Lai, M., & Jung, J. (2023). Master’s programmes at Sino‐foreign cooperative universities in China: An analysis of the neoliberal practices. Higher Education Quarterly.
With pressing need for advanced knowledge and professional skills in the evolving labour market, Chinese government has recognised the importance of extending international education to the postgraduate level and educating high-calibre talents (Mok & Han, 2016). Such realisation and conviction to change the landscape manifest in nation’s educational policy and endeavours of diverse cross-border collaborative partnerships (e.g., Ministry of Education, 2013), among which Sino-foreign cooperation is an important carrier. By 2022, the Ministry of Education has approved over 220 such institutions and programmes at the postgraduate level held by different universities; the new establishment is expected every year (CFCRS, 2022). Observing the Sino-foreign cooperative education can reveal the variability among universities and how far they approach the internationalisation of higher education as claimed.
Unlike undergraduate education, largely dominated by national discourses, master’s education has greater flexibility in responding to the internationalisation (Shimauchi & Kim, 2020). In terms of Sino-foreign cooperation at the postgraduate level, most of analysis focused on the overall status quo in this field or different practical models at regular Chinese universities (e.g., Miao & Yang, 2016; Qiu, 2018), rarely capturing master’s education in the specific context of Sino-foreign cooperative universities (SFCUs). It is worth noticing the peculiarities of SFCUs, which are recognised as independent ‘international university in China’ as opposed to fragmented practices of internationalisation (Hu & Willis, 2016). In light of the gap, this study devoted particular attention to master’s education at SFCUs, to explore their operational characteristics as well as universities’ understanding of the concept of internationalisation in the programme implementation. Thus, the following research questions are raised: First, what are the current state and characteristics of implementing master’s programmes at SFCUs? Second, how does transnational partnership negotiate and navigate cross-border contexts in internationalising master’s programmes at SFCUs?
This study adopts a postcolonial perspective on neoliberal approaches to the internationalisation of higher education, particularly drawing on the concepts of mimicry and resistance (Bhabha, 1994). Mimicry, commonly used to describe paradoxical state in the coloniser control and colonised compliance, provides the theoretical lens to interpret transnational partnership as practiced in the internationalisation (Ashcroft et al., 2000). In postcolonial studies, the resistance emerges in multiple forms, but for the purpose of investigating neoliberal higher education, this study draws from the model that Jeffress (2008) calls the ‘resistance as subversion’. Such resistance assumes people simultaneously affirm emulation and reshape the structure and the ways determined by neoliberal logic. The ambivalent nature of mimicry creates a ‘in-between space’ that transcends binary oppositions, where subversive resistance occurs in the meeting of various cultures. SFCUs, featured with providing cross-system and cross-cultural education, are considered as representatives of such unique space (Yu, 2021). These universities mimic their foreign partner’s educational model and offer similar master’s programmes, however, the embedded contexts are ostensibly different across countries. The negotiation with the local context on educational management and operation leads to different practices. On this view, the scrutiny of master’s programmes at SFCUs contributes to examining mimicry and resistance, by extension, applying postcolonial theories into the context of transnational partnerships.
We conducted a qualitative analysis of publicly accessible documents produced by 133 master’s programmes at nine SFCUs. The data were primarily collected from the universities’ official websites and media channels, with additional policy-related documents pertaining to master’s programmes collected from government websites. Examining the current status and practices of master’s programmes at nine SFCUs, the findings show the diversified development of disciplines and heterogeneity across nine universities. The analysis of master’s programme coverage also reflects the common issue in the development. There is an uneven distribution of coursework-based (105) and research-oriented (28) programmes. The research type degree, as the initial embodiment of master’ education, are less emphasised at SFCUs.
Further, the findings illustrate how these programmes entangle with neoliberal ideas through transnational partnership. The commercial focus dominates the position in operating master’s education at SFCUs for more successful competition over mutuality (De Wit & Merkx, 2022). We discovered some SFCUs explicitly introduced market logic and advertised corresponding arrangements as the advantages. For example, time efficiency (i.e., short length of schooling) is stressed in the official programme guidelines. The international image of these programmes and the foreign educational resources are often mentioned as a marketing tool to differentiate themselves from local competitors. Master’s programmes have been equated with professional credentials rather than for the academic development. Most curriculums are structured around workforce development, incorporating practical training, technical skills, and occupational certificates into course content to meet students’ needs in terms of career advancement and employability (Afdal, 2017; Gallagher, 2016).
In addition, the ambivalent desire between following Western practices and resisting them is evident in internationalising higher education system at SFCUs. On the one hand, the regulations governing the importation of well-developed programmes in transnational partnerships require host institutions to adopt their home universities’ curriculum to ensure adequate subject knowledge and fluent operations, posing a challenge to localising global standards in the educational practices. SFCUs, on the other hand, essentially in the role of integrating educational models of two institutions, exercise their agency to adapt teaching content to the local context to resist the potential neocolonial harms from mimicry. Our findings indicate that some SFCUs resist foreign educational models in terms of programme structure, course design and university administration. They tend to maintain the national discourses while introducing foreign knowledge and perspectives.
This study makes implication for seeking the balance between home and host institutions is necessary for mutuality in the partnership involvement (Mwangi, 2017). In addition to introducing world-leading disciplinary content and expertise, local elements and culture should be embedded into the curriculum and instruction. As Lo (2014) proposed, the slogan ‘think globally and act locally’ must be operationalised if the host institution aims to be truly international. Shifting our understanding of internationalisation from a western paradigm to a real global collaboration becomes a key concern for future development. Though this document analysis introduces the design and pattern of master’s programmes, it is likely that actual practices and contents are slightly different from the elaborations in the documents. Considering the limitation, a follow-up interview and field observation are essential to understand actual programme implementation in the further research.
References:
Afdal, H. W. (2017). Research-based and profession-oriented as prominent knowledge discourses in curriculum restructuring of professional programs. Higher Education, 74(3), 401–418.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2000). Post-colonial studies: The key concepts. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
CFCRS. (2022). Shuoshi ji Yishang Zhongwai Hezuo Banxue Iigou yu Xiangmu [List of Master’s Degree or above at Chinese-foreign Cooperative Institutions and Programs]. https://www.crs.jsj.edu.cn/aproval/orglists/1
De Wit, H., & Merkx, G. (2022). The history of the internationalization of higher education. In D. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask, & H. Charles (Eds.), Handbook on International Higher Education (2nd ed.) (pp. 23-52). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Gallagher, S. R. (2016). The Future of University Credentials: New Developments at the Intersection of Higher Education and Hiring. Harvard Education Press.
Hu, M., & Willis, L. -D. (2016). Towards a common transnational education framework: peculiarities in China matter. Higher Education Policy, 30(2), 245–261.
Jeffress, D. (2008). Postcolonial resistance: Culture, liberation and transformation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Lo, W. Y. W. (2014). Think global, think local: The changing landscape of higher education and the role of quality assurance in Singapore. Policy and Society, 33(3), 263-273.
Miao, H., & Yang, Y. (2016). Yanjiusheng jiaoyu zhongwai hezuo banxue de xianzhuang fenxi yu fazhan lujing. Yanjiusheng jiaoyu yanjiu [Journal of Graduate Education], 3, 7-11+35.
Ministry of Education (2013). Shenhua yanjiusheng jiaoyu gaige de yijian [Opinions on deepening the reform of postgraduate education] http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/s7065/201304/t20130419_154118.html?from=groupmessage&isappinstalled=0
Mok, K. H., & Han, X. (2016). The rise of transnational higher education and changing educational governance in China. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 18(1), 19–39.
Mwangi, C. A. G. (2017). Partner positioning: Examining international higher education partnerships through a mutuality lens. The Review of Higher Education, 41(1), 33-60.
Qiu, P. F. (2018). Kuaguo shuoshi shuangxuewei xiangmu yu lianhe xuewei xiangmu de moshi tezheng ji shishi jianyi [Patterns, features of and implementation proposals for transnational postgraduate double degree and joint degree programs]. Yanjiusheng jiaoyu yanjiu [Journal of Graduate Education], 1, 49-54.
Shimauchi, S., & Kim, Y. (2020). The influence of internationalization policy on master’s education in Japan: A comparison of “super global” and mass-market universities. Higher Education Policy, 33, 689-709.
Yu, J. (2021). Consuming UK Transnational Higher Education in China: A Bourdieusian Approach to Chinese Students’ Perceptions and Experiences. Sociological Research Online, 26(1), 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780420957040
Authors Bio
Mei Lai is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong. She received M.A. in International Educational development from Teachers College, Columbia University in 2018. Her research interests are internationalization of higher education, transnational higher education, identity development and career orientation of students at Sino-foreign cooperative universities. Her recent publications appear in journals such as Higher Education and Higher Education Quarterly. She can be reached at email: laim@connect.hku.hk
Jisun Jung is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong since September, 2015. She received a Ph.D. from Seoul National University, Korea, in 2011, and she was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Hong Kong. She has been involved in the international comparative project ‘The Changing Academic Profession’ since 2009. Her current research focuses on academic profession, doctoral education, employment and postgraduate studies and higher education research in Asia. She is the co-editor of two journal special issues, ‘Higher Education Research in East Asia: Regional and National Evolution and Path-Dependencies’ in Higher Education Policy and ‘Graduate Employment and Higher Education in East Asia’ in International Journal of Chinese Education, and also a co-editor of the two books ‘The Changing Academic Profession in Hong Kong’ published by Springer in 2018 and ‘Researching in Higher Education in Asia’ by Springer in 2019. She is currently co-editor of Higher Education Research & Development.
Managing Editor: Tong Meng
Network for Research into Chinese Education Mobilities (NRCEM) 