese Academy of
Sciences updates the ranking. If I have manuscripts at hand, of course I would like to try
higher- ra nk e d journa ls… I would be ha pp y to se e if the journa ls whe re I p re vious l y published went up in rank. (participant #14)
Clearly, there is a di r e c t a nd subst a nti a l ef f e c t of t he poli c y on thi s f a c ult y ’ s wor k, not onl y in
terms of submitting to journals only included in the science citation index, this faculty is also
intentional about picking journals based on ranking and impact factor.
Furthermore, such tight coupling tends to increase as participants move up the academic
rank. A full professor in the School of Optical Engineering in his mid-thirties who considers that
“ full prof e ssorship do e sn’t mea n a n y thi n g ” sha re d :
I have to build my own research lab. I am collaborating with a few other like-minded
pr of e ssors… I ’m wor kin g on g e tt in g na ti ona ll y r e c og niz e d g ra nts. I ’m a lso working to
lar ge g r a nts fr om t he ind ustr y . I ’m wor kin g ha rd b y a ll me a ns t o incr e a se m y r e s e a r c h
standing... to become a big professor. (participant #43)
B y “ bi g pro fe ssor” h e me a ns t hose with national ti tl e s of e x c e ll e nc e in r e se a rc h. W he n he s a id
“ full prof e ssorship do e sn’t mea n a n y thi n g ,” he wa s not tr y in g to be humble . Othe r pa rticip a nts at
the full professor level in science and engineering fields felt the same. They agreed that funding
for research had increased exponentially, but funding had also been concentrated within a small
group of faculty who they call big professor. Although no participates gave specific statistics,
156

this perception is not entirely groundless. The academics awarded national and provincial level
a wa rds a nd ti tl e s publ ished b y R UC’s w e bsit e ove r the pa st five to ten y e a r s ar e in fa c t si mi lar academics. For example, the same academics might be awarded with a few titles at the same time
in the same year or in different years. The concentration of critical resources within the hands of
a few select faculty is found to be quite common (Yangtze Daily, 2009; Lai, 2009; Zhang, 2007).
The extent of coupling, then, becomes even tighter for those big professors. For example,
a nationally distinguished professor in the School of Environmental Science who also holds
academic leadership role as the associate dean shared:
The national title means greater pressure to publi sh… I ’m be y ond e x ha usti on. I f it we re up to me, I would work on fewer grants, submit fewer papers. But if I do that, my annual
research output would be lower, perhaps in equal amount as, or even lower than faculty
with no national titles. Then I would feel shameful of claiming the title, of earning a
much higher salary. I would have no face to stay in my department. (participant #59)
Somewhat surprisingly, the drive to publish more is not from intrinsic passion not even for this
distinguished professor, who in theory should have greater power and flexibility in his work.
Further, the drive to publish more was driven by peer pressure, not only in relation to proving
excellence in research, but also in relation to proving he deserves the higher salary.
A unique form of research activity at RUC and in fact Chinese research universities in
general , is the form of research team headed by a big professor and consists of a few faculty
members across the academic ranks from full professors down to lecturers to graduate students.
This concept of research team or faculty collaboration is different from that of the U.S. where the
team can be headed by academics of any rank and consists of graduate students and perhaps
post-docs. The formation of Chinese research team is in part due to the severe inbreeding in
157

Chinese higher education for historical reasons, as discussed in Chapter One (Min, 2004).
I ndivi dua ls us ua ll y joi n their a dviso r’ s r e se a rc h te a m during thei r doc tora l e duc a ti on a nd a re later employed by the university to become faculty members. Staying in the research team is thus
natural. The power dynamic between advisee and advisor, however, may also continue.
S ome sc holar s ca ll thi s f or m as “ a p a triar c ha l re s e a rc h te a m” w it hout par ti c ular l y re f e rr in g to
male or female as the team leader. Usually big research team headed by big professor is more
competitive in getting national or industrial grants, thus having greater financial resources and
research output. Therefore, academics affiliated with a big research team usually find it easier to
publish and to get promoted.
Participants, particularly those working on the traditional Chinese track, confirm the
importance of such form of research team to their research productivity and promotion. The big
professor or th e big re se a rc h tea m i s joki ng l y c a ll e d “ big tr e e ” b y som e pa rt icipa nts who shar e d
that the most e x pe dient wa y of g e tt in g publi c a ti o ns an d a c c o rdin g l y p romoti on is “ to find a big tre e a nd le a n on it ” ( pa rticipa nt #2, #8, #9, #25, #27, #28). H owe v e r, join ing the big research
tea m i s har de r for pa rtici pa nts who di d not obt a in t he ir Ph. D.s f rom RUC . As one ’s r e s e a r c h
interests might be specific and not well aligned with that of the team, these participants have to
choose between adjusting their research interests in order to join the team and sticking to their
interests and fight their way singlehandedly. Science and engineering faculty hired along the
tenure line have mixed reactions toward the form of big research team. A few have joined a big
research team, while others are trying to build their own slowly.
As a variation of this theme, not all participants in science and engineering tightly couple
their work activities with the state and market logic or the big research team which can be
158

understood as a product combining the profession, the market, and the Confucian family logic. A
full professor in her late forties in the School of Mechanical Engineering shared:
I always study what interests me. It took me longer, in fact, ten years to get to full
professor from associate professor. My heart still aches when I think about those ten
y e a rs w it hout bein g swa y e d b y doin g re se a rc h that ’s hot or e x pe dient or b y re l y in g on a big tre e …B ut I ’ m g lad I ha ve be e n true to m y pa s sion… I ’m pr oud o f w ha t I h a ve achieved wi thout jum pin g on the b a ndwa g on o f d oing r e s e a r c h that’ s hot o r e nc our a g e d
by the state or market. (participant #27)
This participant obtained all of her degrees at RUC. Her advisor had worked as the dean and vice
pr e sident. I n he r ow n wo rds, “ it ’s e a s y [ f or he r] to j oin t he big r e s e a r c h tea m…and e ve r y thi n g would ha ve be e n e a sie r.” How e ve r, she c hos e to bec ome a n ind e pe nde nt r e se a rc h e r f oll owin g her own passion. She further shared that because the bandwagon could be easily changed by the
state or the market, following her own passion to pursue professional excellence to some extent
protected her from such external influence. She also said her chosen reaction buffered her from
undue influe nc e : “ P lans c a nnot ca t c h up with t he c ha n g e . S o pe rha ps t he b e st wa y to respond is
to cope with these shifting events by sticking to my own research interests and the fundamental
pr inciple of e x c e ll e nc e in re se a rc h.” This not ion i s also e c hoe d b y a f e w othe r pa rticip a nts i n
social sciences (discussed later).
While research h a s be e n the pr im a r y f oc us on t h e pa rticipa nts’ wor k, t e a c hi ng is l a r ge l y left to individual discretion. Participants in the science and engineering fields do not spent much
time talking about teaching during the interview. And many emphasize that pressure to obtain
competitive grants and to publish is their major concern. Research, accordingly, consumes the
majority of their time, ranging from 60 to 75 percent. Balancing time on teaching and research is
159

a major struggle, particularly for junior faculty who are not as experienced in teaching as senior
ones. More time spent on teaching is considered to compromise the time on research, which
would negatively affect evaluation and promotion (participant #25, #31).
Consequently, the emphasis on teaching depends on individual choices and passion. For
those with little interest in teaching, their perceived responsibility is to fulfill the teaching
requirement assigned to them (i.e., teach minimum number of classes required per year). For a
few that are highly interested in teaching, they spend more time preparing for classes and
interacting with students. These participants are well aware that their time spent on teaching is
less valued in faculty evaluation, but they are willing to do so because they have an intrinsic
interest in interacting with students.
Architecture, Social Sciences, and Law
For participants in these fields, the extent of coupling is mixed and less clearly
distinguished by discipline or academic rank as in science and engineering. There appears to be
more flexibility in terms of aligning their work with the state and market logic. Other dimensions
including age and employment track appear to be stronger attributes than discipline and
academic rank in explaining their actions. Two subthemes have emerged that cut across
disciplines in the three fields: a) for participants (usually at the associate or full professor level)
who somewhat reorient their work towards the current policies (i.e., some extent of coupling),
the nature of the coupling is superficial and does not affect their own pursuit of career objectives
in academe; b) for participants who do couple their work with the current evaluation policies, the
extent of coupling tends to decrease after promotion to full professor.
Superficial coupling. Some participants at the associate and full professor level partially
align their work with the existing faculty evaluation and promotion policies. The partial
160

alignment is more superficial in nature than substantive. The coupling is not in the symbolic
sense argued by the new institutional theorists (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), in that they do align
some of their work to fulfill the evaluation. The majority of their time, however, is spent
engaging in activities of interest to them, be it teaching, academic research, industrial
c oll a bora ti on, or e ntr e pr e ne ur ial wor k. This fo rm of c oupli ng is s im il a r to “ double bookke e pin g” strategy, where adaptation to exterior demands becomes part of the routine, while at the same
time some core activities continue to be motivated by personal convictions (Bennich-Bjorkman,
2007). In other words, these academics are playing the game.
The superficial coupling, however, does not happen for the same reason for different
participants. Three reasons can be identified. First, for some associate professors, the superficial
coupling is forced because the publication criteria of promotion to full professor and the
competition for promotion are considered out of reach. An associate professor in the School of
Economics and Business Administration shared:
Af ter promoti on to assoc iate prof e ssor, I don’ t e y e on the f ull prof e sso rship. The re a re a bout 30 assoc iate pro fe s sors in our sc hool. I ’m pr oba bl y on e of the y oun g e st. Ther e is
green light for those with exceptional publication reco rd… I would r a the r sp e nd the tim e on doing thi ng s that m a tt e r to me , that int e re st m e … I ’m doing a lot of a ppl ied r e se a rc h
with collaboration with the industry. I find it very interesting and valuable in solving
problems. (participant #10)
The basic research requirement is not hard to fulfill. Research with national competitive grants or
industry collaborations is both counted, though with different weight. The requirement of
promotion to full professorship, however, is much harder. This participant has chosen to engage
in applied research that is not only within her reach but also more interesting to her. Further,
161

se niorit y a pp e a rs to a lso pl a y a r ole in thi s par ti c i pa nt’s int e rpr e t a ti on of f a c ult y promoti on a nd
accordingly her choice of action.
Similarly, an associate professor in the School of Law has also chosen to do things that
she feels passionate about, because promotion based on current criteria seems out of reach. This
faculty had tried to apply for provincial grants required for promotion. But she found that these
grants usually required full professorship. She was frustrated with such a requirement which she
considered unreasonable and demotivating. Then she has decided to:
…foc us on t hing s matt e r to m e . I h a ve e x tensive i nter na ti ona l vi sit ing scho larship
e x pe rie nc e … I ’m d e ve lop ing a dv a nc e d c ourse s in l a w in En g li sh or bili ng ua ll y . I hope m y e x pe rie nc e s c a n be ne fit st ude nts… I ha v e g re a t c oll a bora ti on with a uni ve rsit y in
Denmark. Now I am trying to build a joint degree program between my school and that
univer sit y … I ’m doin g th e se thi ng s hopi n g that I c a n re a ll y mak e m y c ontri buti on to
student learning. (participant #41)
In addition, other participants also voice their frustration with certain seemingly arbitrary
requirements in grant application or promotion. For example, some grants require applicants to
have obtained full professorship, some have age requirement (e.g., 35 years old or younger for
grants targeting junior faculty, 45 years old or younger for grants targeting associate or full
professors), and other application criteria require overseas education experiences. The literature
has also documented bureaucratization of allocating research grants (Lin, 2011).
Second, for some, the superficial coupling is also forced but for different reason. These
participants decouple their work because they do not see the link between what is required in
evaluation and their interests. I was not able to recruit participants of this category in interviews.
But this theme is corroborated by multiple sources of data including the interview with the vice
162

president, the head of the social science division, information shared by faculty in the interview,
and casual conversations with a few faculty members. Academics of this group usually engage in
entrepreneurial activities, by using the platform provided by RUC. As others have put it, their
heart or focus of attention is not within RUC but outside (participant #33, #36, #46, #49). The
policies of scheduling the classes across workdays and restricting rescheduling of classes, as
mentioned previously, are issued hoping to correct such behavior and bring the attention back to
the work within RUC. Engagement with entrepreneurial work has been common in Chinese
higher education with increasing collaboration between university and industry. An additional
reason for faculty members to engage in such work is for financial considerations, as the base
salary is fairly low and not everyone can get the nationally competitive grants or high-level
publications to qualify for monetary bonuses. As a result, academics of this type are fairly
a da pti ve : “do r e se a rc h w or k if ha ve to [ to fulfill the ba sic r e quire ment] , a n d do indus tr y collaboration whenever there is such opportunity, with no integration between the two lines of
wor k” ( p a rt icipant #36, #49).
Third, a few participants have chosen to follow their own path of pursuing excellence.
They are highly engaged in both research and teaching. The motive behind their hard work is
their love for the profession and for academic work. Therefore, while they are highly productive
in research and teaching, I do not interpret their action as tight coupling because the motive
be hind t he ir “ a li g ne d ” a c ti vit ies is not to meet the evaluation or promotion criteria. In other
words, the alignment betw e e n their wo rk a nd the poli c ies is “a ha pp y c oin c ident” r a th e r tha n a voluntary and intentional attempt following current policies. A participant who was just
promoted to full professor in the School of Economics and Business Administration shared:
163

I have been following my own standards of quality work...in both my research and
tea c hin g . The e va luation c riter ia c ha n g e a ll the tim e . I c a n ’t c ha s e it bli ndl y a nd or ient
m y wor k to ful fill t he c riter ia…W ha t I ha v e be e n doing is s or t of le tt ing th e shi fting events take their course, and I focus on producing quality work. We all know what real
high quality work looks like and the kind of work written just to meet the quantity
requirement...No matter what changes in the criteria, quality matters and quality work
will be recognized. (participant #3)
His action should not be considered as lack of passivity in responding to current evaluation
criteria; rather, what he did is not to jump on the bandwagon, but to follow the fundamental
principles of pursing excellence. He has benefited from this persistence and got promoted to full
professor, because the evaluation criteria at RUC have recently shifted from requiring at least six
publications of any kind to at least two high-level publications of national or international
recognition (gauged by international, peer-reviewed journals and citation). The feeling that there
is a lack of stability and clarity in the evaluation criteria is widely shared by other participants as
well as other scholars in Chinese higher education (Li, Lin, & Lai, 2013; Lin, 2011). Therefore,
while some academics are more adaptive to these changing requirements, others choose to follow
their own set of criteria for evaluating academic work, which are more lined with professional
logic of excellence.
Tight coupling that decreases with promotion to full professor. Some participants have
been forced to tightly couple their work with the state and market logic. The tight coupling,
however, tends to decrease with promotion to full professor. For these participants, tight
coupling is not preferred but must be carried out temporarily to obtain full professorship. What
the goal is achieved, they only perform to meet the minimum research and teaching requirements
164

and actively engage in activities of interest to them. Two participants in the School of
Architecture who had gained full professorship provide examples of decreased coupling after the
promotion. As mentioned previously, architecture as a discipline is categorized as natural science
in China and accordingly at RUC. Thus evaluation of faculty work in architecture is also closely
linked to publications in science citation index. Participants argued that architecture is a highly
inter-disciplinary field that integrates technology, engineering, art, history, culture, and
philosophy. The current way of evaluation became effective in 2006, which participants share
was the disruptive turning point in their academic career. A full professor in architecture shared:
In the new evaluation criteria, many journals that we consider top level in our field are
not included in the SCI. So the articles that I published in those journals were discounted.
The time spent on publishing them became wasted for my promotion to full professorship.
So it took me longer to get my dossi e r re a d y … [ A fte r pr omot ion t o the f ull prof e ssor] I ’ ve ha d l e ss pre ssur e to publ ish i n thos e journa ls t ha t ar e less r e leva nt t o m y f ield but
re quire d fo r pr omot ion. I’ m l e ss oriente d to t he e v a luation cr it e ria …M y wo rk sinc e then
has been spending more time with my students and doing research that I think is
interesting to me and valuable to society. For example, I would love to design something
to participate in the Biennial Shenzhen-Hongkong Architecture Convention. Things like
thi s I c ouldn’t a ff or d to do before because they are useless for promotion. (participant
#33)
Another full professor in architecture echoed:
I had more than thirty publications prior to becoming full professor. Half of them were
published in journals required by the evaluation. The other half were published in
journa ls hi g hl y r e c o g niz e d in m y f ield but not include d in t he e va luation. I wouldn’ t sa y
165

my work was completely oriented to the evaluation criteria. I tried to do both. I finished
the requirement first, and then worked o n r e se a rc h that int e re sted me …[ Af t e r pr omot ion
to t he f ull prof e ssor] I do n’ t have to do t ha t an y m or e , a t l e a st not a s much. I ’ ve be e n
wor king on re se a rc h th a t I ’m p a ssi ona te a bout. (p a rticipa nt #36)
Apparently, these two participants were forced to tightly couple their academic work with the
evaluation criteria that they deemed unsuitable, in order to get promotion. However, since such a
tight coupling is not voluntary to begin with but imposed upon by the need for promotion, the
extent of coupling has therefore decreased as participants has moved up to full professorship.
A participant in the School of Law, an associate professor, is planning on following a
similarly path of tightly coupling first and loose coupling after gaining full professorship
(participant #29). This participant has an excellent record of publication, including three books
and more than thirty articles. He shared that his experience with promotion to associate professor
was quite smooth with such a strong record. His short term goal is to obtain full professorship as
fast as he can, and then engages in more entrepreneurial or legal service activities outside of
RUC afterwards.
General Education
For participants working in general education fields such as college math, college
chemistry, college English, communism and Marxism
18
, the extent of coupling is loose,
particularly for those at lower academic ranks (i.e., lecturers and associate professors). The
reason for such decoupling is twofold. On one hand, these participants, who were originally
hired to teach rather than research, have felt being pushed to the margin with no hope of

18
Classes on communism and Marxism are general education classes that every college student must take, a policy
and practice at all colleges and universities including RUC. Faculty teaching these courses may be affiliated with
different schools depending on the disciplinary structure of a particular university. At RUC, faculty members
teaching these courses are affiliated with the School of Public Affairs.
166

promotion. Therefore, tight coupling is not possible, even if they wanted to. A lecturer from the
School of Foreign Languages shared:
I c a n’ t se e a n y hop e . I was hired to teach. The new evaluation and promotion criteria are
going more and more research focused. I see the bar, but there is no way I could reach
that…And the major ince nti ve s ar e a ll a bout publ i c a ti ons. Man y f a c ult y me mber s in m y School are like me. Some of them work outside earning extra income in English exam
preparation schools, like the New Oriental School. Some have their own company to do
fr e e l a nc e tr a nslati on a nd int e rpr e tation…At R UC, we a r e known a s the S c h ool wit h
lowest salary but most free time. (participant #7)
Such a loose coupling is echoed by another participant (#51) who was originally a lecturer in the
School of Foreign Languages. This participant later had worked hard to make his transition to an
administrative position due to the overwhelming emphasis on research and the bleak hope of
getting promoted on the academic rank. Academics teaching college math and college chemistry,
particularly senior ones at the lecturers or associate professor levels, also decouple their work
with the current evaluation criteria. I was not able to recruit such participant. Based on
information provided by other participants including academic leaders and faculty, these
participants have heavy teaching loads, and lack training to do research. However, some of these
participants have excellent teaching evaluations and are experienced in teaching with two or
three decades of teaching experiences. As a result, the current evaluation policies have pushed
them to the margin. Frustration has even led to some individual strikes of refusing to teach
classes, which was particularly intense during the annual evaluation and promotion time. RUC
has recently implemented a new evaluation policy that divides the faculty into three types, each
with its own criteria: teaching faculty, research and teaching faculty, and research faculty. The
167

research criteria for teaching faculty in general education courses are much lower. This policy
has given some hope to the general education faculty.
On the other hand, for some participants, the loose coupling is intentional because they
see the current evaluation criteria as fundamentally flawed due to its marginalization of teaching
and student learning. A full professor in the School of Public Affairs who holds a Ph.D. in
philosophy and teaches Marxism and other ideological and philosophical courses shared:
The current evaluation system is very bad for teaching and student learning...It pushes
faculty to only focus on generate papers, and tak e s aw a y f a c ult y ’s tim e with s tudents … I do re se a rc h a nd p ubli sh on m y own pa c e …. I spen d the ma jorit y of m y te a c hing a nd
working with students, and all integrate my research with teaching. I offered a new
elective class in ideology last semester where more than 120 students signed up. I spent
lots of time preparing the class. It was very well received. I am offering it again this
semester, and the enrollment exceeded the classroom capacity so I had to put a cap on it.
This i s wha t a c oll e g e f a c ult y shoul d do, tea c hin g a nd nur turin g tale nts… a nd e n gage
them with critical and independent thinking, ask them question inequity and injustice.
(participant #11)
The criticism that teaching is neglected in the current evaluation system is widely shared among
Chinese academics (Lai, 2009; Li, Lai, & Lo, 2013; Li, Li, & Sun, 2013; Lin, 2011; Zhang,
2007), and also acknowledged by the government (MoE, 2011). Another study has also found
that academics in humanities at another research university passively resisted the evaluation
system and follow their own conviction to teaching (Lai, 2009). Further, not only did this
participant intentionally decouple his work with the current evaluation criteria, he has also
168

engaged in teaching and scholarship in a way that might be considered as somewhat unsettling
(Zha, 2009).
Coupling Varied by Employment Track
Participants hired along the tenure-track line more tightly couple their work with the
current evaluation policies of quality, while those hired along the traditional Chinese track
appear to have more flexibility. There are three reasons for tight coupling along the tenure-track
line. First, tight coupling is in part due to their socialization to the high research activity through
their training in overseas Ph.D. programs. A tenure-track assistant professor in the School of
Physics who obtained her Ph.D. in Hongkong and did two-year post- do c in t he U.S. s a id: “ I ’ve be e n doin g thi s for y e a rs. R e se a rc h a nd publi shing a re wh a t I do” ( p a rticipa nt #18). S uc c e ssful
socialization to research tradition through doctoral training has been theorized and concluded as
the most crucial factor for scholarship development and career success in academia (Gardner,
2009; Golde, 2005; Walker et al., 2008; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001).
Second, as mentioned earlier, participants hired along the tenure line are paid with a
much higher salary and startup package in exchange for their research outputs. The expectation
therefore was to do research and publish. Not surprisingly, participants on the tenure-track line
c onsi stentl y said that “ foll owing the intense re se a r c h tra ini ng th e y ha ve re c e ived ove rs e a s” a nd
“ doing int e rn a ti ona ll y re c og niz e d r e se a rc h” we r e their top priorit y . RUC a l so ap pe a r e d to m or e closely monitor their research productivity. A tenure-track assistant professor in the School of
Environmental Science and Engineering shared that he was asked to report his research output
every few weeks.
Third, tight coupling was also voluntary, in part stemming from love of research and in
part stemming from lack of job security. Participants all shared their passion for what they study.
169

At the same time, while they are confident about their research capacities, they were also
insecure about their future job prospect at RUC. The tenure-track policy at RUC was launched
two years ago. Therefore, details about the third-year review and the tenure process were rather
general than specific. Participants thus chose to continue their work emphasizing publication and
research, hoping that even if the policy changes in the future (e.g., terminated) they would have
no difficulty finding faculty positions elsewhere in China or internationally.
As for participants along the traditional Chinese track, there appeared to have more
flexibility. Although faculty hired on different academic ranks are given different amount of
research and teaching requirement, the baseline to maintain employment is not demanding. The
high monetary awards for publication in part provided incentives and in part gave flexibility. In
other words, it became a personal choice shaped b y a p a rticipa nt’s p rof e ssi ona l and pe rson a l
priority. For example, when asked whether she would like to switch to the tenure-track line with
a much higher pay, a participant who was recently promoted to associate professor in the School
of Public Affairs shared:
Of c ours e not. I t ’s muc h more f lex ibl e [ on the tr a dit ional C hinese li ne ] . I c a n c hoose to
do it or pe rha ps som e ti mes r e lax a bit [ in re se a rc h a nd publi shing ] . I t’s e a s y to complete the ba se li ne r e se a rc h a nd tea c hin g unit s. The e x tra stuff it ’s up to me. (participant #6)
The associate dean of the School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (participant #52) also
confirmed that no faculty member would like to switch to the tenure- tr a c k, be c a use “ no one would li ke to g ive up the job sec ur it y o f the ‘ ir on- r ice bowl’ a s w e ll a s the f l e x ibi li t y th a t come s
with i t.” Tw o other f a c ult y membe rs dur in g c a su a l c onve rsa ti ons (not show n in Ta ble 7) a lso
shar e d that the y would n ot wa nt t o g ive up the ir “ iron - ric e bowl ” a nd swit c h to t he tenur e tra c k
with a much higher salary, because of the pressure to publish and little flexibility to take a breath.
170

As a slight variation of this theme regarding the tight coupling among tenure line
participants or at least the intention of tight coupling, not all of them was able to do so. The
majority of the tenure-line participants were able to organize their work tightly coupling with the
evaluative environment, while others were asked to do more administrative or service work than
they were willing to take, depending on a combination of departmental and personal interests and
needs. A tenure-track assistant professor in the School of Physics and a tenure-track assistant
professor in the School of Architecture were both asked to take charge of multiple departmental
work (participant #18, #30). Both of them shared that their biggest concern and pressure was
about their progress in research, not because they were making slow progress but because they
had had no time for doing research at all. Despite their frustration, they both chose to take on the
departmental and administrative work for the same reason that they planned to stay at RUC for
family considerations. It was a compromise, as one of them further noted, and smart decision in
the long ter m “ not t o roc k the boa t.” ( pa rticipa n t #18)
Coupling Varied by Gender
There is a clear distinction between how female and male participants have aligned their
actions with current policies, which emphasize research output and market competition for
publications and grants. Gender difference exists in two respects: a) greater time invested in
students among female participants, and b) less time invested in research among female
participants due to family responsibilities. First, almost every female participant shows interests
in teaching, nurturing talents, and interacting with students. Middle to senior age female
participants share that they were attracted to the academic profession because of their love of
teaching and interacting with students (participant #13, #24, #45, #57). This is also consistent
with the distinction by age as discussed earlier; academics joining the profession prior to the shift
171

from teaching to research in mid-1990s were mainly hired to teach (Min, 2004; Mohrman, Geng,
Wang, 2011).
For example, a female full professor who was in the School of Mathematics and Statistics
re pe a t e dl y e mphasiz e d d ur ing the inte rvie w tha t “ e duc a ti n g students and n ur turing tal e nts i s the
funda menta l purpose , a n d a n y thi n g e lse should se rve thi s ver y purp os e .” ( p a rticipa nt #45) This
participant also shared that her decision to become a college teacher was in part due to the
consideration that this career path of teaching was suitable for women. Because of her love and
belief in educating students, she spent most of her time revising and improving the curriculum.
Another full professor in the School of Life Sciences and Bioengineering, who wanted to
become a teacher since she was a little girl, shared that she spent about half of her time helping
students, which was more than the average of 20 to 30 percent of faculty time (participant #24).
Second, a few female participants shared that family responsibilities of having and
raising children distracted them from research for a few years when the child was little. For
example, a female full professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering admitted that raising
her child slowed her down in research progress for a few years (participant #27). A female
lecturer in the School of Foreign Languages shared that raising her child distracted her from
learning to do research and publish (participant #7). A female full professor in the School of
Architecture shared that she was lucky to avoid the conflict between raising child and doing
research:
I g ot b y b a c he lor ’s de g r e e in 1996 and the n m y master ’s in 1999 . Then I decided to get
m y P h.D. w hil e star ti n g f a mi l y a nd h a ving th e c hil d. S o I didn’t wa st e a n y t im e …The timing was particularly important because these few years [around 2000] was the very
turning point of a sharp shift from teaching to research. Other female faculty the same
172

age as me in our School failed to do both as I did. They took time off to raise their
children. Then the timing was gone, because faculty hired later, those younger faculty,
are so competitive in research, plus they have greater energy. The competition for
promotion has been getting harder and harder, with ever rising bar for research. If I had
missed the timing and had to compete with the younger faculty, I probably would never
make it to full professor. (participant #32)
The conflict between family responsibility and academic career for female faculty has been well
documented (Hart & Fellabaum, 2009; Winslow, 2010), though much less common in Chinese
higher education (see Li, Lai, & Lo, 2013; Li, Li, & Sun, 2013). Interestingly, none of the female
participants voiced frustration or concerns of this challenge; nor did they voice hopes or requests
of positive change in the faculty evaluation structure as frequently did by their overseas
counterparts (Hart & Fellabaum, 2009; Winslow, 2010). They stated their relevant experiences
more of an accepted norm than a challenge.
A few male participants also share their interests and experiences in teaching and
working with students, but the instances are much less common than among female participants.
For example, a few male participants emphasize that they love teaching and care about student
learning. A male associate professor in Physics shared that he enjoys sharing his experiences
with students and helping them make better and informed decisions about further learning, and
would love to do more if time would allow (participant #42). A male full professor in the School
of Ar c hit e c ture sha re d, “ I’ m not a mbi ti ous [to be c ome a n y of the bi g prof e ssor] . I e njo y spending time with students and revising the curriculum. I want to make sure students can learn
somethi ng f rom e v e r y c o ur se .” ( p a rticipa nt #33). F ur ther , non e of the mal e pa rticipa nts m e nti ons
that family responsibilities have distracted them from doing research or teaching.
173

Chapter Five Discussion and Conclusion
In this chapter, I discuss the findings in relation to broader theoretical and practical issues.
I first discuss the utility of theoretical perspectives reviewed in Chapter Two in understanding
the case. Next, I discuss the findings in understanding faculty issues unique to research
universities in China. I focus on primary issues that have garnered attention both in Chinese and
international educational community, including the strong state and free market development
model, China ’s mode rniz a ti on dr ive thr ou g h hig h e r e duc a ti on, a nd a c a de mi c f re e dom. Next, I
discuss the findings in understanding changing academic profession at research universities
globally. I engage with perennial questions facing higher education, including its autonomy in
relation to societal forces, the tension between global template and local variations of research
universities, and the tension between research and other missions of universities. Finally, I
conclude this chapter by discussing the implications of this study.
The Utility of Multiple Theoretical Perspectives
For survival, it is the common fate of colleges and universities to have to build structures
and processes to achieve some sustainable balance between diverse objectives, resources, and
outcomes. With increasing public scrutiny, the evaluative contexts involve multiple internal and
external stakeholders including the government, funding agencies, students, markets and
employers, and academics themselves (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Lane & Kivisto,
2008; Liefner, 2003; Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). Colleges and universities wrestle with
which types of solutions and arrangements they adopt, with what compromises and
consequences for external stakeholders as well as academics and students. Different organization
theories predict different organizational thinking, actions, and outcomes, as discussed in Chapter
Two. Although the findings summarized in Chapter Four are organized around institutional
174

logics perspective, interpretations of these findings reveal how various theoretical perspectives
collectively illuminate the case. The proposed theoretical tools based on institutional logics,
sensemaking theory, and organizational culture has proved advantageous, while additional
perspectives complemented to generate a fuller understanding.
In what follows, I discuss the utility of different organizational perspectives with two
objectives. First, I attempt to engage with the dialogue between theoretical reasoning exercise
and the case. Second, I pointed out in Chapter One that studies on changing academic profession
in China are scarce, and the majority of the existing studies to date on Chinese higher education
are a-theoretical due to historical and political reasons. Treating this as an instrumental case
study, I attempt to call for more empirical studies as well as more theorizing in future studies. in
this sense, engagement with multiple perspectives herein provides suggestions of theoretical
frameworks for future studies.
The Iron Cage Hypothesis
Iron cage hypothesis is a mainstream argument about the change process and outcomes in
higher education under increasingly accountability pressures, based on the macro-deterministic
new institutionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Current evaluative environment features
standardized indicators of quality widely used in state and commercial rankings as well as report
cards. These mechanisms build an iron cage which imposes a single template for assessing
quality and accordingly a single path to attain quality. Various stakeholders such as the
government, students, and employers appear to believe that quality can be objectively assessed
by these mechanisms, despite the strong criticisms or even rejections from academics with
specialized knowledge for evaluating academic quality. These mechanisms foster and perpetuate
the vision that there is only one good way to assess institutional quality (Marginson, 2010).
175

Higher education institutions are invited, coerced, or seduced to follow the increasingly
stan da rdiz e d “ for mul a ” o f qua li t y a nd st riv e to clim b up the inst it uti ona l l a dde r of pr e sti ge (Sauder & Espeland, 2009). Not partaking in academic market competition for prestige can be
costly if not suicidal, when peer institutions actively participate in this game. In the Chinese
higher education context with strong state striving for prestige, the danger of non-conformity
involves an even higher price.
As a result, institutions have little choice but to adhere to these coercive and normative
forces. Further , be c a use “ the be st” or th e top ra nk e d inst it uti ons ha ve the pow e r to de fin e qua li t y ,
other institutions are forced to mimic them, in order to avoid uncertainty or to win advantage of a
potentially new institutional practice (e.g., hiring star faculty, launching study abroad programs,
etc.). Trapped in such iron cage, local variations would be fatal, giving rise to increasing
convergence in policies, structures, and even practices. Many studies and observations support
the iron cage hypothesis, revealing increasing similarity among research universities across the
world (Hazelkorn, 2009; Marginson, 2010; Morphew, 2009). Studies have also shown that
attempts to pursue prestige even prevail at regional institutions or liberal arts colleges, whose
mission has b e e n tea c hin g orie nt e d (G onz a les, 20 13;; O’ Mea r a & B loom g a rde n, 2011) .
The iron c a ge h y pothesis is par ti a ll y supporte d b y thi s st ud y . On on e ha nd, C hina’ s
national policies tightly model after the template of research universities, which is largely
defined by the elite institutions in the U.S. The case study university also emulates the practices
of elite research universities, such as launching tenure-track employment system to attract
research faculty, seeking private funding, using performance measures in research productivity,
emphasizing science and technology and professional schools, and encouraging technology
transfer of scientific findings. Therefore, although the management team claims to build RUC
176

into a nationally and internationally renowned rese a rc h univ e rsit y in “ the RUC wa y , ” thi s cla im appears to be merely a slogan.
On the other hand, the findings reveal diverse and contested interpretations of these
inst it uti ona l and na ti ona l poli c ies a s we ll a s va rie d e x tent of c oupli ng be twe e n a c a de mi c s’
actions and these institutional policies. In other words, despite coercive, mimetic, and normative
forces, academics are neither passive, mindless adherents nor vigorous resisters; rather, they
were active and strategic adaptors. The partial utility of iron case hypothesis is expected.
Focusing on organizational change at the meso-organizational field level, this hypothesis is apt at
predicting structural similarity, but fails to provide a useful account of intra-organizational
thinking and actions (Hallett, 2010; Hirsch & Lounsbury, 1997).
University (Principal)-Faculty (Agent) Relationship
The findings reveal the strengths and limitations of principal agent theory (see Eisenhardt,
1989; Lane & Kivisto, 2008; Moe, 1984) for understanding the changing policies and practices
of faculty work at the case study university. First, consistent with this theory, evaluation
mechanisms emphasize measurable and comparable teaching (e.g., teaching scores given by
students, number of courses taught, number of teaching awards, and number of textbooks
published) and research outcomes (e.g., publications, grants, and patents) in order to correct
information asymmetry between academics and the university. From the administrative (i.e., the
principal) point of view, these indicators help demystify the expertise possessed academics (i.e.,
the agent), making evaluation and comparison possible. Academics, however, deplore the use of
these indicators, which they argue disrespect the winding path of scientific inquiry and
compromise academic excellence.
177

Second, performance-based hiring and compensation is the primary strategy at RUC with
the aim of increasing its research prestige. Principal agent theory predicts that strong monetary
incentives for increasing research outputs in faculty evaluation will effectively motivate
academics, and will align their work interests with that of the entire university. Performance-
based compensation policies, however, have enticed mixed feelings and varied motivations and
reactions among academics. Academics are in general receptive to these incentives, which they
argue provide necessary compensation for their low base salary. This receptivity, however, is
forced rather than voluntary. Academics have expressed strong hope for disinterested scholarship
given higher base salary. As a result, monetary incentives have not generated consistent expected
reactions among academics, or even for the same academic at different time points in his or her
career.
Third, the varied and hybrid ways that academics respond to the evaluation mechanisms
a re c on c e rne d with t he c e ntra l i ssue of “ shirkin g ” on the pa rt of the a g e nt t o his or he r
re sponsi bil it ies. P rinc ipal a ge nt t he or y a ssum e s th a t “shirking” is bad or ga niz a ti ona l beha vior
that must be corrected by monitoring and providing incentives. In the case of RUC (in fact any
other c oll e g e o r unive rsit y ) , the finding s su gge st t ha t “shirking” e x ist s. How e ve r, the re a son a nd
c onseq ue nc e of “ shirking” a re c ompl e x a nd not nec e ssar il y ba d. Ac a d e mi c s a t RUC work in an
environment with multiple lines of authority (e.g., the academic leadership line headed by the
president, the Communist Party leadership line headed by the Party Secretary), multiple sources
of funding (e.g., the central and local government, RUC, the industrial cooperation, students),
and multiple goals (e.g., teaching, research, professional service, public service), each of which
may set different expectations and evaluation criteria for academic work. As shown in the
findings, some participants intentionally distance themselves from the priorities set by the
178

university. For example, a few participants chose to focus on the teaching rather than producing
as many publications as possible to earn maximum extra bonuses; a few chose to nurture critical
thinking, diverse and unsettling voices in classrooms rather than ensuring conformity; and a few
chose to patiently follow the winding path of scientific inquiry, pursuing research that involves
hig h risk of f a il ur e , r a the r tha n pro duc e f a st wo rk. “ S hirking ” in t he se circumstances are
commendable.
Resource Dependence
The findings reveal the strengths and limitations of resource dependency theory for
understanding the changing policies and practices of faculty work at the case study university.
First, resource dependency theory predicts that in the case of RUC or any public Chinese college
or university, which is mainly funded by the central and provincial government, they will
im pleme nt ela bora te “ c o or dination and c ontrol st r uc ture s” —policies, rules, and designated
positions or offices of accountability —to satisfy the state demands (see Pfeffer & Salancik,
1978). This is the case for RUC, which has set up structures and implemented policies that aim
to speed up the technological transfer of scientific findings, increase research productivity, and
improve international prestige.
Second, resource dependency theory predicts that RUC will attempt to diversify its
funding sources in addition to the government, and that schools and departments will attempt to
diversify their funding sources from the university, in order to decrease resource-dependency and
increase organizational autonomy and discretion. This is the case with RUC. Although statistics
or financial report could not be obtained, the strategic plan, policy documents, and interviews
with academic leaders suggested ambitious goals and vigorous efforts of diversifying funding at
the university and department levels. For example, RUC has been actively seeking financial
179

contributions from the industry as well as private donations. Schools and departments are
actively seeking opportunities for industrial collaboration, new degree programs, and joint
degree programs with overseas universities.
Third, resource dependency theory predicts that schools and departments will compete
for scarce resources, and that those that can secure scarce resources will have greater power in
relation to others at RUC. This prediction is only partially supported. All schools compete for
scarce resources such as funding, lab space, research or teaching awards, the assigned slot of
faculty members to be promoted, the assigned slot of graduate students to be admitted,
opportunities for international exchange scholarship, and so forth. However, while schools of
engineering, architecture, and business bring in greater resources to the university than others,
they do not appear to have greater power in securing scarce resources. For example, the number
of faculty to be promoted and the number of the research or teaching excellence awards are
relatively equally distributed across the four divisions of RUC (i.e., engineering, architecture,
information, as well as sciences, social sciences, and humanities). This was perceived
unreasonable by academics, as the number of faculty in these four divisions is extremely uneven.
In general, resource dependency theory provides some leverage to understand
organizational thinking and action at the entire organizational or department level for the case of
RUC. This perspective, however, does not adequately account for the social, political, and
normative context in which RUC is embedded. RUC heavily depends on the central and
provincial government for operating funds and research funds, which demands that RUC pay
close attention to the requirements of the state. However, in the context of strong state
intervention in all spheres of Chinese society, decreased state funding which is possible in the
future may not lead to less state control. In other words, the close alignment of university
180

policies with state demands may not be solely due to the materialist dependence on the state,
when political correctness is crucial for organizational survival. Higher education research in
other nations can provide support for this conjecture. Despite the shift away from government
spending on higher education in many nations, there has been continued government interest in
ensuring that institutions remain accountable to the government (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley,
2009; Lane & Kivisto, 2008). In the U.S. for example, even though states funding has shrunk,
state governments have continued to exert substantial influence over higher education policy,
institutional decision making, and governance structure (Knott & Payne, 2004; McLendon,
Deaton, & Hearn, 2007). In addition, focusing on power distributions between subunits, resource
dependency perspective neglects actions of individual academics in different subunits.
Institutional Logics and the Coupling Processes
I nsti tut ional log ics p e rsp e c ti ve e mphasiz e s that i nsti tut ions ar e “ inhab it e d” b y a ge nti c beings (Hallet, 2010), who have varied background knowledge, professional commitments, and
personal interests and goals. Organizational actors viewed in this light neither purely rationalize
their action nor blindly follow imposed environmental scripts (Binder, 2007). Rather, they
respond in multiple ways to the multiple demands in the changing evaluative environments,
combining institutional logics, local meanings, and professional commitments, personal interests,
and goals (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012). As shown in the findings, each participant
ha s their ow n wa y o f sur vival a nd de ve lopm e nt, o r in the ir ow n wor ds “th e y a re ve r y g ood
a da ptors.” Th e e x tent of c oupli ng va rie s b y a mul t ipl icit y o f f a c tors including a ge , g e nd e r,
disciplines and academic ranks, and employment tracks. Furthermore, the same academic
intentionally couple and decouple their work with the evaluative scripts in different ways at
different points in their career, depending on personal and professional interests and goals. These
181

varied and hybrid responses illuminate how human agency is integrated into organizational
dynamics for this university as well as other institutions in an era of increasing accountability.
The findings in Chapter Four, however, provide some contradictory evidence to what a
multiplicity of contested logics in theory would predict about organizational members identities,
feelings, and emotions. Besharov and Smith (2013) argue that when multiple low compatible
logics are central to organizational thinking and functioning, extensive conflicts would occur
about goals, values, identities as well as strategies for achieving these goals. This kind of
“ c ontested” o r g a niz a ti ona l re a li ti e s off e r no c l e a r g uide to int e rp re tations a nd a c ti ons, which c a n
c a use c on fusion, los s of me a ning , a nd ins tabili t y . Ha ll e tt ’s ( 2010) a nd S a u de r a nd Espe l a nd’s
(2009) case studies of how teachers and faculty respond to changing institutional logics support
B e sha rov a nd S mi th’s ( 2 013) a r g ument. I n thi s st ud y , the c e ntra l ity of the state, the market, and
the corporate logic and their competition with the academic professional logic have created
multiple interpretations that are more similar than divergent, as shown in Chapter Four. One
e x plana ti on is the “ mana g e d ” or “ for c e d” s y n e r g y be twe e n the stat e , the m a rke t, and the corporate logics in a national context governed by a combined strong state and free market
development model. The three blending logics, therefore, appear to compete as one strong order
with the academic professional logic. Further, while these multiple logics have provided different
strategies for actions, academics appear to be clear about their goals, interests, and what paths to
follow to achieve them.
The theoretical framework and the ideal types of institutional logics have proved fruitful
in explicating the varied extent of coupling across organizational levels, including between
institutional policies and national mandates, between faculty interpretations and institutional and
national policies, and between faculty reactions and institutional policies. As shown in the
182

findings, a key issue for the university has been to balance dissents stemming from different
logics confronting the top-down change initiatives. The theoretical framework that integrates
institutional logics perspective and sensemaking theory provided the tool to understand the
complex processes: why different logics were embraced or displaced, how they were manifested
in policies, how they were enacted in practices, and what consequences resulted from these intra-
organizational dynamics.
In sum, using institutional logics perspective, the findings contribute to the literature on
how colleges and universities respond to external accountability demands. Earlier research
suggests decoupling between institutional internal practices and formally stated goals due to the
lack of public scrutiny (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Earlier research on
international comparisons emphasize both the pervasiveness of international standards of quality
and the inevitable loose coupling associated with national and institutional efforts to enact these
standards of excellence without substantive changes inside universities (Ramirez, 2006).
However, recent accountability pressures are putting institutions and faculty work under the
microscope, tightening the link between internal practices with external demands and evaluations
(Sauder & Espeland, 2009). Echoing Fiss and Zajac (2006), the findings suggest that the extent
of coupling should not be understood as a binary choice between symbolic and substantive
alignment or between espoused and enacted change initiatives. Rather, change involves multiple
forms that vary across organizations, its subunits, and its members from time to time.
Interacting Logics and Changing Academic Profession in China
The findings provide a glimpse into how multiple logics compete and coexist with the
logic of academic profession in affecting changes of faculty work and life in China. The
dynamics of logic relationships should be understood in relation to the current developmental
183

phase of Chinese higher education as well as the society at large. The state continues to exert
dominant influence. Despite increasing presence, the market and the corporate logic has less
influence than the state, in part due to the governance structure at RUC (in fact all public
colleges and universities in China) and in part due to resource dependence. The logic of the
Confucian family has the least influence compared to the other logics. The logic of academic
profession competes with the state, the market, and the corporate logic in shaping policies and
practices of faculty work, exerting limited influence, however.
The findings address the issue of marketization and corporatization in Chinese higher
education. Universities worldwide have transitioned from being the resources for technological
innovation and economic growth to being the engines in such process (Berman, 2012).
Encouraging academic research to reach the marketplace has affected the ways academics define
and pursue their work. The findings provide empirical evidence that academics, particularly
those from science and engineering departments, indeed closely align their work with market
interests. At the same time, however, the findings also reveal that not all academics do so, and
for those that do, the alignment tightens and loosens from time to time. Some academics still
enjoy pursuing disinterested scholarship and scientifically interesting ideas as well as spending
time with students. Echoing Berman (2012) who provides an extensive documentation of the
process of marketization in American higher education, the findings of this study suggest that the
market logic can only go so far in affecting the academic profession.
The findings deepen the understanding of academic freedom in China. The issue of
limited academic freedom in Chinese higher education has received much attention and
discussion in China and abroad (Altbach, 2001; Shils, 2005; Yang, Vidovich, & Currie, 2007).
The findings in part echo previous articles that emphasize the coercive influence of the state, and
184

in part reveal that the state influence is also seductive. The rules and practices that ensure the
political and ideological correctness of academic work are certainly coercive. For example, the
first and foremost criterion in evaluating grant proposals or applications for teaching or research
excellence awards at RUC is political correctness. An equally powerful force, however, is the
seductive force through research funds. As government grants are the major funding source of
academic research, academics are invited or forced to follow topics recommended by the
g ove rnme nt. I n a ti me w he n fa c ult y ’s b a se li ne sal a r y is l ow, a c a de mi c s ne e d the c ompensa ti on
from publications, grants, and awards to make ends meet. Therefore, price of disobeying or not
partaking in the practice is high on both political and economic grounds.
The findings challenge a common conception of Chinese academics. A common
conception of academics in general in the face of top-down change initiatives is that they are
relatively powerless and over-socialized (Sauder & Espeland, 2010; Trowler, 1998). While some
recent studies suggest that academics in the West may play a more active role than commonly
assumed in shaping policy direction (Hallet, 2010; Trowler, 1998), the possibility is perhaps less
promising in Chinese education system with excessive administrative and political control (Chen,
2010). The findings, however, suggest varied extent of coupling between academics and policies
imposed from the top. While academics have limited power to revise institutional policies, they
appear to be strategic and clear about when and how to couple their work with these top-down
policies. They tend not to advocate political causes or openly blame threats on academic freedom
of these top-down government and institutional initiatives, as academics in the West do.
However, the findings suggest that they are agentic beings that carry out hybrid actions based on
not only what is demanded by the evaluative environment, but also what actions mean to them as
social beings and professionals.
185

Situating the changing academic profession in Chinese history of modernization through
higher education has proved fruitful. Art icle s a bo ut C hina’ s atte mpt to i mp rove qua li t y a r e numerous, particularly attempts at the elite research universities (Gong & Li, 2010; Guo, 2009;
Ho, 2006). These articles emphasize the normative effect of global standards of excellence in the
international academic market. Acknowledging this normative effect, the findings of this study
these attempts are along a continuous striving to modernize China. The striving meets the need
for technological and scientific innovation, but more importantly plays a cen tra l role in C hina’ s
will of restoring power and wealth. As shown in the findings, the catch-up-with-the-West
mentality undergirds national initiatives of higher education, which are then followed by RUC in
its policies. Academics, though not in agreement with current policies and practices, expressed
that they are nevertheless suitable for the current developmental phase in Chinese higher
education, and that positive change will likely happen in the long term as China further
modernizes itself.
Interacting Logics and Changing Academic Profession Globally
Comparatively speaking, the findings highlight two different dynamics —assimilation
versus blending —between higher education and external logics (i.e., the state, the market, the
corporation, and the Confucian family) in shaping the changing academic profession:
assimilation of external logics into academic profession in the West (e.g., the UK and US higher
education) and blending of these logics with academic profession in Chinese higher education.
These two different dynamics are embedded in different higher education governance structures
(decentralized versus centralized) and developmental stages (developed versus developing),
resulting in different broad change processes (fragmentation, incremental change versus
conformity, abrupt change) between the West and China.
186

The findings speak to the central question of the extent to which higher education should
be simultaneously constrained and empowered in an era of increasing accountability pressures.
RUC and other Chinese colleges and universities have experienced increased operational
autonomy from state interventions, whereas higher education systems in many nations have
experienced reversed trends (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Gallagher, 2010). The
influence of the market and corporate logic, however, has grown strong for both Chinese and
many other higher education systems elsewhere. There appears to be increasing convergence in
the dynamics of the state, the market, the corporate, and the academic profession between
different higher education systems. An important question is therefore whether institutions
should retain or obtain a high degree of autonomy while needing to be accountable to the local,
national, and even international community. Higher education has always been influenced by
meta-forces such as the state and the market to a greater or lesser extent in different national
contexts and at different points of time. These meta-forces will continue to co-exist and compete
in affecting faculty work in different contexts over time. Higher education has to continuously
wrestle with the tension between increasing calls for accountability by external stakeholders and
the ever-present expectation for autonomy by internal stakeholders (Dunn, 2003).
The findings illuminate the effects of a globally standardized template of prestigious
research universities on local variations. The diffusion of commercial national and international
rankings creates a general, standardized view of research universities, a view that closely mimics
the elite institutions in the U.S. (Hazelkorn, 2009). Many colleges and universities follow this
standardized view of excellence to a greater or lesser extent. Critiques question whether the
adoption of common standards in different contexts reflects the adoption of fads or is a careful
response to analyzed needs (Chakroun, 2010). Individual colleges and universities are
187

encouraged to reflect on the tension between global standards of excellence and local orders, and
in so doing, explore meaningful paths for improvement (Paradeise & Thoenig, 2013). In the case
of RUC, policies and practices are designed to achieve international recognition as fast as
possible, despite facing tough national and international competition. RUC has deployed radical
strategies and poured significant energy and resources into boosting its performance according
defined by rankings, such as setting up tenure-track employment policy to attract overseas
returning Ph.D.s., providing much higher incentives for publications than its peer institutions as
well as the more elite institutions in China, providing higher incentives for publications in
international, peer-reviewed journals than in Chinese journals, and redesigning internal division
of labor between research and teaching. These strategies embrace opportunistic utilitarianism,
whic h re se mbl e s the id e a l t y pe of “ wa nn a be s,” a s oppose d to ot he r thr e e id e a l t y p e s of
institutions (i.e., top of the pile, the venerable, and the missionaries) (Paradeise & Thoenig,
2013).
The findings speak to the conflicts between teaching, learning, and research under current
quality mechanisms. Scholars have argued that the heavy reliance on faculty research and awards
in current quality mechanisms compromises instructional quality (Hazelkorn, 2009; Marginson
& Wende, 2007). Although teaching, service, and research are all emphasized in statements on
what makes a quality and excellent university (Hartley & Morphew, 2008), the practical
definitions of quality are limited to research at the expense of instructional quality. The findings
in this paper provide additional empirical evidence. Academics invest majority of their time and
effort in research and publishing. Investment in teaching is sacrificed and has become a
voluntary act out of conscience.
188

Finally, the findings speak to a central and perennial question of the role of research
universities in the society. RUC and arguably all higher education institutions in China are
e mbra c in g the e c onomi c func ti on in t he na ti on’s pa th to modernization. Critics deplore that
following the developmental mode of acceleration and utilitarianism, Chinese institutions have
become too captive to the immediate and economic functions they serve (Zha & Hayhoe, 2012).
Likewise, current developments in m a n y c ountri e s empha siz e ba sing a n in sti tut ion’s qua li t y in
terms of its effectiveness of fulfilling the economic function. This is even the case for the
traditional four-year institutions where fulfilling both economic and social missions has been
desired. The cultural values an institution embodies, the diverse perspectives it exposes, the
doubt and unsettling questions it provokes, the intergroup dialogues it enhances, and the social
networks it helps to forge have been relegated to a secondary place (Bok, 2009; Hersh & Merrow,
2005; Kronman, 2008). The criticisms and fears expressed in academe as well as in the public
circles give the impression that these developments are irreversible, and the game is already over.
Although the findings of this study do not suggest complete submission of academics to
economic interests in their work, it has been a challenge to engage with other activities.
Conclusion
In this study, I have examined the extent to which demands of accountability and prestige
from various logics —the state, the market, the corporation, the Confucian family, and the
academic profession —shape the changing academic life at a Chinese research university. I have
focused on understanding the interface between external demands and internal policies and
pr oc e sses o f de finin g a nd e va luatin g a c a de mi c s’ w or k, a nd the e x tent to which a c a de mi c s ali g n
their interpretations and actions with these policies and external demands. Three dimensions
ha ve e me r g e d to a ff e c t t he univer sit y ’ s pol icie s, includi ng t he governance structure of Chinese
189

higher education, the academic prestige of the university, and the socioeconomic context where
the unive rsit y is l oc a t e d. F our d im e nsion s hav e e mer ge d to af fe c t a c a d e mi c s’ inter pr e tations a nd
actions, including age, discipline and academic rank, employment track, and gender. These
findings highlight varied extent of decoupling and recoupling between university policies and
pr a c ti c e s a s we ll a s b e tw e e n indi viduals’ inter pr e tations a nd a c ti ons for dif fe re nt a c a d e mi c s and for the same academic at different time points. These findings challenge the commonly assumed
alignment between individuals ’ inte rpr e t a ti ons a nd a c ti ons fa c in g or ga niz a ti ona l cha n g e (Besharov & Smith, 2013; Pache & Santos, 2013), due to the governance structure and the
current developmental stage of Chinese higher education. While data are specific to one site, the
faculty issues under examination are virtually universal. With increasing accountability pressures,
coupled with the striving for prestige, these findings are of broad significance to understanding
the changing academic profession in China and internationally, particularly at research
universities which are becoming increasingly similar (Marginson, 2010; Morphew, 2009).
The significance of this study lies in several aspects. First, although empirical studies and
obser va ti ons a bout C hina ’s a tt e mpt to bui ld t op re se a rc h univ e rsiti e s ar e nu mer ous, I sit ua te suc h
a tt e mpt in C hina’ s dec li ne in re c e nt hi stor y du e to i nter na l cor ruption a nd f or e ig n inv a sion. This
decline has been ignominious for a people of abiding face and pride. Viewed in this way, the
national attempt to build top research universities is not merely due to the need for technological
and scientific innovation; rather, it is a strong historical determination to modernize China and
attain wealth and power. Although I did not assume that such national catch-up mentality must
resonate with the case study university or with its faculty, the historical situatedness has proved
insightful. As shown in the findings, participants constantly referenced the tremendous social and
190

economic transformations in China, and situated their interpretations of the changing academic
pr of e ssi on in C hina’ s nat ional dr ive to moder niz a ti on.
Second, this study contributes to a growing body of literature on how accountability and
prestige, which use to be e x ter na l “r a ti ona li z e d m y th ” ( Me y e r & R ow a n, 19 77), a ff e c t internal
organizational dynamics. While prior research suggests the decoupling between internal
practices and formally stated goals due to the lack of public scrutiny, the growing demand for
accountability is putting higher education institutions and faculty work under the microscope.
Recent research has revealed the tight coupling or recoupling between internal practices and
identities with external pressures (Sauder & Espeland, 2009). In general, organizational research
has also suggested that organizational change should be viewed not simply as a binary choice
(i.e., decoupling versus coupling, symbolic versus substantive change, or say versus do); rather,
organizational change involves multiple forms that vary across organizations and units within
organizations from time to time (Fiss & Zajac, 2006).
Third, this study examines the dynamics between multiple institutional logics in affecting
the changing policies and practices of the academic profession. This study resembles the existing
research that usually investigates the interaction between two logics: academic profession versus
the state (Hallet, 2009), academic profession versus the market (Berman, 2012; Paradeise &
Thoneig, 2013; Sauder and Espeland, 2009), and academic profession versus the corporate logic
(Townley, 1997). However, this study takes one step further by investigating multiple logics
competing for dominance, including the state, the market, the corporate, the Confucian family,
and the academic profession. Including these multiple logics are necessary for future studies that
attempt to understanding the changing academic profession in similar social, cultural, and
political context.
191

Fourth, this study is among the first to examine the changing academic profession in
China under increasing accountability and prestige demands. It is the first to adapt an emerging
organization theory —the institutional logics perspective —to Chinese higher education. The two
theoretical tools that I have developed — including the theoretical framework for understanding
logics and intra-organizational dynamics facing top-down change and the ideal type institutional
logics for understanding the academic profession —have proved useful and can be adapted for
future studies. Chinese higher education as well as the society at large has undergone tremendous
transformations since the initiation of the market economy only three decades ago. These
transformations provide “ a na tur a l, re a l - ti me la bo ra tor y ” to st ud y the inter de pe nde n c e , stabil it y ,
and change of the multiple institutional orders of the inter-institutional system (Thornton, Ocasio,
& Lounsbury, 2012).
Fifth, this study combines multiple theoretical perspectives, with which the case of
changing policies and practices of the academic profession at RUC was understood more
adequately. Empirical research typically draws on a single theoretical lens in explaining
organizational phenomena. Outcomes are interpreted as evidence of the validity (or lack thereof)
for that perspective. Most theoretical approaches, however, are not incompatible, such that
support for one undermines another (Tolbert, 1985). Organizational phenomena are too complex
to be understood adequately by any single theoretical perspective. Echoing other scholars
(Gornitzka, 1999; Kezar & Eckel, 2002a, 2002b; Morphew, 2002; Tolbert, 1985), this study
demonstrates that research on organizations would benefit greatly if researchers resist the
tendencies toward cordoning theoretical approaches off one another, and combine multiple
perspectives to provide more complete explanations of the phenomena.
192

Ultimately, this study speaks to many thorny questions arising from the current
development model of Chinese higher education. The policies and practices at RUC and
a r g ua bl y a ll C hinese r e se a rc h unive rsiti e s embr a c e the “ stron g state a nd fr e e mar ke t m ode l” to
fulfill its economic function, as called upon by the government (Mok, 2005a; Zha & Hayhoe,
2012). Universities are encouraged to pursue higher quality and achieve greater prestige in a
development mode of acceleration and utilitarianism. Faculty members are invited and seduced
with high bonuses to produce maximum research output as soon as they can. Higher education,
however, should be much more than measurable economic utility. Faculty work should be more
than boosting publication output and citation rates. The winding path of scientific inquiry cannot
be neatly fitted into a timetable that aims to achieve excellence as soon as possible. Nevertheless,
a s C hinese hig h e r e du c a t ion continues to ser ve the e c onomi c f unc ti on of re vivi ng the “ C hinese Dr e a m” in a n “ a c c e ler a ti onist ” mode ( Mok, 2005) , it is no t cle a r w he ther th e re is m uc h spa c e le ft
for embracing other missions.

193

References
Altbach, P. G. (2004). The past and future of Asian universities. In P. G. Altbach & T. Umakoshi
(Eds.), Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges (pp. 13–
32). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education:
Tracking an academic revolution. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Pacheco, I. F. (2012). Academic remuneration and contracts:
Global trends and realities. In P. G. Altbach, L. Reisberg, M. Yudkevich, G.
Androushchak, & I. F. Pacheco (Eds.). Paying the professoriate: A global comparison of
compensation and contracts (pp. 3 –20). New York, NY: Routledge.
Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and insti tut ions: The e na bli ng role of indivi du a ls’ soc ial posi ti ons.
Organization, 13, 653 –676.
Bergquist, W. (1992). The four cultures of the academy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Besharov, M., & Smith, W. (2013). Multiple logics in organizations: Explaining their varied
nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 22, DOI:
10.5465/amr.2011.0431.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview
and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Bhappu, A. (2000). The Japanese family: An institutional logic for Japanese corporate networks
and Japanese management. Academy of Management Review, 25, 409–415.
Bok, Derek. (2013). Higher education in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks.
American Sociological Review, 69, 239–264.
194

Bidwell, C. E. (2001). Analyzing schools as organizations: Long –term permanence and short-
term change. Sociology of Education (Extra Issue), 100 –114.
Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and
output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.
B inder , A. (2007 ). F or lo ve a nd mone y : Or ga niz a ti ons’ c re a ti ve re sponses t o mul ti ple
environmental logics. Theory & Society, 36, 547 –571.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). The cybernetic institution: Toward an integration of governance theories.
Higher Education, 18, 239–253.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Boyce, M. E. (1995). Collective centering and collective sensemaking in the stories and
storytelling of one organization. Organization Studies, 16, 107–137.
Chakroun, B. (2010). National qualification frameworks: From policy borrowing to policy
learning. European Journal of Education, 45, 199 –216.
C he n, Y. ( 1983) . S tra te gy fo r China’ s De v e lopm e nt. I n N. L a rd y & K. L ie be rtha l (e ds. ), Several
major issues in current capital construction work. New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Cheng, F. T. (1951). Confucianism and Chinese civilization. Civilizations, 1, 13–23.
Clark, B. (1997). Small worlds, different worlds: The uniquenesses and troubles of American
academic professions. Daedalus, 126, 21–42.
Connelly, M. F., & Clandinin, J. D. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 19, 2–14.
195

CNN International (June 25, 2010). What has gone wrong with the Chinese university system?
http://travel.cnn.com/shanghai/life/what –has –gone –wrong –chinese –university –system –
430702
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deem, R., Mok, K., Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring
the c onc e pt of th e “ wo rld - c lass” unive rsit y in Euro pe a nd Asia. Higher Education Policy,
21, 83 –97.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging
confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 163–189). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dic kson, B . J . ( 2007) . I nt e gr a ti n g we a lt h a nd pow e r in Chi na : t he C omm unist P a rt y ’s e mbr a c e o f
the private sector. The China Quarterly 192, 827 –854.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263 –287.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W., 1991. Introduction. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.),
The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1 –38). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contestation
of care and science logics in medical education, 1967 –2005. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 55, 114–149.
196

Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of
the civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531–1576.
Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fan, R. (2010). Reconstructionist Confucianism: Rethinking morality after the West. New York,
NY: Springer.
Fiss, P. C., & Hirsch, P. M. (2005). The discourse of globalization: Framing and sensemaking of
an emerging concept. American Sociological Review, 70, 29–52.
Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving
via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1173–1193.
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skills and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40,
397–405.
Friedland, R. & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and
institutional contradictions. In P. J. DiMaggio & Walter W. Powell (Eds.), The New
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 232 –266). Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Confucianism and democracy. Journal of Democracy, 6, 20–33.
Gallagher, M. (2010). The accountability for quality agenda in higher education. Canberra,
Australia: The Group of Eight.
George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. (2006). Cognitive underpinnings of
institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 31, 347–365.
197

Gestel, N., & Hillebrand, B. (2011). Explaining stability and change: The rise and fall of logics
in pluralistic fields. Organization Studies, 32, 231 –252.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change
initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433 –448.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of
Management Review, 15, 584 –602.
Gioia, D. A, Schultz, M., & Corley, K. (2000). Organizational identity, image and adaptive
instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63 –82.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking
during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370 –403.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic
change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science,
5, 363 –383.
Gong, F., & Li, J. (2010). Seeking excellence in the move to a mass system: Institutional
responses of key Chinese comprehensive universities. Frontiers of Education in China, 5,
477–506.
Gonzales, L. D. (2013). Faculty sensemaking and mission creep: Interrogating institutionalized
ways of knowing and doing legitimacy. Review of Higher Education, 36, 179 –209.
Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. (2011). Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the
professional work of pharmacists. Work and Occupations, 38, 372–416.
Gornitzka, A. (1999). Governmental policies and organizational change in higher education.
Higher Education, 38, 5–31.
198

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing
together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21,
1022 –1054.
Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional
logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21, 521–
539.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional
complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.
Gross, N. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 74,
358–379.
Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional
imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67–71.
Guo, J. R. (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, 21 –46.
Hall, R. H., & Xu, W. (1990). Research note: run silent, run deep —cultural influences on
organizations in the Far East. Organization Studies, 11, 569–576.
Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions
in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75, 52–74.
Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. 2006. Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational
for ms i n Gouldne r’ s “p a t ter ns of indust ria l bure a u c ra c y ” . Theory and Society, 35, 213–
236.
199

Hamilton, G. G., & Biggart, N. W. (1988). Market, culture, and authority: A comparative
analysis of management and organization in the Far East. American Journal of Sociology,
94, S52 –S94.
Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations: Density,
legitimation, and competition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hao, X. (2006). Scientific misconduct: Scandals shake Chinese science. Science, 312, 1464–
1466.
Hart, J., & Fellabaum, J. (2009). Assessing the campus climate for gender: Lessons from the
research. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 222–234.
Ha rtle y , M., & Morphe w , C. C . ( 2008) . W ha t’s be ing sol d a nd to wha t end ? : A c ontent a na l y sis of college viewbooks. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 671–691.
Haunschild, P. R., & Beckman, C. M. (1998). When do interlocks matter?: Alternative sources of
information and interlocks influence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 815 –844.
Hayhoe, R. (2005). Peking University and the spirit of Chinese scholarship. Comparative
Education Review, 49, 575 –583.
Hazelkorn, E. (2009). Rankings and the battle for world –class excellence: Institutional strategies
and policy choices. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21, 1–22.
Heimer, C. A. (1999). Competing institutions: Law, medicine, and family in neonatal intensive
care. Law & Society Review, 33, 17–66.
Hershock, P. D., & Ames, R. T. (2006). Introduction: Confucian cultures of authority. In P. D.
Hershock & R. T. Ames (Eds.), Confucian cultures of authority (pp. vii-xi). Albany, NY:
The State University of New York Press.
200

Hirsch, P. M., & Lounsbury, M. (1997). Ending the family quarrel: Toward a reconciliation of
“ old” a nd “ n e w” inst it uti ona li sm. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 406–418.
Hirsch, P. M., & Lounsbury, M. (1997). Putting the organization back into organization theory:
Action, change, and the new institutionalism. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6, 79–88.
Ho, C. Y. ( 2006) . Chi na ’ s hi g he r e duc a ti on e x c e ll e nc e in t he c ontex t of g lo ba li z a ti on: The world –class university. Unpublished dissertation.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 5–21.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification:
A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23, 421–447.
Hwang, K. K. (2001). The deep structure of Confucianism: A social psychologist approach.
Asian Philosophy, 11, 179–204.
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid
organizations. Academy of Management journal, 56, 137–159.
Jia, W. (2006). The wei (positioning)-ming (naming)- lianmian (face)-guanxi (relationship)-
renqing (humanized feelings) complex in contemporary Chinese culture. In P. D.
Hershock & R. T. Ames (Eds.), Confucian cultures of authority (pp. 49-64). Albany, NY:
The State University of New York Press.
Jones, C., Boxenbaum, & Anthony. (2013). The immateriality of material practices in
institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39, 51–75.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century:
201

Recent research and conceptualizations. Washington, DC: ASHE –ERIC Higher
Education Reports.
Kezar, A. (2004). Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and examining the charter between higher
education and society. Review of Higher Education, 27, 429–459.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002a). Examining the institutional transformation process: The
importance of sensemaking, interrelated strategies, and balance. Research in Higher
Education, 43, 295–328.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002b). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher
education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? Journal of Higher
Education, 73, 435–460.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for contingent
faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 84, 56–87.
Kong, S. (2009). Paternalism revisited: Organizational leadership in mainland China.
International Journal of Chinese Culture and Management, 2, 56–72.
Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism: The causes
and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American Sociological Review,
61, 812 –836.
Kuang, X. (2007). Gaoxiao keyan jiangli zhidu yunxing de shizheng yanjiu: yi A daxue weili
(Incentive mechanisms for research: A case study of a Chinese university). Keji jinbu yu
duice (Science & Technology Progress and Policy), 24, 16–21.
Lai, M. (2010). Challenges to the work life of academics: The experience of a renowned
university in the Chinese mainland. Higher Education Quarterly, 64, 89–111.
Lane, J. E., & Kivisto, J. A. (2008). Interests, information, and incentives in higher education:
202

Principal –agent theory and its potential applications to the study of higher education
governance. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research
(vol. XXIII, pp. 141 –180). Netherlands: Springer.
Le Bail, H., & Shen, W. (2008). The r e turn of the “ br a ins” to C hina: W ha t ar e the so c ial,
economic, and political impacts? Retrieved from
http://ifri.org/downloads/AV11_ENG.pdf
Levin, H. M., & Xu, Z. (2006). Issues in the expansion of high e r e duc a ti on in t he P e ople’ s
Republic of China. In: Lauder, H., et al. (Eds.), Education, Globalization and Social
Change (pp. 909–925.). Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
Levin, W. C. (1994). Sociological ideas: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–
340.
Li, W. B. (2007). Chinese higher education rankings: A review of literature. Higher Education
Development and Evaluation, 23, 29–36.
Li, Y., Li, J., & Sun, Y. (2013). Young faculty job perceptions in the midst of Chinese higher
education reform: The case of Zhejiang University. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33,
273–294.
Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems.
Higher Education, 46, 469–489.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
203

Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin
& Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105 –117). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Liu, Y. (2005). Purpose, puzzlement and way out of ranking of Chinese universities. Theory and
Practice of Education, 25, 52–56.
Liu, Y. (March 24, 2010). Current problems in Chinese higher education. Science Times.
Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s3607/201004/83279.html
Liu, Z . Y. (2003 ). D ive rsific a ti on: B a sic tr e nd of t he C hina’ s hi g h e r e du c a t ion i n the e a rl y 21
st

century. Journal of Higher Education, 24, 52–55.
Lu, C. C. (2008). Research on convergence of universities. Higher Education Research &
Evaluation, 4, 14–18.
Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practices variation: Staffing college and university
recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 29–56.
Luo, Y., & Ye, F. J. (2005). The Transformation of personnel institution in Peking University in
2003: Sociological neo –institutionalism analysis. Journal of Educational Studies, 1, 14–
22.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking:
Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221–240.
Ma, W., & Wen, J. (2008). A study on academic salary and remunerations in China. In P. G.
Altbach, L. Reisberg, M. Yudkevich, G. Androushchak, & I. F. Pacheco (Eds.). Paying
the professoriate: A global comparison of compensation and contracts (pp. 94 –103).
New York, NY: Routledge.
204

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 21–49.
Mar g inson , S . ( 2010) . Th e “ C onfuc ian Mod e l” of hig he r e duc a ti on in Ea st Asi a a nd S ingapor e .
In S. Marginson, S. Kaur, & E. Sawir (Eds.), Higher education in the Asia –Pacific:
Strategic responses to globalization (pp. 53 –76). New York, NY: Springer.
Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global
rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 306–329.
Martin, J., & Frost, P. J. (1995). The organizational culture war games: A struggle for intellectual
dominance. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
studies (pp. 598 –621). Newbury, CA: Sage.
Mar ti n, J ., F rost, P , J ., & O’ Ne il l, O. A. ( 2004 ). O r g a niz a ti ona l culture : B e y ond st rugg les f o r
intellectual dominance. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, W. Nord, & T. Lawrence (Eds.),
Handbook of Organization Studies (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340 –363.
Mills, J. H., Thurlow, A., & Mills, A. J. (2010). Making sense of sensemaking: The critical
sensemaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, 5, 182–195.
Min, W. (2004). Chinese higher education: The legacy of the past and context of the future. In P.
G. Altbach & T. Umakoshi (Eds.), Asian universities: Historical perspectives and
contemporary challenges (pp. 53 –84). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Ministry of Education. (1999). Changes in undergraduate enrollment. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_563/200505/7788.html
205

Ministry of Education. (2000). Changes in undergraduate enrollment. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_589/200506/7884.html
Ministry of Education. (2001). Changes in undergraduate enrollment. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_585/200506/7961.html
Ministry of Education (2006). Personnel reform in education. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_2518/200811/40959.htm
l
Ministry of Education. (2007a). Reform and improve undergraduate teaching and learning.
Retrieved from http://www.zlgc.org/Detail.aspx?Id=1048
Mi nist r y of E duc a ti on. (2 007b) . P il ot uni ve rsiti e s for unde r g r a dua tes ’ innova ti on e x pe rimen tal
program. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s5649/201010/xxgk_109659.h
tml
Ministry of Education. (2008). A review of Project 211: 1996 –2005. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_1978/200803/9602.html
Ministry of Education. (2010). Education as a long –term priority. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s3501/201010/109030.html
Ministry of Education. (2012). Higher education development: From Project 211 to Plan 2011.
Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s5148/201210/143677.html
Ministry of Education. (2013a). President Xi Jinping encourages the pursuit of Chinese dream.
Retrieved from
http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7435/201305/151512.html
206

Ministry of Education. (2013b). Deepening innovation and technology transfer in higher
education. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_784/201312/xxgk_1609
20.html
Mohrman, K. (2011). Excellence and mass higher education in China and the United States. In
M. Rostan & M. Vaira (Eds.), Questioning Excellence in Higher Education: Policies,
Experiences and Challenges in National and Comparative Perspective (pp. 93 –116).
Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Mohrman, K., Geng, Y., Wang, Y. (2011). Faculty Life in China. The NEA 2011 Almanac of
Higher Education.
Mok, K. H. (2005a). The quest for world class university: Quality assurance and international
benchmarking in Hong Kong. Quality Assurance in Education, 13, 277–304.
Mok, K. H. (2005b). Riding over socialism and global capitalism: Changing education
governance and social policy paradigms in Post –Mao China. Comparative Education, 41,
217–42.
Mok, K. H. (2011). The quest for regional hub of education: Growing hierarchies, organizational
hybridization, and new governance in Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Education
Policy, 26, 61–81.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management
Review, 5, 491–500.
Morphe w, C. C . ( 2002) . “ A Rose b y An y Othe r N a me” : W hich Col leg e s B e c a me Unive rsiti e s.
Review of Higher Education, 25, 207–223.
207

Morphew, C. C. (2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S. colleges
and universities. Journal of Higher Education, 80, 243–269.
Morrill, C. (2008). Culture and organization theory. The ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 619, 15–40.
National Natural Science Foundation of China. (2013). Annual report: 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/nsfc/cen/ndbg/2012ndbg/qy.html.
National Science Foundation. (2012). Science and engineering indicators: 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/
National Science Foundation. (2014). Science and engineering indicators: 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/
National Social Science Fund of China. (2013a). Results of approved projects and funds: 2013.
Retrieved from http://www.npopss –cn.gov.cn/n/2013/0617/c219469 –21868735.html
National Social Science Fund of China. (2013b). Applications of general fund: 2013. Retrieved
from http://www.npopss –cn.gov.cn/n/2013/0617/c220439 –21868510.html.
National Social Science Fund of China. (2013c). Applications of early career research fund:
2013. Retrieved from http://www.npopss –cn.gov.cn/n/2013/0617/c220439 –
21868592.html
News of the Communist Party of China. (2008). Concept of harmony in Confucianism and the
building of harmonious society in China. Retrieved from
http://theory.people.com.cn/GB/40555/8208671.html
Ngok, K. L., & Guo, W. Q. (2008). The quest for world class universities in China: Critical
reflections. Policy Futures in Education, 6, 545 –557.
Nonini, D. M. (2008). Is China becoming neoliberal? Critique of Anthropology, 28, 145–176.
208

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 145–179.
O’ Mea ra , K. A ., & B loo mar de n, A. ( 2011 ). T he p ur suit of pr e sti ge : The e x pe rie nc e of
institutional striving from a faculty perspective. Journal of the Professoriate, 4, 39–73.
Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational
responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35,
455–476.
Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response
to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 972 –1001.
Pan, S., 2007. Intertwining of academia and officialdom and university autonomy: experience
from Tsinghua University in China. Higher Education Policy, 20, 121–144.
Pan, M. Y., & Dong, L. P. (2009). Research on the classification, orientation and characteristic
development of colleges and universities. Educational Research, 349, 33–38.
Paradeise, C., & Thoenig, J. C. (2013). Academic Institutions in Search of Quality: Local Orders
and Global Standards. Organizational Studies, 34, 189–218.
Parson, T. (1991). The social system. London, UK: Routledge.
Pedersen, J. S., & Dobbin, F. (2006). In search of identity and legitimation: Bridging
organizational culture and neoinstitutionalism. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 897–
907.
Peterson, M., & Spencer, M. (1991). Understanding academic culture and climate. In M.
Peterson (Ed.), ASHE reader on organization and governance (pp. 140–155). Needham
Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
209

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 5–23.
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among
Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493.
Ramirez, F. O. (2006). Growing commonalities and persistent differences in higher education:
Universities between global models and national legacies. In H. D. Meyer & B. Rowan
(Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 123 –141). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. 2005. Border crossing: Bricolage and the erosion of
categorical boundaries in French gastronomy. American Sociological Review, 70, 968–
991.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role
of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 433–458.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in
Alberta. Organization Studies, 26, 351–384.
Rosemont, H. (2006). Two loci of authority: Autonomous individuals and related persons. In P.
D. Hershock & R. T. Ames (Eds.), Confucian cultures of authority (pp. 1-20). Albany,
NY: The State University of New York Press.
Sadlack, J., & Liu, N. C. (Eds.). (2009). The world –class university as part of a new higher
education paradigm: From institutional qualities to systematic excellence. Bucharest,
Romania: UNESCO –CEPES.
210

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision
making: The case of a university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453 –473.
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and
organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.
Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture? In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin
(Eds.), Framing organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schofer, E., & Meyer. J. W. (2005). The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the
Twentieth Century. American Sociological Review, 70, 898–920.
Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm
interplay in organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 21, 529 –557.
Scott, R. W., & Meyer, J. W. (1994). Environmental linkages and organizational complexity:
Public and private schools. In R. W. Scott, J. W. Meyer, & Associates (Eds.),
Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism
(pp. 137–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review,
13, 25 –35.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociology of formal organization.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
S e lz nick, P. (1996) . I nsti tut ionalis m “old” a nd “ ne w” . Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,
270–277.
Seo, M., & Creed, W. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A
dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222–247.
211

Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American
Journal of Sociology, 98, 1–29.
Shin, J. C. (2012). Higher education development in Korea: Western university ideas, Confucian
tradition, and economic development. Higher Education, 64, 59–72.
Shore, C. (2008). Audit culture and illiberal governance: Universities and the politics of
accountability. Anthropological Theory, 8, 278–298.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1999). Audit culture and anthropology: Neo-liberalism in British higher
education. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5, 557–575.
Smerek, R. (2010). Sensemaking and sensegiving: An exploratory study of the simultaneous
“ be in g a nd le a rnin g ” of n e w c oll e g e a nd univer sit y pr e sid ents. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 18, 80–94.
S ong , W ., & L iao, Y . (20 04). D a x ue ji ng z he n g de z he ng z hix ue f e nx i: y i “9 85 g on g c h e n g ” w e il i
(A poli ti c a l ana l y sis of c oll e g e c ompetit ion: A c a se of the “ 985 P roje c t”) . Gaodeng
Jiaoyu Yanjiu (Journal of Higher Education) 25, 25 –30.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7, 5–8.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 443 –466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1997). On the virtues of the old institutionalism. Annual Review of
Sociology, 13, 1–18.
Strathern, M. (1997). Improving ratings: Audit in the British University system. European
Review 5, 305–321.
212

Strathern, M. (2000). Introduction: New accountabilities. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit culture:
Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London, UK:
Routledge.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy
of Management Review, 20, 571 –610.
Suddaby, R. & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 50, 35 –67.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51,
273–286.
Taylor, B. C. & Trujillo, N. (2001). Qualitative research methods. In F. M. Jablan & L. L.
Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory,
research and methods (pp. 161 –196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University Press.
Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thomson Reuters. (2014). The research and innovation performance of the G20. Retrieved from
http://sciencewatch.com/sites/sw/files/images/basic/research-innovation-g20.pdf
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, 801–843.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R.
Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp.
99–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
213

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The institutional logics perspective: A new
approach to culture, structure and process. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tierney, W. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 59,
2–21.
Tolbert, P. S. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of
administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 30, 1–13.
Townley, B. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization Studies, 18,
261–285.
Townley, B. (2002). The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 163–179.
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the
creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22, 60–
80.
Trowler, P. (1998) Academics responding to change: New higher education frameworks and
academic cultures. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press/SRHE.
Trowler, P. (2001). Captured by the discourse? The socially constitutive power of new higher
education discourse in the UK. Organization, 8, 183–201.
Tsoukas, H., R. & Chia. (2002). Organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change.
Organization Science, 13, 567–582.
Tushman, M. L. (1977). A political approach to organization: A review and rationale. Academy
of Management Review, 2, 206 –216.
214

Wah, S. S. (2010). Confucianism and Chinese leadership. Chinese Management Studies, 4, 280 –
285.
Wang, C. (2000). From manpower supply to economic revival: Governance and financing of
Chinese higher education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1–19.
Wang, J. H. (2010). The ideals of university and elite education. Tsinghua Journal of Education,
31, 1 –7.
Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. (H. H. Gerth & W. Mills, Trans. Eds.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21, 1 –19.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe K.M. & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking.
Organization Science, 16, 409–421.
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (2001). Decoupling policy from practice: The case of stock
repurchase programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 202–228.
Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of
organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 219–234.
Whittington, R. (1992). Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial agency.
Journal of Management Studies, 29, 693–712.
Winslow, S. (2010). Gender inequality and time allocations among academic faculty. Gender
and Society, 24, 769 –793.
215

Wrong, D. H. (1961). The oversocialized conception of man in modern sociology. American
Sociological Review, 26, 183 –193.
Yan, G. (2009). The construction of the Chinese academic system: Its history and present
challenges. Frontiers of Education in China, 4, 323 –342.
Yang, J. (2007). A quantitative analysis on the operating conditions of 71 key universities in
China from 2000 to 2004. Frontiers of Education in China, 2, 430–446.
Yi, L. (2011). Auditing Chinese higher education? The perspectives of returnee scholars in an
elite university. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 505 –514.
Zha, Q. (2012). Intellectuals, academic freedom, and university autonomy in China. In H.G.
Schuetze, W. Bruneau, & G. Grosjean (Eds.), University governance and reform: Policy,
fads, and experiences in international perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
Z ha , Q., & Ha y ho e , R. ( Nove mber , 2012) . The “ B e ij ing C onsen sus ” a nd t he C hinese model of the university. Paper presented at International Seminar on Higher Education and the
BRICS, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Zhang, D. H. (2012). Tongshi education reform in a Chinese university: Knowledge, values, and
organizational changes. Comparative Education Review, 56, 394–420.
Zhang, J. (2013). Promotion criteria, faculty experiences and perceptions: A qualitative study at
a key university in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 33, 185–
195.
Zhang, W. W. (2011). The China wave: Rise of a civilizational state. Hackensack, NJ: World
Century Publishing.
Zhang, X. W. (2007). Re –examining the mission of the university in mass higher education.
Frontiers of Education in China, 2, 378–393.
216

Zhang, Y., & Hu, G. (2012). Composition analysis of education funds in high-level universities
in China. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 33, 117 –120.
Zhang, Z. Y., & Zhang, Y. T. (2005). Study on undergraduate teaching evaluation for higher
education. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 13, 136–140.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American
Sociological Review, 42, 726 –743.
Zweig, D., Chen, C., & Rosen, S. (2004). Globalization and transnational human capital:
Overseas and returnee scholars to China. The China Quarterly, 179, 735–757.
217

Tables and Figure
218

Table 1. Summary of Institutional Approaches to Organizations

Old Institutionalism New Institutionalism
Inhabited
Institutionalism
Institutional Logics
System View Closed Open Open Open
Rationality Economic Institutional Local, contextual Inter-institutional
Conflicts of Interest Central Peripheral Central Central
Source of Inertia Vested interests Legitimacy imperative Vested interests
Dominance of existing
logics or lack thereof
Structural
Emphasis
Informal structure
Symbolic role of formal
structure
Symbolic and material of
formal and informal
structure
Symbolic and material of
formal and informal
structure
Organization
Embedded in
Local interactions Organizational field
Organizational field and
society
Inter-institutional system
Triggers of Change
Endogenous, to maintain
the economic and social
functioning of the
organization
Exogenous, to gain
legitimacy in the
institutional environment
Exogenous, to resolve
disruptions to existing
meanings, identities, and
practices
Exogenous and
endogenous to resolve
contradictions between
competing logics
Process of Change
Cooptation of interests
through formal and
informal interactions
Coercive, mimetic,
normative change;
decoupling and symbolic
change
Both symbolic change via
decoupling and
substantive change via
recoupling
Institutional
entrepreneurs, event
sequencing, structural
overlap
219

Table 1. Summary of Institutional Approaches to Organizations (cont.)

Old Institutionalism New Institutionalism
Inhabited
Institutionalism
Institutional Logics
Change Outcomes
Adaptation of group
dynamics, displacement
of formally stated goals
Homogeneity of
organizations,
structural/institutional
stability
De-institutionalization,
re-institutionalization of
shared meanings and
identities
Institutional continuity
and change,
heterogeneity of
organizations
Locus of
Institutionalization
Organization Organizational field Organization
Organization,
organizational field,
society
Structure and
Agency
Connects more clearly to
action
Connects more clearly to
structure; institutional
demands constrain
actions
Connects more clearly to
action
Embedded agency, partial
autonomy
Level of Analysis Micro
Macro-structural, meso-
organizational field
Micro, macro-micro level
Macro, meso, micro, and
cross level
Research Methods Case study, qualitative Quantitative, longitudinal Case study, qualitative
Quantitative,
longitudinal, case study,
document analysis, mixed

220

Table 2. Ideal Type Institutional Logics (Source: Thornton, Ocasio, Lounsbury, 2012, p. 73)

State Market Profession Corporation Community Family Religion
Root
Metaphor
State as
redistribution
mechanism
Transaction
Profession as
relational
network
Corporation as
hierarchy
Common
boundary
Family as firm
Temple as
bank
Sources of
Legitimacy
Democratic
participation
Share price
Personal
expertise
Market
position of the
firm
Unity of will;
belief in trust
& reciprocity
Unconditional
loyalty
Importance of
faith &
sacredness in
economy &
society
Sources of
Authority
Bureaucratic
domination
Shareholder
activism
Professional
association
Board of
directors; top
management
Commitment
to community
values &
ideology
Patriarchal
dominance
Priesthood
charisma
Sources of
Identity
Social &
economic class
Faceless
Association
with quality of
craft; personal
reputation
Bureaucratic
roles
Emotional
connection;
ego-
satisfaction &
reputation
Family
reputation
Association
with deities
Basis of
Norms
Citizenship in
nation
Self-interest
Membership in
guild &
association
Employment
in firm
Group
membership
Membership in
household
Membership in
congregation

221

Table 2. Ideal Type Institutional Logics (Source: Thornton, Ocasio, Lounsbury, 2012, p. 73) (cont.)

State Market Profession Corporation Community Family Religion
Basis of
Attention
Status of
interest group
Status in
market
Status in
profession
Status in
hierarchy
Personal
investment in
group
Status in
household
Relation to
supernatural
Basis of
Strategy
Increase
community
good
Increase
efficiency;
profit
Increase
personal
reputation
Increase size
&
diversification
of firm
Increase status
& honor of
members &
practices
Increase
family honor
Increase
religious
symbolism of
natural events
Informal
Control
Mechanism
Backroom
politics
Industry
analysts
Celebrity
politics
Organization
culture
Visibility of
actions
Family politics
Worship of
calling
Economic
System
Welfare
capitalism
Market
capitalism
Personal
capitalism
Managerial
capitalism
Cooperative
capitalism
Family
capitalism
Occidental
capitalism

222

Table 3. Summary of Assumptions of Additional Organizational Perspectives

Principal Agent Resource Dependency Cultural Sensemaking
Open System X X X X
Bounded Rationality X X X X
Self-Interest X

Goal Conflict X

Preeminence of Efficiency

X

Preeminence of Legitimacy

X X
Contextual Embeddeness

X X

223

Table 4. Academic Profession Conceptualized by Ideal Type Institutional Logics
State Market Professional Corporate Confucian Family
Control over
Knowledge
Academic knowledge
is confined to the state
Academic knowledge
is widely available to
consumers
Academics rely on
abstract knowledge to
accomplish their work,
restricting academic
knowledge to the
profession
Academic knowledge
is proprietary property
of the university as a
firm
Academic knowledge
is confined to the
university as a big
family
Control of
Work
Processes
Tasks are subject to
state rules and
procedures; work
processes are regulated
Market determines
how the academic
work will be done
Academics control
their own work
processes according to
standards shared by the
profession
Tasks are subject to
managerial rules,
procedures, and
routines
Tasks are subject to
traditional rules,
procedures, and
routines
Scope of
Academic
Work
Tasks reflect state
determined parameters
on contents and
boundaries
Tasks reflect customer
preferences
on contents and
boundaries
Tasks reflect desires of
professional
association on contents
and boundaries
Tasks reflect
management decisions
on contents and
boundaries
Tasks reflect decisions
on contents and
boundaries decided by
senior-level academics
and administrators
Employment
Status
Academics are
employed by the state
with bureaucratic titles
Academics are self-
employed
Academics are
employed by
professional
associations
Academics are
employed by the
university as a firm
Academics are
employed by the big
university family
Performance
Standards
Work is evaluated by
state officials who may
be non-academics
Consumers evaluate
academic work;
market determines
success
Academics and
academic associations
determine whether
work meets
performance standards
Work is evaluated by
managers who may be
non-academics and by
students who are
customers
Work is evaluated by
senior academics
and/or senior-level
administrators who are
also academics

224

Table 4. Academic Profession Conceptualized by Ideal Type Institutional Logics (cont.)
State Market Professional Corporate Confucian Family
Goal of Work Academics work
collectively to increase
public good
Academics work
individually to
increase economic
profit of research and
professional
knowledge
Academics work
individually to pursue
knowledge discovery
and creation which
increases professional
reputation
Academics work
individually to
maintain employment
status in the university
and collectively under
top-management to
increase the reputation,
size and diversification
of the university
Academics work
collectively to improve
family honor and
reputation; academics
work individually for
academic self-
cultivation and moral
self-perfection
Sources of
Power
Status of the official
administrative ranks as
well as interest groups
that one belongs to
Status in the market Status in the academic
profession
Status in the corporate
university
Seniority and
administrative status in
the university
Sources of
Identity
Identities are shaped
by social and
economic class as well
as the official rank
There is no identity;
faceless
Identities are shaped
by the type and quality
of academic work, as
well as personal
reputation in the
profession
Identity is shaped by
bureaucratic role in the
corporate university as
well as the collective
identity of the
university
Identity comes from
the greater, inter-
dependent self in
relation to the
institution as a family
as well as in relation to
one's family
Formal
Control
Mechanism
Coercive and
regulative through
laws and mandates
There is no formal
control mechanism
Normative through
professional
socialization and
commonly shared rules
Bureaucratic through
corporate rules
There is no formal
control mechanism

225

Table 4. Academic Profession Conceptualized by Ideal Type Institutional Logics (cont.)
State Market Professional Corporate Confucian Family
Informal
Control
Mechanism
Academics work
through backroom
politics to protect and
advance the rights of
their own interest
groups
Academics follow the
signals from the
market; those whose
work has greater
market value have
greater influence over
others
Celebrity academics
exert greater influence
over others
Academics follow the
tacit rules, beliefs, and
assumptions of the
organizational cultural
group that they belong
to
Academics work to
maintain individual
“ fa c e ” a nd to m a int a in
collective "face" of the
university with
unconditional loyalty;
academics work to
maintain university
harmony and solidarity
Control over
Salary
State determines salary
based on official ranks
assigned by the state
Market determines
salary; academics
whose work has higher
market value earn
more
Academic profession
determines salary
based on academic
ranks
The corporate
university determines
salary based on
corporate hierarchy
Leaders in the family
determine salary based
on seniority and years
of service to the
university
Control over
Hiring
State determines who
are recruited to serve
the interests of the
state; the starting point
is determined by the
state
Market needs control
recruitment; academics
whose work has higher
market value are more
likely to be recruited;
there is no preset
starting point for one's
entry into a university
Academics whose
work has higher
academic quality are
more likely to be
recruited; academics
starts from the preset
lowest academic rank
Academics whose
work have a higher
value for the corporate
university are more
likely to be recruited;
there is no preset
starting point for one's
entry into the
university
Academics whose
work demonstrate
loyalty to the family
institution and can
bring honor to the
family are more likely
to be recruited;
academics start from
the junior rank

226

Table 4. Academic Profession Conceptualized by Ideal Type Institutional Logics (cont.)
State Market Professional Corporate Confucian Family
Control over
Mobility
Mobility is controlled
by and confined within
the state; mobility is a
preset path up the
official ranks
Market needs control
mobility; academics
whose work has higher
market value have
greater mobility in and
outside the university
domestically and
internationally; there is
no preset path of
mobility
Mobility is determined
by the quality of
academic work;
academics whose work
has higher quality have
greater mobility in and
outsi de one ’s
university domestically
and internationally;
mobility is a preset
path up the academic
rank
Mobility is determined
by the corporate needs;
academics whose work
have higher value for
the corporate
university have greater
mobility; mobility
between universities
are not favored by the
original university;
mobility is a preset
path up the corporate
hierarchy
Mobility is confined
within the university as
a family and closely
linked to seniority;
mobility across
universities is
considered disloyalty
on the part of the
individual, and failure
on the part of the
university to build
cohesion
Development
Opportunity
Opportunities are
provided by the state
to serve the interests of
the state
Opportunities are
determined by the
market needs
Opportunities are
provided by
professional
associations to
individuals with
sufficient quality
Opportunities are
provided by the
corporate university to
serve the interests of
the university
Opportunities are
provided to junior
academics to help
them grow in order to
increase the collective
honor and reputation
of the university

227

Table 5. Demographic Information of Academic and/or Administrator Leaders
# Sex
Academic
Rank
Administrative Rank Department/School
Academic
Background
Employment
Track
46 M Professor Vice President Higher Education Master China Traditional
47 M
Associate
Professor
Chair Higher Education PhD Candidate China Traditional
48 F
Associate
Professor
Director of International Faculty
Recruitment
Public Affairs PhD Europe Traditional
49 M Professor Director of Social Science Division Public Affairs PhD RUC Traditional
50 M Lecturer
Director of Graduate School
Admission
Higher Education Master China Traditional
51 M Lecturer Chair of International Education Foreign Languages Master China Traditional
52 M Professor Associate Dean
Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering
PhD North America Traditional
53 M Professor Associate Dean Higher Education PhD RUC Traditional
54 M Professor Dean Liberal Arts PhD RUC Traditional
55 M Professor Dean Computer Science PhD North America Traditional
56 M
Associate
Professor
Associate Dean of the Joint-Degree
Programs with Overseas Universities
Material Science and
Engineering
PhD China Traditional
57 F Professor Director of Faculty Development Foreign Languages PhD China Traditional
58 M Professor Dean
Environmental Science
and Engineering
PhD RUC Traditional
59 M Professor Associate Dean
Environmental Science
and Engineering
PhD RUC Traditional

228

Table 6. Demographic Information of Faculty Participants with No Administrative Titles
# Sex Academic Title Field Academic Background
Employment
Status
1 M Lecturer Economics & Business Administration PhD RUC Traditional
2 M Associate Professor Resource & Environmental Science PhD RUC Traditional
3 M Professor Economics & Business Administration PhD RUC Traditional
4 M Lecturer Law PhD RUC Traditional
5 M Associate Professor Public Affairs PhD RUC Traditional
6 F Associate Professor Public Affairs PhD China Traditional
7 F Lecturer Foreign Languages Master China Traditional
8 F Associate Professor Mechanical Engineering PhD China Traditional
9 M Associate Professor Power Engineering PhD China Traditional
10 F Associate Professor Economics & Business Administration PhD RUC Traditional
11 M Professor Public Affairs PhD China Traditional
12 M Professor Automation Engineering PhD RUC Traditional
13 F Professor Communication Engineering PhD Asia Traditional
14 M Associate Professor Computer Science PhD RUC Traditional
15 M Assistant Professor Optical Engineering PhD Asia Tenure Track
16 M Assistant Professor Physics PhD China, Postdoc North America Tenure Track
17 M Assistant Professor Mathematics PhD North America Tenure Track
18 F Assistant Professor Physics PhD Hongkong, Postdoc North America Tenure Track
19 M Assistant Professor Mathematics PhD North America Tenure Track
20 M Assistant Professor Chemistry and Chemical Engineering PhD China, Postdoc North America Tenure Track
21 M Assistant Professor Mechanical Engineering PhD North America Tenure Track
22 M Assistant Professor Automotive Engineering PhD North America Tenure Track
23 M Assistant Professor Chemistry and Chemical Engineering PhD North America Tenure Track

229

Table 6. Demographic Information of Faculty Participants with No Administrative Titles (cont.)
# Sex Academic Title Field Academic Background
Employment
Status
24 F Professor Life Sciences and Bioengineering PhD Europe Tenure Track
25 M Professor Mechanical Engineering PhD RUC Traditional
26 M Associate Professor Communication Engineering PhD RUC Traditional
27 F Professor Mechanical Engineering PhD RUC Traditional
28 M Associate Professor Mechanical Engineering PhD RUC Traditional
29 M Associate Professor Law PhD China Traditional
30 M Assistant Professor Architecture PhD Europe Tenure Track
31 M Associate Professor Optical Engineering PhD RUC Traditional
32 F Professor Environmental Engineering PhD RUC Traditional
33 M Professor Environmental Engineering PhD RUC Traditional
34 M Assistant Professor Computer Science PhD Asia Tenure Track
35 M Professor Material Science and Engineering PhD Asia Tenure Track
36 M Professor Architecture PhD RUC Traditional
37 M Associate Professor Humanities PhD China Traditional
38 M Professor Environmental Engineering PhD North America Tenure Track
39 M Associate Professor Material Science and Engineering PhD China, Postdoc North America Tenure Track
40 M Assistant Professor Mechanical Engineering PhD China, Postdoc North America Tenure Track
41 F Associate Professor Law PhD China Traditional
42 M Associate Professor Physics PhD Asia Traditional
43 M Professor Optical Engineering PhD RUC and North America Traditional
44 M Assistant Professor Chemistry and Chemical Engineering PhD China, Postdoc North America Tenure Track
45 F Associate Professor Mathematics PhD China Traditional

230

Table 7. Summary of Findings
Four Levels Themes of Interacting Logics
National policies
Centrality of the state logic
B lendin g a nd “ m a na g e d ” c ompatibi li t y b e twe e n th e state , the ma rk e t, t he c o rpor a te lo g ics
Rising centrality of the academic professional logic
Harmony between logics
Absence of the Confucian family logic
RUC policies
Stated:
Close alignment with the national policies
Implemented:
Centrality of the state, the market, and the corporate logics
Struggling and periphery academic professional logic
Accompanying role of the Confucian family logic
Ac a de mi c s ’
interpretations and
beliefs
Hoped-for centrality of the academic professional logic
o Setting up performance standards by ensuring diversity in performance measures, respecting the
path of research, and respecting teaching
o Controlling the scope of academic work
o Governing academic affairs
Opposition against the corporate logic
Inevitability of the market logic
Conflicts between the Confucian family logic and academic professional as well as the market logic
Possibility of positive change initiated by the state in the long term
231

Table 7. Summary of Findings: Interacting Logics, decoupling and recoupling processes at four levels (cont.)
Four Levels Themes of Interacting Logics
Ac a de mi c s ’ a c ti ons
Age: (of becoming faculty in relation to the policy shift from teaching to research in evaluation)
Participants who became faculty long before the shift loosely couple their work with current policies
Participants who were junior faculty during the shift:
o Some actively increased their research capacity and tightly couple their work with current policies
o Others have to decouple their work with current policies due to the missed opportunity to obtain
research training during the shift
Participants who became faculty after the shift voluntarily tightly couple their work with current policies
Discipline and academic rank:
Participants in science and engineering tightly couple their work with current policies, and such tight
coupling increases as one moves up the academic rank
Participants in architecture, social sciences, and law:
o Some superficially couple their work with the current policies
o Others tightly couple their work with the evaluation policies until the promotion to full professor
Participants in general education loosely couple their work with current evaluation policies
Employment track:
Tenure- t ra c k p a rticipa nts ti g htl y c ouple the ir wo rk with R UC’s poli c ies of f a c ult y e va luation
Traditional Chinese track participants tend to have greater flexibility in their decision of coupling
Gender:
Female participants tend to invest greater time in students due to interests in teaching
Female participants may invest less time in research due to family responsibilities
232

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of Intra-Organizational Dynamics Facing Top-Down Change

233

Appendices

234

Appendix A Interview Protocol for the Vice President
Time: Date:
Location: Duration:
Questions
The following questions were those asked during the two interviews.
1. W ha t ar e R UC’s biggest c ha n g e s since you worked here?
2. Tell me about the new strategic plan. How is it different from the previous plan, and why?
3. What are the major challenges ahead to implement the plan?
4. How would you characterize the culture of RUC?
5. Tell me about the new tenure-track s y stem. W ha t’ s ra ti ona le of thi s new po li c y ? How effective is it?
6. What is your take on shared governance?
7. How do the key personnel divisions and the schools and departments work with one another?
8. What is measured in faculty evaluation and promotion? What are the strengths and
weaknesses of the current mechanism?
9. What are your top priorities now?
10. Let me how you feel about various rankings. Which one do you pay the most attention to?
11. What do you think RUC will look like in five years?
12. Additional thoughts you want to share?
Notes
This part takes large space during actual interviews.

Reflective Notes

Later Updates

235

Appendix B Interview Protocol for Mid-Level Academic and Administrative Leaders
Time: Date:
Location: Duration:
Questions
1. What a re y our sc hool/ wo rk un it ’s bigg e st ch a n g e s since y ou wor ke d h e r e ?
2. How does the strategic plan resonate with your work responsibilities?
3. How would you characterize the culture of your school/work unit?
4. Tell me about the new tenure-track system. How effective is it?
5. What is your take on shared governance?
6. How do the key personnel divisions and the schools work with one another?
7. What is measured in faculty evaluation and promotion? What are the strengths and
weaknesses of the current mechanism?
8. What are your top priorities now?
9. Let me how you feel about various rankings. Which one do you pay the most attention to?
10. What do you think RUC will look like in five years?
11. What do you think your school/work unit will look like in five years?
12. Additional thoughts you want to share?
Notes
This part takes large space during actual interviews.

Reflective Notes

Later Updates

236

Appendix C Interview Protocol for Faculty
Time: Date:
Location: Duration:
Questions
1. What a re y our sc hool’s biggest changes since you worked here?
2. How would you characterize the culture of your school/work unit?
3. What is your take on the new tenure-track system?
4. What is your experience with shared governance at your school or RUC?
5. What is your experience in evaluation and application for promotion?
6. What is your experience applying for national grants?
7. What is your experience with entrepreneurial work?
8. What is your experience of international visiting scholars overseas?
9. What are your top priorities now?
10. What do you think RUC will look like in five years?
11. What do you think your school will look like in five years?
12. In an ideal situation at RUC, what would you be doing?
13. Additional thoughts you want to share?
Notes
This part takes large space during actual interviews.

Reflective Notes

Later Updates

237

Appendix D Observation Protocol
Event: Time:
Location: Date:
Physical Setting
Description:

Reflective Notes:

Administrators and Faculty
Description:

Reflective Notes:

Interactions and Communications
Descriptions: Reflective Notes:

Later Updates

238

Appendix E Journal Entry Format
Time: Date:
Challenge

Decision

Reflection

Later Updates

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation examines the extent to which demands of accountability and prestige from various sources—the state, the market, the corporation, the Confucian family, and the academic profession—shape the changing academic life at a Chinese research university. The objective is to understand the interface between external demands and internal policies and processes of defining and evaluating academics’ work, and the extent to which academics align their interpretations and actions with these policies and external demands. Three dimensions have emerged to affect the university’s policies, including the governance structure of Chinese higher education, the academic prestige of the university, and the socioeconomic context where the university is located. Four dimensions have emerged to affect academics’ interpretations and actions, including age, discipline and academic rank, employment track, and gender. These findings highlight the varied extent of decoupling and recoupling between university policies and practices as well as between individuals’ interpretations and actions for different academics and for the same academic at different time points. In other words, say versus do or symbolic versus substantive change are not as dichotomous as common conceptions of universities might predict, due to the increasing demand for accountability and prestige. Further, the alignment between academics’ interpretations and actions facing top‐down change is not as coherent as organization theory might predict, due to the governance structure and the current developmental stage of Chinese higher education. Broadly speaking, this dissertation provides a glimpse of the changing academic profession along China’s striving for modernization via a combined strong state and free market economy. Comparatively speaking, this dissertation highlights two different dynamics—assimilation versus blending—between higher education and external logics (i.e., the state, the market, the corporation, and the Confucian family) in shaping the changing academic profession: assimilation of external logics into academic profession in the West (e.g., the UK and US higher education) and blending of these logics with academic profession in Chinese higher education. These two different dynamics are embedded in different higher education governance structures (decentralized versus centralized) and developmental stages (developed versus developing), resulting in different broad change processes (fragmentation, incremental change versus conformity, abrupt change) between the West and China.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Part-time and time faculty conceptualizations of academic community: a case study

PDF

Interfaith on campus: examining intentional interfaith experiences and reflection

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education

PDF

Collaborative social networks in student affairs: an exploration of the outcomes and strategies associated with cross‐institutional collaboration

PDF

The work identity of full‐time non‐tenure‐track faculty at a four year research university

PDF

Racing? to transform colleges and universities: an institutional case study of race-related organizational change in higher education

PDF

A mixed method examination of available supports for secondary school students’ college and military aspirations

PDF

The role of the timing of school changes and school quality in the impact of student mobility: evidence from Clark County, Nevada

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

Assessment and teaching improvement in higher education: investigating an unproven link

PDF

Measuring the drivers of economic, energy, and environmental changes: an index decomposition analysis

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Leadership decisions and organizational change; the role of summer sessions as an enrollment management planning tool at the University of California: a case study

PDF

Differentiated motivations of preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession in Hawai‘i

PDF

Titrating the solution: the diffusion and institutionalization of the logic of continuous improvement

PDF

Reforming Ph.D. programs to address the changing academic labor market

PDF

Assuming the trusteeship: studying the influence of learning and preparation on the decision-making practices of members of public multicampus boards of higher education

PDF

How college affects Latinas' STEM career decision-making process: a psychosociocultural approach

PDF

The relationship between academic capitalism and student culture at two four-year higher education institutions

Asset Metadata

Creator Zhou, Ji (author)

Core Title Accountability and the changing academic profession: interacting logics, decoupling and recoupling processes at a Chinese research university

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/14/2014

Defense Date 05/15/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag accountability,Chinese higher education,decoupling,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,Prestige,recoupling

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cole, Darnell G. (committee chair), Fiss, Peer C. (committee member), Kezar, Adrianna J. (committee member)

Creator Email jizhou.jz@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-437633

Unique identifier UC11287784

Identifier etd-ZhouJi-2665.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-437633 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ZhouJi-2665.pdf

Dmrecord 437633

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Zhou, Ji

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA