RIHE International Seminar Reports
No.14, September 2010

Report of the International Workshop on
Graduate Education, 2009

PRODUCING QUALIFIED GRADUATES AND
ASSURING EDUCATION QUALITY IN THE
KNOWLEDGE-BASED SOCIETY:
ROLES AND ISSUES OF GRADUATE EDUCATION

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY

Producing Qualified Graduates and Assuring Education Quality in the
Knowledge-Based Society: Roles and Issues of Graduate Education
Edited and Published by

Research Institute for Higher Education
Hiroshima University

2-2, Kagamiyama 1-chome

Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8512 Japan

TEL: +81-82-424-6240, FAX: +81-82-422-7104
http://en.rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/

Printed by:Nakamoto Sogo Printing Co., Ltd.

5-1-1, Ozu, Minami-ku, Hiroshima City

732-0802, Japan

TEL: +81-82-281-4221, FAX: +81-82-284-6579
September 2010
ISBN978-4-902808-59-9

i

FOREWORD

Higher Education in Japan is now facing great and difficult challenges.
These challenges are the consequence of recent and rapid socio-economicchanges, including globalization, the emergence of a knowledge-based society,and the ageing of society as the number of young people declines. We believethat higher education in Japan must adapt to the new environment by a process of
universities reforming themselves. Graduate education is no exception. It is
expected to play a greater role in the future of Japan. Graduate education
contributes enormously to society in terms of economic growth and social
welfare, both by training highly talented people and also by performing advanced
research focused on social and industrial needs. To date, however, reform ofgraduate education is still a „work in progress‟ that has yet to reach its goal. We
need to share understanding of graduate education with each other and strive tolift it to the level that is required.
In this situation, the Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE) in
Hiroshima University, through being specially funded by the Ministry of
Education and Science in 2008, has been able to implement a new research
project on the reform of higher education in the knowledge-based society of the
21st century. Research on graduate education is a very important part of thisproject. Thus RIHE hosted the second International Workshop on Graduate
Education under the theme of “Producing Qualified Graduates and Assuring
Education Quality in the Knowledge-based Society: roles and issues of graduate
education”, which was followed by the 37th Annual Study Meeting on Graduate
Education in Japan.
We invited four speakers whose activities are internationally recognized:
Professor Simon Marginson, University of Melbourne, Australia, Professor
Emeritus Ryo Hirasawa, University of Tokyo, Ms Lesley Wilson, European
University Association, and Professor Chen Siangming, Peking University. In
addition to these speakers, we were pleased that Professor Masuo Aizawa,
Executive Member of Council for Science and Technology Policy of Japan wasable to accept our invitation to deliver a special lecture. I sincerely appreciate
the contributions of the five guests to the International Workshop.

ii

I hope that this volume will contribute to understanding for those who areinterested in both graduate education matters and science/technology systems
around the world as well as in Japan.

August 2010
Shinichi Yamamoto
Director and Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University

CONTENTS
Foreword

Shinichi Yamamoto ···················································· i

Keynote Speeches
Keynote Speech 1
Global movements in research labour and doctoral students: strategic implications
for national systems and universities
Simon W. Marginson ·················································· 1
Keynote Speech 2
Mission-oriented knowledge system in graduate schools: how can we ingrain it andassure the quality?
Ryo Hirasawa ·························································· 17

Presentations
Presentation 1
Reform in European higher education with a focus on quality assurance and thechanging nature of doctoral education
Lesley Wilson and Andrée Sursock ····································· 29
Presentation 2
Recent reform in university education and its implications for student development
in China
Xiangming Chen ·························································· 45

Special Speech
Pursuing Excellence in Graduate Education
Masuo Aizawa ····························································· 59

Conclusion
Polices, practice, and implications concerning graduate education and its quality
assurance: from the global, regional, national, and institutional perspectives
Futao Huang ······························································· 75

Appendices
1. Conference Program ······························································· 79
2. List of Participants ································································· 81

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Professor
Keith J. Morgan, visiting professor at RIHE, Hiroshima University, who edited
all the manuscripts in this report.

Shinichi Yamamoto
Director & Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University

Keynote Speeches

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.14, 2010

1

Page

Global movements in research labour and doctoral
students: strategic implications for national systems
and universities

Simon M. Marginson

Introduction
The paper focuses on global aspects of research and doctoral education andconsiders practical implications of the increasingly global character of both.
Here scholar-researchers are working „in the dark‟. The globalization ofknowledge in the real world has moved ahead of empirical research on the topic
and of theorisms and models designed to understand it. Nor have the mostly
national policy systems governing higher education and research in different
countries fully grasped the nature and extent of the global changes now taking
place. The paper, which is necessarily brief and schematic, is designed tostimulate thinking about the implications of the part-globalization of knowledge
for doctoral education and research organization in national systems and inresearch-intensive universities. It is pitched at the level of „the perspective of
the world‟ (Braudel, 1985) so as to develop an overview of trends. The
circumstances described in general terms in this paper play out differently fromnation to nation. The propositions and summations here need to be tested forrelevance and applicability in each specific national and local site.
The paper defines global integration and convergence, and reflects on theimplications of the location of higher education at the intersection of the global,
national and local dimensions of action. It then considers more closely the way
the global dimension of education and research is being created. The final partProfessor of Higher Education, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne
Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Australia, e-mail: s.marginson@unimelb.edu.au

2Global movements in research labour and doctoral students

Pageof the paper considers the implications of globalization for policy on researchand doctoral mobility. The paper does not provide quantitative data on themobility of researchers and graduate students, but rests on a prior review ofexisting data-sets (Marginson, 2009).

Global, national and local
A useful short definition of „globalization‟ is that of David Held andcolleagues in Global Transformations: „The widening, deepening and speeding
up of inter-connectedness on a world-wide scale‟ (Held, McLew, Goldblatt &Perraton, 1999, p.2). In higher education this plays out in the growing role ofworldwide systems at national and local level. In human life as a whole theoutstanding example of a global or one-world system is that of ecology.
Increasingly, we recognize that eco-systems are interdependent. In higher
education the outstanding example is that of systems related to knowledge andpublication in the sciences. For example, across the world academic faculty are
increasingly required to publish in the English-language journals that comprise
the global science system. Global rankings and other forms of cross-country
comparisons between universities and between their programs and research arewatched closely. The global mobility of students and staff has led to theevolution of formal and informal systems for making judgements about thequality of qualifications and institutions from other countries. Anothermanifestation of globalization is the use of policy borrowing from abroad innational systems (King, 2009) and the closer cross-border resemblance between
universities in the manner in which they are organized, though distinctive
national faculty cultures continue (for more discussion of the impact of
globalization in higher education and research (see for example Marginson &van der Wende, 2009; Marginson, Kaur & Sawir, in press).
Institutions devoted to higher education and research, especially the leading
research universities, play a key role in the processes of globalization. Higher
education does not simply respond to globalization, it is one of the driving forces.
The same point can be made about national systems of higher education. Whilesome systems adopt a largely defensive posture in relation to global trends, manynations actively contribute to changes at the global level of higher education andresearch. Higher education and research are practised in three distinct but
interrelated domains of human action – the global dimension, the national
dimension, and the local dimension. In the present era of communicative
globalization, which dates from the cheapening of air travel and the emergenceSimon M. Marginson

3

Page

of the Internet two decades ago, the global dimension has become more
important than it was before. It exercises an increasingly influence in relation
to thinking and action in the national and local dimensions. It is important toemphasize also that the local dimension retains autonomy and distinctive
strategies and activities can be created there. Likewise there continues to be
space for national system distinctiveness in higher education and research –though the nation is no longer the outer limit of what is possible, and all nations
are increasingly affected by trends and relationships at the world level.
Research universities must now operate in three dimensions of action at thesame time. The first dimension, easiest to recognize, is the local dimension −the day-to-day life of institutions, localities, communities and sites of
employment. The second dimension is the national dimension – national
culture and polity and systems, policies, laws and regulations. Universities
have long been important for nation-building governments. Given the power ofskills and innovation in modern economies, and the need for an equitablestructure of opportunity, they are more central now. Universities also need
governments, which are their most important source of funding. Government
resourcing often brings with it unwanted control. But universities that eschew
the resources of nation-states will falter at the global level. The third
dimension is the global dimension (see above). Increasingly, universities
operate independently of national government when they are operating globally.
But governments may be reluctant to resource independent activity.
In sum, we are in a “glonacal” era of higher education, where glonacal
indicates some combination of global, national and local factors (Marginson &Rhoades, 2002; Marginson & van der Wende, 2009). Figure 1 sets out in
simple form the three dimensions of higher education.
GLOBALHIGHEREDUCATION
NATIONAL

LOCAL
Source of concept: Marginson & Rhoades (2002)

Figure 1. Dimensions of higher education

4

Global movements in research labour and doctoral students

Page

This glonacal environment is complex and demanding. For example,
action in the global dimension is transformative of the agency (the subjective
mentality) of universities and their staff. They become more globally conscious.
We acquire “multiple affiliations” (Sen, 1999) becoming at one and the sametime local actors, national citizen-subjects and global players. But becoming
more flexible in our thinking is a key to success. This is because universities
that effectively coordinate action in the three dimensions, so that each kind ofaction tends to accommodate the other, or least does not work against the others,
will tend to benefit.
However, the main challenge in the global setting is not to become active –most research universities and nations will achieve this – or even to achieve
coordination between the dimensions, but to contribute to shaping the global
dimension. Only some national traditions will help to shape evolving global
systems that affect all. But even small nations, such as Singapore, can achieve
this with imaginative strategy.
The glonacal picture needs to be modified in one respect – the role ofmeta-national regions, such as the European Higher Education Area. The
formation of collaborative regions is a logical response to the American
domination of worldwide higher education and research. Limited regional
cooperation short of a formal architecture, for example synchronization ofquality assurance systems on a voluntary basis, can also be constructive. Notethat stronger research universities can push regionalization forward by creating
cooperation in advance of state decisions.

Creating the global dimension
The global dimension of higher education and research is extraordinarily
dynamic. In the last twenty years, especially the last ten, a remarkable list of
global strategies has been applied. Some are led by governments, some byuniversities or their units, and others by publishing companies and othercorporations. Often a key initiating role is played by individual university
executive leaders. These global strategies have changed the possibilities andthe necessities, affecting all national systems and single research universities.
The strategies are a mixture of old and new. But this global space-making has
been greatly facilitated by synchronous electronic communication and theone-world visualisation enabled by the Internet.
Some of these strategies for creating a global dimension aregovernment-driven, some sustained primarily by institutions of higher education,

Simon M. Marginson

5

Page

some jointly driven. In the case of global comparisons and rankings otheragents also play a role.
Government-driven strategies
Capacity building in research Many (though not all) national governments
believe that expanded investment in basic research is one key to future economic
competitiveness. This “arms race in innovation” has been accelerated by thegrowth of knowledge-intensive production within the economy, and theemergence of global research rankings, which provide a measure of comparativeknowledge economy “firepower” (OECD, 2008a, Marginson & van der Wende,2009). The main zones of accelerated investment in basic research are in China(Li, Whalley, Zhang & Zhao, 2008), Korea, Taiwan China and Singapore; inWestern Europe (EC, 2007), notably Germany and France (Salmi, 2009); and in
the USA where the Obama administration has announced that it will double
National Science Foundation and National Health Institute research funding.
By growing their investment in basic research these national systems are
securing a heightened capacity to compete on the global scale for the best
doctoral students, post-doctoral researcher-scholars, and senior researchers; andhence a growing share of the significant intellectual discoveries. Growth ofcapacity in basic research can also feed into industrial innovations providing
other conditions are right.
Global hubs Global education hubs are designed to position a particularnational system or city within the global setting as a pole of attraction to foreign
students and investment capital in education. The hub may also include a focus
on research, industry innovation, and capital for R&D and commercialisation.
The idea is to position the nation/city as a centre of global and regional
development. Governments pursuing the hub strategy usually invest in
infrastructure and offer favourable terms to foreign providers who locate on site.
The first global knowledge hub was the Singapore “Global Schoolhouse” (Kong,
Gibson, Khoo & Semple, 2006; Sidhu, 2009). Malaysia and Mauritius havealso set out to become global educational hubs, and Hong Kong is giving
thought to a similar strategy. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar areattempting something similar. It is likely that the hub strategy will only work if
the city and nation are sufficiently attractive to foreign capital and personnel for
more reasons than just the investment in educational infrastructure. The hub
location must have enough drawing power in its own right to attract long term
migrants. A successful hub cannot be created in a vacuum by education alone(Marginson, 2010).

6

Global movements in research labour and doctoral students

Page

Global higher education as a trading system (WTO-GATS): The othergovernment strategy for building the global dimension of higher education andresearch is a multilateral one that is designed to remake the whole global
dimension of higher education. The WTO-GATS negotiations set out to create
an open global trading regime in designated services sectors, including
educational services (OECD, 2004). This agenda emerged out of thesuccessive rounds of global trade talks. It is now clear that WTO-GATS will
not achieve its original objectives. Most national governments have little
intrinsic interest in holistically remaking education as a tradable commodity.
Education is largely produced in non-commercial settings; and governments
want to retain control of higher education and research.
Institution-driven strategies
Partnerships and consortia Cross-border partnerships between universities,
a long-existing strategy, have become more important in the last 15 years.
Partnerships facilitate resource sharing, people exchange, mutual benchmarking,joint degrees between universities from different countries, and twinning
programs across borders where students do parts of their degrees in each country.
Multi-agent networks or consortia are the extended family version of
institutional partnerships. Typically their membership spans the globe or aregion within it such as Europe, Asia-Pacific or East Asia. Though consortia
always involve information sharing, they do not all generate new activity. Nor
do they constrain it. It might appear that consortia imply an opportunity cost
but universities can keep their options open: presidents of research universities
normally retain the strategic freedom to deal with whomsoever they want. The
extent to which a consortium is active and influences its members partly depends
on the energy of the consortium secretariat. If alliances last, potentials candeepen over time.
Transnational education Transnational education means the enrolment ofstudents in a nation other than the home nation of the educational institution(Verbik & Merkeley, 2006; Ziguras & McBurnie, 2006). The institution
becomes the foreigner and the international student is at home − rather than, as
in the case of education export, the international student becoming the foreigner
while the institution stays at home. Transnational education is produced bydistance education or via a branch campus. Branch campuses are in two forms.
The first is the stand-alone campus owned or rented and operated solely by thetransnational institution. The second and more common model is collaboration
with a local partner. All forms of transnational education take the production ofSimon M. Marginson

7

Page

education out of the national jurisdiction of the institution and into the national
jurisdiction of another government. Transnational institutions also continue tobe shaped by their own regulatory setting, at least in their home country
activities. Thus once they move offshore they acquire dual identity. It is
harder for any one government to control the university‟s activity, but at thesame time the university must deal with both governments. Transnational
education has the potential to affect the development of education in the location,
through competition with local institutions and through the models it provides.
At the same time, transnational campuses often find themselves adapting
curriculum and pedagogy in part for the local setting. They acquire a moreculturally plural approach and this can feed back to the metropolitan institution,broadening its approach to teaching. Potentially, transnational education istransformative in both countries.
Global e-universities The delivery of educational programs through theInternet has the potential to evade the regulatory powers of governments in boththe provider nation and the nation where program delivery occurs. It takes
production straight into the global dimension and invites the student to follow.
There is an attractive if grandiose simplicity about the Global e-U concept. It
opens the prospect of a single global classroom, and a universe of virtual
institutions, a parallel universe to that of face-to-face universities. At the end of
the 1990s much was invested in e-U ventures, especially in the USA and throughthe UK e-university. There was little student take-up. It is now apparent thatexcept for students working full-time, e-degrees have limited appeal (OECD,2005). They lack status compared to on-site programs; and most students
prefer the teaching and networking benefits of face-to-face delivery.
Jointly-driven strategies
Export of education One of the more successful global strategies iscommercial education exports (Bashir, 2007; Verbik & Lasanowski, 2007).
The running of the programs for foreign students as a business grew out of thelong role of the English-speaking countries in educating foreign aid scholarshipstudents and private international students after world war two. However the
primary purpose has shifted from aid to trade. The main policy objective ofeducational export is to generate revenues for the nations and institutions
concerned. The growth of commercial educational exports in the UK, Australia,
New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, China and elsewhere has been supported bygovernment regulation and national positioning strategies in each country, andalso powered directly by the recruitment activities of the institutions themselves.

8

Global movements in research labour and doctoral students

Page

In the UK, Australia and New Zealand growth has been facilitated also by
deregulation of international student numbers.
This contrasts with theeducation of domestic students which is largely subsidized and regulated bygovernment (though from 2012 onwards it will be deregulated in Australia).
Under these arrangements universities and other institutions enrol as many
foreign students as they wish; and because they can set their own prices andlevel of unit surplus there is a strong incentive to expand. However, in othernational systems where foreign education is run on a subsidized, not acommercial basis, and the objectives are those of intercultural education andforeign policy not export income, there is usually a quota on numbers.
Education export is potentially transformative. It draws global capital flows
and flows of talent into exporting nations and strengthens the global presence of
their institutions. It also augments global convergence. International students
maintain contact with families and friends at home while engaging with thecountry of education. As they struggle to survive and change in the newcountry they draw the world closer together. This is global integration on thescale of millions.
Knowledge cities Knowledge cities are a more modest but more effective
version of the “hub” strategy. Typically they are driven by universities inconcert with local government, and sometimes with provincial or national
government. It is again a place-based capacity building strategy, like researchconcentration and the hubs, designed to draw to a location global flows ofknowledge and innovation, talent and money.
Like hubs it suggests
infrastructure investment, precinct architecture, worldwide marketing, visa
policies that facilitate the mobility of talent, and other inducements andconditions designed to make the city and its institutions attractive.
Region-building in higher education Small-sized to medium-sized higher
education systems, lacking the fire-power of the USA or China, have limited
capacity to set the rules of global engagement, even with highly creative
strategies like the Singapore Global Schoolhouse Strategy. This suggests that
where feasible, regionalization of capacity and people mobility, particularly inresearch, can create mutual strength at the global level. There are four
conditions for successful regional organization: geographical proximity, culturalconformity, a sufficient development of educational infrastructure, and politicalwill. In the absence of political will, geography and culture are not enough.
This is why regionalization is not a factor in East Asia at this time. In higher
education and research the only zone that clearly fulfils all the conditions forregionalization is Europe (van der Wende, 2008; Kehm, Huisman & Stensaker,

Simon M. Marginson

9

Page

Eds., 2009; van Vught, Ed., 2009). There regionalization is pursued both
top-down through inter-governmental structures and the European Commission,and bottom-up in negotiations and exchange between institutions.
Regionalization is building the coherence, resource sharing and long-term global
impact of the European Higher Education Area. In Southeast Asia ASEAN
maintains a framework of collaborative programs, though these are largely
marginal to national systems.
Multiple actor strategies
Global comparisons and rankings The comparison and ranking of national
systems and individual institutions – in general as in “best university” lists, andin relation to research performance – have fecund potentials to reshape higher
education. Ranking has proved much more potent than the WTO-GATS agenda.
It has also done more than has the WTO to advance the organization of higher
education as a market, by defining the field of competition, standardizing thecriteria and setting institutions and nations directly against each other. At thesame time comparison and ranking also provide certain data that facilitate
mutual recognition and collaboration. The potential for collaboration is
impaired by hierarchical forms of ranking, which marginalize institutions withlow resources, and subordinate national systems whose main language is not
English. This makes necessary the creation of flatter systems of comparison,
which bring more diverse forms of knowledge and culture into the frame.
Ranking is a multi-actor business. It takes in publishing companies
including the Times and US News; university centres as at Jiao Tong, Leiden,
and CHE in Germany, and UNAM in Mexico (CWTS, 2009; SJTUGSE, 2009);
government bodies as in the research rankings by the Higher Education
Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan; and independent groups as inwebometrics (2010) which compares the web visibility and utility of institutions
and helps to drive web publishing. The OECD (2008b) is developing
comparative measures of learning outcomes in higher education. There are
more involved in ranking institutions at the national level. Alongside rankings,
classification systems are emerging, so that institutions can be ranked in groups
according to mission. The European national systems are moving to both
multi-layer classifications and multi-purpose rankings. This will make itpossible to fully comprehend the European wide sector of higher education for
the first time (Bartlese & van Vught, 2007; van Vught, Ed., 2009). There arealso plans to extend the European process to the global level. In East andSoutheast Asia, regional comparisons are likely to emerge. There is no activity

10

Global movements in research labour and doctoral students

Pagemore powerful in creating the global dimension of higher education and researchthan is global comparison and ranking.

Implications
The development of a global dimension of action has several implications
for policy on graduate and career research. This paper draws attention to threeof these.
Central mediating role of global comparison and ranking
University rankings function as a meta-performance indicator. It seems
that all nations want more universities in the top 500, the top 100 or the top 20.
Every university president wants his or her university to rise in the eyes of theworld and rankings provide a clear-cut indicator. Rankings and global
competition in general have installed a universal culture in which all universities
involved in research and doctoral education want to become “World Class
Universities” (SJTUGSE, 2009) as identified by rankings. Research on theeffects of rankings shows that they are influential in the perspectives anddecisions of governments, universities themselves, their staff, prospective
students, and private investors in education and research (Hazelkorn, 2008). In
sum, rankings help to shape the patterns of mobility of talent. Universities
must focus on performance and its marketing. This creates serious difficulties
for universities in emerging countries which do not have sufficient resources toclaim “World Class” status, for example by paying researchers salaries at global
rates.
Building both research capacity and connectivity
Another implication of the emerging global dimension is that higher
education systems, and individual research universities, now need to build
research capacity at home and improve cooperation with other national researchsystems. The two sets of activities are complementary. Only nations withgood basic research across a full set of fields can secure full access to the global
knowledge system, while providing training for the researchers who will work inindustry and universities in future.
The twin need, for capacity at home and collaboration abroad, has led
national policy makers and research universities in most countries to place
positive values on graduate and researcher mobility, joint cross-border projects,and „internationalization‟ of universities. A key issue to monitor and resolve isSimon M. Marginson

11

Page

the balance between PhD training at home and PhD training abroad. A
comprehensive pattern of local training provides essential research capacity inthe national system. PhD training abroad broadens access to the range of ideas
and methods accessed by researchers and enhances their communicative andintellectual capacities to operate freely on the global plane. It also createsconditions for sustainable long-term collaborations across borders. Thissuggests both kinds of doctoral training are needed, and if the balance tips too far
towards one or the other, global effectiveness is weakened.
Global competition for mobile talent
The final implication of globalisation and global strategy-making is that the
global competition for mobile talent is now a powerful driver of university andnational decision-making. First, institutions need to be able to compete
effectively for high performance researchers. A small number of scientists,
those able to generate high volume publications and citations, have become
strategically significant – because of their potential contribution to knowledge
discovery and industrial innovation; and because their presence enhances the
rankings position. Note however that in the case of researchers working inbasic inquiry, the commercial fruits from their work are only to be captured by
the national innovation system if there are nation-based industries able to financeand market the commercial applications. Otherwise the economic benefits of
the work are picked up by firms in other nations.
Second, national systems and universities also compete globally as sites ofdoctoral research and post-doctoral research. Nations and institutions able toattract significant numbers of foreign doctoral students and researchers canenhance research performance. Those that cannot attract foreign talent also
face the problem of holding onto their own national-origin talent. Systems thatfail to compete effectively in the global market in advanced research skills face
net brain-drain and at worst, a decoupling from the worldwide knowledge
system. Even strong research systems like that of Germany have been
weakened by brain-drain (Berning, 2004).
Here the American higher education system has proven effectively
competitive on the world scale. It provides relatively generous start-up
conditions, scholarships and ongoing part-time work for doctoral students, andthe majority of the world‟s post-doctoral research posts. It also loses relatively
few home-grown researchers of note. Thus the USA has been a magnet for
talented people from all over the world. Many stay in the USA on a long-termbasis. This creates difficulties for other nations, nearly all of which experience12

Global movements in research labour and doctoral students

Page

a net brain-drain in relation to the USA.
The globalization of research should not be exaggerated. National systemsof training, recruitment, promotion and the structuring of the academic
profession remain quite diverse on the world-scale, even in Western Europe(Musselin, 2005) where regional integration is greatest. Though nations allcompete for stellar scientists, those scientists enter into differing salary andcareer regimes, which weakens the extent to which a single labour market
competition takes place.
However global market forces are at work, even if their operation issomewhat inhibited and fragmented; and diversity does not always protect
national higher education systems. Some countries weaken their competitive
position by maintaining career systems and migration regimes relatively closed
to outsiders, and/or levels of salary that are too low. Doctoral students tend toprefer countries where there will be opportunities after graduation.
Notwithstanding those barriers doctoral education appears to becoming moreinternationalised overall (Marginson, 2009 reviews the evidence).
The
presence of foreign doctoral student varies markedly by nation. About one
quarter of all doctoral students in the USA and Australia are international, one
third in Canada, and half in the UK. The proportion is also high in the
Netherlands and Spain. It is relatively low in most of the rest of Europe.
Some systems have much stronger international connections through thismechanism than others.
In summary, issues related to the global flow of talent are largely conveyed
by the answers to the following questions.
・ Are graduate student scholarships sufficiently attractive to (1) retain
nationals and (2) attract foreigners in the face of global competition for
talent?
・ How competitive are the opportunities and support offered topost-doctoral scholars and researchers?
・ Does the system/university provide sufficient support in the form of
research grants and infrastructure?
・ What language is used in graduate education? The use of English
facilitates global recruitment power.
・ How accessible is the academic career structure to foreigners? Can they
get jobs at all? Permanent jobs? Full professorships? How readily?
・ What is the immigration regime and its functional speed of processing?
Can foreigners become citizens?

Simon M. Marginson

13

Page

・ How closely do the key structural features of the career system – such as
forms of doctoral training, entry into career positions, tenure, promotion
at all levels – approximate those in other nations? How do thesestructural factors affect mobility?
・ How do salaries and conditions of work, relative to costs, compare andcompete?
・ What about associated living conditions such as housing availability?
How welcome are foreigners in institutions and neighbourhoods?
National systems and universities able to tackle these questions will be bestplaced to influence the content and shape of the evolving global knowledge
system.

References
Bartelse, J., & van Vught, F. (2007). Institutional profiles: Towards a typology of higher
education institutions in Europe. IAU Horizons, 12 (2-3), 9-11.

Bashir, S. (2007). Trends in international trade in higher education: Implications and options

for developing countries (Education Working Paper Series, Number 6). Washington: The

World Bank.

Berning, E. (2004). Petrified structures and still little autonomy and flexibility: Country report

Germany. In J. Enders, & E. de Weert (Eds.), The International Attractiveness of the

Academic

Workplace

Bestelladresse.

inEurope(pp.160-182).

Frankfurt:

Herausgeber

undBraudel, F. (1985). The perspective of the world. In S. Reynolds (Trans.), Civilisation andCapitalism 15th-18th Century, vol.3. New York: Fontana Press.

Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden University (CWTS). (2007). The Leiden
ranking 2008. Retrieved May 3, 2009 fromhttp://www.cwts.nl/ranking/LeidenRankingWebSite.html

Enders, J., & Fulton, O. (2002). Blurring boundaries and blistering institutions: An

Introduction. In J. Enders, & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalizing world(pp.1-16). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

European Commission (EC). (2007). Lisbon declaration. Europe’s universities beyond 2010:
Diversity with a common purpose. Retrieved April 30, 2009 fromhttp://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Lisbon_Convention/Lisbon_Declaration.
pdf

Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of14

Global movements in research labour and doctoral students

Pageinstitutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193-215.

Held, D., McLew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics,
economics and culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kehm, B., Huisman, J., & Stensaker, B. (Eds.) (2009). The European Higher Education Area:
Perspective on a moving target. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

King, R. (2009). Governing universities globally: Organisations, regulation and ranking.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Kong, L., Gibson, C., Khoo, L., & Semple, A. (2006). Knowledges of the creative economy.

Towards a relational geography of diffusion and adaptation in Asia. Asia PacificViewpoint, 47 (2), 173-194.

Li, Y., Whalley, J., Zhang, S., & Zhao, X. (2008). The higher educational transformation ofChina and its global implications (NBER Working Paper No.13849). Cambridge:
National Bureau of Economic Research.

Marginson, S. (2009). The academic professions in the global era. In J. Enders, & E. de Weert(Eds.), The academic profession and the modernization of higher education: Analyticaland comparative perspectives (pp.96-113). Dordrecht: Springer.

Marginson, S. (2010). Making space in higher education. In S. Marginson, P. Murphy, & M.
Peters. Global Creation: Space, mobility and synchrony in the age of the knowledge
economy (pp.150-200). New York: Peter Lang.

Marginson, S., Kaur, S., & Sawir, E. (in press). Higher education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic
responses to Globalization. Dordrecht: Springer.

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher
education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43 (3), 281-309.

Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2009). The new global landscape of nations andinstitutions. In OECD, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (Ed.), Higher
education to 2030, Volume 2: Globalization (pp.17-62). Paris: OECD.

Musselin, C. (2005). European academic labour markets in transition. Higher Education, 49,
135-154.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2004). Internationa
lization and trade in higher education. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2005). E-learning in Tertiary Education: Where do we stand? Paris: OECD.

OECD (2008a). Tertiary education for the knowledge society: OECD thematic review oftertiary education. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2008b). Roadmap for the OECD Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes(AHELO) feasibility study (IMHE Governing Board, Document Number JT03248577).
Paris: OECD.

Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world class universities. Washington: WorldBank.

Simon M. Marginson

15

Page

Sen, A. (1999). Global justice: Beyond international equity. In I. Kaul, I. Grunberg, & M.

Stern (Eds.), Global public goods: International cooperation in the 21st century(pp.116-125). New York: Oxford University Press.

Shanghai Jiao Tong University Graduate School of Education (SJTUGSE). (2010). Aca
demic Ranking of World Universities. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from http://ed.
sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm

Sidhu, R. (2009). The “brand name” research university goes global. Higher Education, 57,
125-140.

van der Wende, M. (2008). Rankings and classifications in higher education: A European

perspective. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research.
Dordrecht: Springer.

Verbik, L., & Merkley, C. (2006). The international branch campus − Models and trends.
London: Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Verbik, L., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends(Report, The Observatory on Borderless Education). Retrieved March 21, 2008 fromwww.obhe.ac.uk [password protected]

van Vught, F. (Ed.) (2009). Mapping the higher education landscape: Towards a European
classification of higher education. Heidelberg: Springer.

webometrics (2010). Ranking web of world universities. Retrieved March 2, 2010 fromhttp://www.webometrics.info/

Ziguras, C., & McBurnie, G. (2006). Transnational education: Issues and trends in off-shore
higher education. London: Routledge.

16

17
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.14, 2010 Page

Mission-oriented knowledge system in graduate
schools: how can we ingrain it and assure thequality?

Ryo Hirasawa

I. Background
In June 1999, the World Conference on Science, the first global conferenceon science and society in nearly twenty years, took place in Budapest.
Organized by UNESCO and the International Council for Science (ICSU), theconference resulted in an announcement entitled the “Declaration on Science andthe Use of Scientific Knowledge,” which called for a synthesis of traditional andmodern knowledge and methods.
Written output from this conference
described how “Modern scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge should
be brought closer together in interdisciplinary projects” (UNESCO, 1999).
Scientists in attendance hoped to set a new tone for scientific inquiry in the 21st
century, reflecting this need to further “Science for Knowledge,” while
simultaneously promoting a “Science for Society” closely linked with„development,‟ „peace,‟ and „sustainability.‟
Ten years later, where does Japan stand with regard to developing “Science
for Society”? In 2000, the Science Council of Japan [Nihon Gakujutsu Kaigi],
established in 1949 as a “special organization” under the jurisdiction of thePrime Minister, recommended that “R&D of Social Technology” be promoted; itlater established the Research System of Social Technology in 2001, which waslater transformed to the Research Institute of S&T for Society in 2003. The
Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP; Sogo Kagakugijutsu Kaigi),

Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, e-mail: rh@rhirasawa.info

18

Mission-oriented knowledge system in graduate schools

Pageestablished in 2001 within the Cabinet Office, helped launch the Super-COE1
Program in 2001 to encourage development of strategic research centers focusedon organizational and managerial innovation and building a core research center,with a focus on being competitive at the international level.
However, despite these high-level government initiatives, the Japanesepublic R&D system and universities have yet to incorporate key concepts fromthe above mentioned Conference‟s announcement. Graduate school students(and young researchers who have recently completed graduate school) are the“fuel” of R&D; by looking at case studies in Japan, I will introduce general
problems in graduate schools before introducing the two issues central tounderstanding and solving those problems. Finally, I will demonstrate whyreorienting research as mission-oriented, rather than discipline-based, is a key
for the long-term success of Japanese R&D and the most effective way to carryout “Science for Society.” Lastly, by discussing reasons for failure in the past, I
will propose concrete steps to help mission-oriented research take root in
graduate programs.

II. Issue ascertainment and formulation
The following are the most pressing issues facing graduate schools inJapan:
1) enrollment not reaching capacity,2) slow response to society‟s needs,
3) curricula with too much emphasis on discipline-based thinking,4) while there has been a recent increase in short-term positions for young
researchers, there are still few choices for a long-term career path after
graduate school.
This last factor must be addressed by creating positive incentives, including
a sense of career continuity and job security, for talented, young researchers.
Without a stable career choice, why would young people enter into
research-oriented fields? This phenomenon has a profound impact on theJapanese R&D system.
What is the solution? First, we establish a clear goal: fixing the system by
not just looking at the average level of graduate students, but focusing on
1

COE: Center of ExcellenceRyo Hirasawa

19

Page

cultivating top-level students who can compete on an international level inscience and technology (S&T). The issues related to this goal fall into twogeneral themes.
1) Exploration of new science and technology: the beginning pathway forthis pursuit is discipline-oriented research, while emphasizing creation of
Networks of Excellence (NoE); however, there must also be a transition
to move beyond disciplinarity, in order to pioneer “frontier” fields andtake on transformative challenges.
2) Research must realize socio-economic needs: as mentioned earlier, thebest pathway to realize this is mission-oriented research.
What is mission-oriented research? First, I will define concepts by using
Michael Gibbons‟ Mode Theory. Gibbons and his colleagues have organizedmuch of the recent thinking in a distinction between two modes of knowledge
production (Arnold, 2001). Gibbons defines modes by using contrasting pairs,such as monodisciplinary vs. interdisciplinary, knowledge-oriented vs.
needs-oriented, and individual effort vs. organizational pursuit.
While
theoretically they have not been sufficiently developed, these pairs were induced
based on actual cases. Gibbons helps us understand how pressing social issues
are treated in knowledge theory: while Mode 1 is concerned with traditional
knowledge-oriented research and disciplinary science, Mode 2 research is“collaborative research with community members and researchers working
together and responding to community questions and needs” (Kramer, 2009).
Gibbons asserted that this “new” form of knowledge production, which wascontext-driven, problem-focused and interdisciplinary, started to emerge fromthe mid-20th century. He said it involved multidisciplinary teams brought
together for short periods of time to work on specific “real world” problems.
Gibbons‟ Mode-theory, however, is prone to creating misunderstanding. One
underlying reason for this is confusion due to different definitions of “mode”.
These modes are related to the next stage of my argument, which is theneed to distinguish between research that produces scientific and technologicalknowledge (STK), and research that produces socio-economic value (SEV).
Further, when discussing management and policy supporting this research, I will
focus on three aspects: objectives/contents, processes/systems, andactors/stakeholders.
Objectives are critically important: does one emphasize STK or SEV when
first embarking on one‟s research? Obviously, when trying to solve social
problems, researchers concentrate on the latter model. Interestingly, there are20

Mission-oriented knowledge system in graduate schools

Ryo Hirasawa

21

Page

September 2009, METI outlines the need for a transition in national
technological strategy to a “solution type”, where research objectives are basedon a “demand pull” concept, in this case resolving urgent national issues (Figure
1).
Phases typically found in research of socio-economic value (SEV), are notlimited to society-oriented innovation; research and technological development(RTD); the result of so-called basic research grounded in scientific andtechnological knowledge (STK), also has research-phases conducted in random
order.
In Japan, the research phase concept found in national science andtechnology statistics is grounded in kaihatsu kenyku [development research],rather than basic research, applied research, and development. This concept
was pioneered in the Japanese private sector, and became an accepted,
commonly used expression. Japan‟s manufacturing industry from the latter halfof the 1970s through to the end of the 1980s, which as I mentioned earlier
employed a mission-oriented approach, was also grounded in the “development
research” concept.
An analysis of case studies from that time shows that in reality, this meant
large-scale research dependent on multiple phases but integrated in a coherent
manner. For example, Nissan Motors was a global pioneer in adopting
supercomputers into their research (i.e. high-performance computing (HPC)
critical processes such as structural design) (Simon & Bischof, 1992). The
simultaneous simulation of shape design and structural design made possible by
HPC, which was categorized as fundamental research, supported several phasesof the overall automobile development process.
In my own research, based on publically available data (including patents
and scientific papers), on automobile suspension development, we standardized
this method into what we called Doteki Katsudo Renkanzu, or “Chart of R&D
Network Diagram,” and successfully used these diagrams to illustrate thedevelopment of active suspension in Toyota and Nissan passenger cars.
At Toyota, researchers with clear potential were gradually added to theirdevelopment division; a development-oriented team and organizational growthmodel based on reaching clear objectives were built simultaneously. At Nissan
Motors, the electronics and engineering laboratories were put under one roof at
the Nissan Research Center, giving birth to an inclusive-interactive cooperativemodel. These examples demonstrate how necessity was the mother of
invention: high-level goals were met through integrating research from diverse
fields. GM, Ford and Bosch, for example, did not carry out technological22

Mission-oriented knowledge system in graduate schools

Pagedevelopment in an integrated fashion, but rather fostered independent research
programs carried out in small, disparate groups. Looking at successful
examples within Japan process and assembly industries (a sector where Japanwas dominant), examples of this integrated approach to research abound.
At that time, researchers of management science in the U.S. and EU moreor less independently transitioned to an approach that looked at actual conditions,constructed an array of models to increase socio-economic innovation, anddeveloped and implemented policy instruments to promote research-innovation
policy. However, in Japan, this same model was rarely studied in S&T policy
circles; rather, an ineffective and inefficient Seed-Push linear model was and stillis used today.
At institutes of higher education, even in the U.S., I believe that Need-Pulland non-linear mechanisms are still not being sufficiently and correctly taught.
Similarly in Japan, even though the need to cultivate academic-industry
partnerships has long been called for, successful examples of this approach inpractice is not common.

III. Evaluation case studies: Super-COE program and OISTEven though they are not common, I would like to introduce some
programs found in Japanese universities that emphasize (or have plans toemphasize) a Need-Pull model. I will discuss evaluations of two programs: theSuper-COE Program has 13 distinct sub-programs, and was started in 2001
through funding from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT) to provide “strong support for organizationaland management reforms at universities from the aspects of both system andcapital” (Yomiuri Shimbun, 2008). The second evaluation is for the Okinawa
Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (OAIST) at the yet to becompleted Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST).
There are several points in common between these two programs: both
aimed to be international top class Centers of Excellence (COE). Both havebecame explicitly involved with surrounding society‟s needs, and evolved toembrace a mission-oriented framework. However, while the Super-COE
Program aimed to improve preexisting COE through organizational andmanagerial innovation, OIST is starting from scratch and, over the course ofeight years, aims to become a world-class graduate institution. Super-COE
began in 2001; over the course of five-years 13 institutions were selected, andeach underwent a five-year implementation period. All the programs will have

Ryo Hirasawa

23

Page

been completed this fiscal year.
OIST has plans to be inaugurated as a graduate program under the Cabinet
Office during the 2012 fiscal year. At first, the plan was to strengthen its
function as a research institution; now, the plan is transitioning to emphasize itsrole as an education institution.
The following section summarizes important points from evaluations ofthese two programs.
A. Suggested Organizational Innovations
・ Shift to a project-based organizational structure that allows easy projectplanning; one-fourth of graduate school professors be allocated tocollaborate with external researchers; establish additional interfaceorganization to promote and support these collaborations
・ Establish a collaboration center in the city, develop off-campus
laboratories, and later transition to an “open laboratory” system
・ Establish a “free research center” for young independent researchers inwhich mentors, support staff, equipment, and space are provided
・ Build a Venture R&D Center: encourage collaborative partnerships andcreate support structures to encourage venture research・ Form an International Research Center for young international
researchers: institutional protections to be put in place to maintain its
status as a special zone
・ Create University-Industry Mutual Exchange Centers: enableindustry-side researchers working in on-campus labs, while
university-side researchers work in partner company‟s labs
・ Take advantage of “seeds” within universities: first establish research
institutes in fields where there is great socio-economic need and thenestablish graduate level courses after a transition period(e.g. interdisciplinary medical-engineering field, development of digitalmedia contents)
・ Unify activities in two universities: integrate Needs-Side research fromone university with Seeds-Side research in another university(e.g. to create User Science Institute)・ Create a “Think-tank Function” within universities by rearranging
research institutes and establish a “solution research institute”
・ Pioneer needs-oriented fields(e.g. sustainability science): an inter-university network responsive toemerging social needs

24

Mission-oriented knowledge system in graduate schools

Page

B. Suggested Managerial Innovations
The following list is aimed particularly at the yet to be completed OIST:・ Establish new kinds of fixed-term posts (e.g. specially-appointed
professor) freed from the constraints imposed on full-time staff
・ Develop a young Independent Researcher System: outstanding
performers given opportunity to enter tenure track
The above two concepts are currently being established nationwide.
・ Transition to an R&D framework focused on socio-economic targets (e.g.
new R&D management model, venture development assistance program,
subsidy system for startups, and mentor system)
・ Development and implementation of new management tools to encourage
a collaborative framework (e.g. patent maps)
・ Development of a proactive recruitment process for inviting andacquiring top class researchers (e.g. center for advanced studies,
fellowship program, share program, short-time concurrent posts, portablepension, “partner career program”, and family support program)

IV. Learning from past evaluations
The abovementioned evaluations led to soul-searching regarding how to
improve Japanese graduate schools, the Japanese R&D system, andmission-oriented research being conducted in Japan. First, it was noted thatmany of the new programs that failed, lacked a high-level advocate (e.g.
university president, institute director, etc.). Such a figure was judged to be
especially important during the incubation stage of these programs, in order toprotect them from attacks by discipline-oriented researchers. Other failures
were attributed to an overdependence on an individual powerbroker or steward;these new programs lacked the necessary teamwork and network-orientedorganizational approach, and instead were beholden to a cult of personality.
Many programs employed a Seed-Push Linear Model from start to finish;
there was an inability to convert from a seeds-side to a needs-side context.
Many of these programs also reflected a bias towards knowledge collection froman analytical point of view; further, there was no attempt at socio-economic
value (SEV) creation.

Ryo Hirasawa

25

Page

A. Actual Barriers
Actual barriers preventing program success included: intra-organization
dynamics; organizational and managerial impediments within the existing
system; incompatibility with the pre-existing system; insufficient legislative,
cultural and overarching institutional support; unfavorable regulatoryenvironment; time restrictions that led to difficulty in fostering system-level
continuity and resulted in an inability to reach a sustainable state.
B. Theoretical Barriers
Theoretical barriers included: conflicts with dominant logic, which
includeed contrary viewpoints regarding “truth” inquiry vs. pursuit ofeffectiveness and/or efficiency, long-term continuity vs. short-term work, andself-contained vs. dependence on external factors. There was also difficulty
related to knowledge studies, which led to an inability to recognize plural
knowledge modes.
C. Fruitful Framework
I propose the following framework as a low-risk strategy to overcome theabove mentioned barriers. First, introduce a “just do it” approach, especiallywhen socio-economic needs are high. Employ an interdisciplinary effort withina needs-oriented paradigm. Recent examples of this include environmental
science, medicinal-engineering collaborations, and digital media content (DMC)
production. Next, apply a useful knowledge “routine”. This is a managerial
routine applied to organizational reform, which follows the following sequence:start by changing constituent members, which leads to a resulting change inconsciousness thanks to new members; this new consciousness naturally results
in a new organizational structure and institutions.
This “routine” can also be applied to organizational design: first brainstorm
for ideas or concepts you want realized; next breakdown the constituent
requirements of the concept; this is followed by the establishment of “functional
agents” (virtual actors) taking on individual constituent requirements; next,
confirm the presence of incentives among the actors; finally, build a structure tocreate “linked” incentives or introduce complimentary systems at locations
where there is a lack of incentives.
The “peak” of the approach I have been discussing is design as a “humanactivity system”. Here, an identical result will be achieved regardless of who
carries it out (i.e. „scientification‟ of action). Past successes include user
science, solution research, and sustainability science26

Mission-oriented knowledge system in graduate schools

Page

V. Conclusion
Through looking at case studies and carrying out numerous program
evaluations, I have concluded that the following steps must be carried out torealize mission-oriented research which is of direct benefit to society.
A. Establish at least part of the graduate courses and research programs as
mission-oriented
This can be accomplished through personnel exchanges with externalorganizations to introduce mission oriented values, including provision forProfessors by Special Appointment (“Specially-Appointed Professors”) andConcurrent Professorships.
It is also important to promote awareness-raising through cooperative
research and teaching. This can be accomplished by forming “Networks of
Excellence” (NoE), which are collaborative research and teaching activities of
top-class researchers, and establishing a support system to promote cooperative
research built into the framework of a mission-oriented program.
Lastly, it is important to ingrain organization-level reform through theformation of mission-oriented research and teaching institutes, and encourage
the establishment of fellowships, scholarships and other incentives to support
mission-oriented programs.
B. Fostering mission-oriented researchers
Early-stage care of researchers just starting out is particularly important.
We must create awareness and leadership necessary at the top management level,
make a conscious effort to separate these researchers‟ work fromdiscipline-based thinking (and researchers), and create mission-oriented researchand learning “zones”. There should be a move to allow researchers to be
independent and self-reliant through full economic costing (FEC) programs anda “Chairs Program” to give high-level posts (including salary) to competentpersonnel who will properly act as advocates for young researchers.
C. Establishment of feedback systems to continually improve and deepen
experience for mission-oriented researchers
We must work diligently to integrate diverse knowledge fields by creating
opportunities to network and by establishing NoE; there must be financial,administrative and legal support for research partnerships and collaborations.
Next, we must engage in planning and development of physical infrastructureRyo Hirasawa

27

Page

and knowledge-systems through the realization of individual components tobuild the overarching framework, establish “actors” (i.e. instruments or
stakeholders in these individual components), and integrate these “actors” within
the institution. Lastly, there must be a “design of action” through the presenceof incentive mechanisms among actor networks, a process optimizing incentive
loops, and complimentary systems at locations where there is a lack of
incentives.

References
Arnold, E. (2001). Can We Measure the Socio-economic Effects of Basic Science? contribution
to an Academy of Finland Seminar.

Kramer, D. (2009) Discussion on Michael Gibbons’ work on Mode 2 research and the New
Knowledge. Ontario Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Community of Practice(KTECOP)METI (2009) Demand-led Innovation Policy in Japan (September). Ministry of Economy,
Trade & Industry, Japan.

Simon, H., & Bischof, C. (1992). The Implementation of the U.S. High Performance

Computing and Communications Program. In H.-W. Meuer (Ed.), Supercomputer 92(pp.198-212). Springer Verlag.

UNESCO. (1999). World Social Science Report. Paris: UNESCO/Elsevier.

Yomiuri Shimbun (2008). Founding the “Waseda of the Future” through development in thefields of medicine and life. Daily Yomiuri Online.

28

29

Presentations

30

29
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.14, 2010 Page

Reform in European higher education with a focus
on quality assurance and the changing nature of
doctoral education

Lesley Wilson and Andrée SursockThis article draws on data collected for EUA‟s TRENDS 2010 Report thatwas published in March 2010. TRENDS 2010 analyses the impact of 10 years
of Bologna reforms on Europe‟s universities by using the results ofquestionnaires received from over 800 universities and other higher education
institutions, site visit reports from visits to 28 universities in 16 countries, andmaterial taken from a number of other EUA thematic reports published in recent
years. TRENDS 2010 is the sixth in a series of TRENDS reports that haveaccompanied the development of the Bologna Process since the outset. In 1999
the original TRENDS report provided the basis for the discussion andsubsequent adoption of the Bologna Declaration. The remarks on doctoral
education are drawn from research done in preparation for a presentation made ata workshop on quality assurance in doctoral education organised by ENQA in
Brasov, Romania in March 2009.

Introduction – a decade of reform in European higher education
The last decade has been one of rapid change for European higher education
as the continent seeks to remain competitive in the face of rapid global change.
The Bologna Declaration was signed in 1999 and the European Higher
Education Area will be launched formally at a Ministerial meeting in March
2010, bringing together representatives of the 46 member countries and theSecretary General, European University Association, Belgium, e-mail: lesley.wilson@eua.be
Senior Adviser, European University Association, Belgium, e-mail: andree.sursock@eua.be



30

Reform in European higher education with a focus on quality assurance and the changing nature of doctoral education

Page

various stakeholder groups that have been closely involved with theimplementation of the reform process. At the same time, the EU‟s Lisbon
Strategy, launched one year later in 2000, aimed to transform Europe into themost competitive knowledge economy in the world, through more emphasis on
research and innovation, and expanded access to education and lifelong learning
opportunities.
The recognition of the importance of higher education
institutions and their transformation through the “Modernisation Agenda”, that is,enhanced autonomy and improved governance (Communication from theCommission to the Council and the European Parliament, 2006), has become
central to achieving these objectives.
The modernisation agenda
In addition to the core Bologna Process reforms, of which the developmentof quality assurance systems at European, national and institutional level
constitutes an important part, information gathered from the members of theEuropean Universities Association (EUA) National Rectors‟ Conference acrossEurope shows that most European higher education systems have also had tocontend with major policy changes, among them such central issues as thegovernance and financing of higher education. Most countries have had at least
three policy changes underway alongside the Bologna Process. Elevencountries have implemented funding reforms, twelve have changed the legal
framework governing institutional autonomy, sixteen have changed their quality
assurance processes and fifteen their research policies. In addition, eightrectors‟ conferences report a significant increase in the number of institutions(mostly church-funded or not-for-profit and for-profit private institutions) while
institutions in eleven countries are undergoing (or have undergone) mergers or
have been brought together under federated structures (Sursock & Smidt, 2010).
It is in this context that major changes have been taking place in doctoral
education across the continent.
Doctoral education
The European tradition of the doctorate – long viewed as the production ofa piece of original research under the supervision of one professor, with very
little emphasis on taught courses and loose links to the master‟s degree – started
to be increasingly questioned following the broad dissemination and discussion
in the academic community of the so-called „Salzburg Principles‟ (EUA, 2005),
after their adoption by the academic community at a Bologna seminar organised
by EUA at the University of Salzburg in February 2005. The main elements ofLesley Wilson & Andrée Sursock

31

Page

the Salzburg Principles were taken up by ministers and included in the 2005
Bergen Communiqué. At this time EUA was asked to continue further its workon the topic and presented at the 2007 London Ministerial meeting a moredetailed report on doctoral programmes that also included elements oforganisation and funding at national level.
Since then, changes at doctoral level across Europe have been mostimpressive in their depth and speed of implementation. Most probably thissuccess is due to the grassroots nature of these changes while growinginternational cooperation and the emphasis on early stage researchers and theircareers in the context of the European Research Area have certainly been further
drivers for change. Intended to improve the overall quality of doctoral
education in Europe, changes have focused more particularly on the need toembed doctoral programmes at institutional level and create more critical massby establishing structures, such as doctoral research or graduate schools, that
nurture a dynamic research environment, and by introducing more taught courses
and training elements, credit systems or transferable skills provision.
The results of the last three TRENDS Reports demonstrate the rapid
progression of these changes in terms of their implementation at institutional
level. Responses received show that an increasing number of institutions areoffering additional taught courses (52% in 2005; 72% in Trends 2010) andstructuring doctoral programmes at institutional level. Trends V alreadyrevealed in 2005 a noticeable trend toward the creation of new structures such as
research or doctoral graduate schools and other structured programmes. The
evidence, both from site visits and from the work of the EUA‟s Council for
Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE), which was created in 2008 to support
universities in improving their doctoral programmes, furthermore suggests thatsuch structures facilitate a more stimulating research environment, promote
cooperation across disciplines, ensure critical mass, and enhance opportunities
for international collaboration and inter-institutional cooperation. They also
provide a clear and visible anchor for links with industry, business or public
services.
Since then, this trend has continued as Figure 1 indicates.

32

Reform in European higher education with a focus on quality assurance and the changing nature of doctoral education

Lesley Wilson & Andrée Sursock

33

Page

It is estimated that around 50% of current holders of doctorates are
employed outside academia, in businesses, governments, the service sector andother education sectors, holding both research and non-research positions and it
is unlikely that the figure will decrease. The DOC-CAREERS project of EUA
concludes by noting that:
The main entry point of employment for doctorate holders into
non-academic environments derives from the skills they have acquired
through learning to perform research. Employers highly appreciate thelevel of scientific and technical knowledge held by doctorate holders from
European universities, including their formal approach to evidence-based
arguments, their analytical skills and ability to integrate knowledge fromdifferent sources and their ability to work at the frontiers of knowledge.
(EUA, 2009, p.103)
The EUA report points out, however, that companies not focused on
research tend to recruit at master‟s level, “which suggests that the benefits of a
doctorate are not yet seen as compelling for careers that involve no formal
research component” (EUA, 2009, p.103).
In addition, there are new forms of doctorates emerging such as theindustrial doctorate and professional doctorates that allow those working inparticular in the professions to pursue doctorates in their professional fields. In
both cases the core component remains original research. “Collaborative
doctoral programmes, with their exposure to non-university environments, areseen as an excellent way to improve candidates‟ ability to relate abstract thinking
to practical applications and vice-versa, as required for the development of new
knowledge, products or services” (EUA, 2009, p.103).
The role of the qualifications framework for the European Higher Education
Area
At the Bergen Ministerial Conference in 2005, ministers adopted the
Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area, based
broadly on three cycles, with generic descriptors based on learning outcomes,
and credit ranges for the first and second cycles, and committed to elaboratingcompatible national qualifications frameworks (NQF). This commitment was
reinforced in the London Communiqué (2007), which stressed the importance ofqualifications frameworks as instruments for achieving comparability andtransparency within Europe, facilitating the mobility of learners, and helping

34

Reform in European higher education with a focus on quality assurance and the changing nature of doctoral education

Page

institutions in the development of modules and study programmes based onlearning outcomes and credits and in the recognition of different types oflearning.
The relationship between the qualifications frameworks and the European
quality assurance framework described below is crucial. Together these two
overarching frameworks constitute the framework in which the Bologna
three-cycle degree structure is being implemented and its quality assured. They
have been − or in the case of qualifications frameworks, are being − translated
into national systems. As qualifications frameworks also provide the overall
context for the definition of the three cycle degree structure, for credit ranges andfor learning outcomes they are also key to the successful implementation of the
Bologna tools in institutions, and thus also to improving the quality of higher
education programmes offered throughout the European Higher Education Area.

Quality assurance in European higher education
It is in this environment of far reaching policy reform that the developmentof a European quality assurance framework, together with the introduction ofnational QA arrangements and of internal institutional quality processes andmechanisms, has taken place.
A brief historical sketch of quality assurance in Europe
While quality assurance has only become a generalised phenomenon acrossthe continent through the Bologna Process reforms over the last decade, somecountries had already developed national systems during the period from the late1980s to the early 1990s, in particular Denmark, the UK, France and theNetherlands.
More recently, the internationalisation and globalisation of higher education
has put renewed emphasis on demonstrating the quality of higher education.
The institutional responses received for the TRENDS 2010 report have shownthat there is a clear correlation between higher education institutions that haveinternal quality mechanisms in place and those that pursue active
internationalisation and cooperation policies.
However, it is the process of European integration, starting in the 1990s,
and then from 1999 onwards the Bologna Process (1999) that has given a major
impetus to the growth of quality assurance, as one of the main steering
mechanisms in higher education and as part of a perceived need for moreaccountability.

Lesley Wilson & Andrée Sursock

35

Page

The door was opened at European level with the adoption of the Maastricht
Treaty in 1992. Although the EU‟s core competence for education and also
higher education remains very limited, the Maastricht Treaty articles that relate
to Community action in higher education offer the possibility of supporting
cooperation between the member states by contributing to the development ofquality education. Shortly after this change in the treaties, the European
Commission launched a first EC funded pilot project on quality assurance. It
was carried out between 1993 and 1996 and supported 46 programmeevaluations conducted simultaneously in fifteen EU member states and 2 EFTA
countries. The final project report stressed four principles: the independence of
the agencies, a self-evaluation, a peer-review visit, and the publication of theevaluation reports. Shortly afterwards EU PHARE programme support wasalso provided for a similar exercise in the then accession countries of Central andEastern Europe that have since become EU member states.
Interestingly, these projects also included the then representative body ofEuropean universities, the Conference of European Rectors (CRE, one of EUA‟spredecessor organisations), thus foreshadowing the close involvement of EUA in
all later Bologna actions on this crucial topic for universities. It was also at thistime (1994) that the CRE launched the Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP)
that has been further developed over the last decade and underpinned EUA‟swork in the area of quality assurance. Since the establishment of EUA in 2001,
quality assurance has been a key area of activity and a considerable effort has
been made to ensure that universities are closely involved in the development ofboth European policy and institutional practice.
On 24 September 1998, the European Council adopted a recommendation
to develop European cooperation and networking in quality assurance in higher
education and to promote the establishment of quality assurance agencies inMember States. ENQA was established, initially as the European network ofquality assurance agencies and later, in 2004, as an association. Through theiractivities ENQA enables its members to network, discuss and compare quality
assurance procedures, and thus contributes to spreading models of quality
assurance.
The Bologna Process since 1999 – Creating a European framework for quality
assurance
One of the objectives of the Bologna Declaration signed by 29 ministers inJune 2009 was to create “a European dimension in quality assurance withcomparable criteria and methodologies”. This was considered crucial for

36

Reform in European higher education with a focus on quality assurance and the changing nature of doctoral education

Page

achieving a coherent European system and for ensuring that “the European
higher education system acquires a worldwide degree of attraction”.
As time passed ever more importance was attached by all parties –governments, universities, their staff and students – to quality assurance, and todeveloping a European framework for cooperation. In particular between 2003
and 2007 this was a major policy objective, hotly debated by all, and addressedin each Ministerial Communiqué.
The Berlin Communiqué (2003): recognised the primary role of higher
education institutions in monitoring quality, the first such official
acknowledgement in the context of the Bologna Process and one that has been
regularly reaffirmed since then, stating that “consistent with the principle ofuniversity autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher
education lies with each institution itself”. It was also at this time that quality
assurance agencies, together with students and higher education institutions –through their representative associations, assembled in the “E4 Group” (ENQA,
ESU, EUA and EURASHE) – were invited to develop an agreed set of“standards, procedures and guidelines” on quality assurance and to explore thepossibility of a “peer-review” of quality assurance agencies.
The Bergen Communiqué (2005): adopted the European Standards andGuidelines (ESGs) proposed by the „E4‟, in the form of a text that includes threeinterrelated sets of standards and guidelines for quality assurance (ESGs): onethat applies to internal quality assurance in higher education institutions, asecond one referring to the external quality assurance of higher education
institutions by agencies and a third set that concerns the quality assurance ofquality assurance agencies themselves. The Communiqué also gave the green
light for the E4 to explore the possibility of setting up a European register for
quality assurance agencies and endorsed the organisation of the European quality
assurance forum (EQAF) that EUA has organised on behalf of its E4 partners on
an annual basis since then.
The London Communiqué (2007): endorsed the proposal to establish theEuropean Register of Quality Agencies (EQAR) presented, once more, by the E4Group. EQAR was subsequently established as an association under Belgian
law in March 2008. It is managed by the E4 stakeholder associations whose
representatives constitute the Executive Board. European governments areinvited to join the association as paying members and 25 governments havesince done so. The European Register Committee that takes decisions on the
inclusion of agencies is made up of independent experts in quality assurance
nominated by the stakeholders.
This very special structure lends theLesley Wilson & Andrée Sursock

37

Page

organisation the necessary legitimacy and independence it needs to reflect aproper balance between the interests of the different partners in European higher
education. The intention is also to show to international partners that throughthe Bologna Process concertation model Europe has a well organised andtransparent quality assurance system, open to all.
Thus, EQAR is the first formal, legal creation of the Bologna Process, andprovides a web-based list of “trustworthy” agencies that have been reviewed on
the basis of the ESGs. Moreover, the Register is open to applications from allagencies that consider that they comply with the ESGs, not just those based inEurope. At present, after three application rounds, and following the decisions
taken at the Register Committee‟s last meeting in September 2009, the European
Register includes 17 quality assurance agencies (http://www.eqar.eu/).
It is possible that the development of EQAR will come to affect therelationship between institutions and national agencies in the future, given that insome systems national regulations allow institutions to turn to any agency listed
in EQAR, rather than be required to use their national agency‟s processes. Thisis a policy also strongly recommended to member states by the European
Commission in it various communications on quality assurance. However,national QA agencies are more reticent about this possible opening up of theirmarkets which would give institutions the opportunity to take their own
decisions on which QA arrangements are best suited to their own particularprofile and mission.
In conclusion, the present European quality assurance framework is meant
as a broad structure to ensure the quality of degree awards, in particular atbachelor‟s and master‟s levels. It does not address research activities or otherfunctions of higher education institutions. There is a consensus on four key
principles underpinning all activities, namely: the primary role of institutions inmanaging and monitoring their quality; student participation in internal andexternal quality assurance processes; the political independence of quality
assurance agencies; and the diversity of national quality assurance procedures.
A further defining feature of the developments of the last ten years at
European level is that they have been largely stakeholder driven, by theEuropean representative bodies of national quality assurance agencies (ENQA),
universities (EUA), other higher education institutions (EURASHE) and students(ESU). Working together in the so-called „E4‟ group, as mentioned above,these bodies developed the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) adopted
by ministers in 2007 and are the founding members of and constitute the
Executive Board of EQAR.

38

Reform in European higher education with a focus on quality assurance and the changing nature of doctoral education

Page

The state of play at national and institutional level
Establishment of national agencies
In the meantime there are quality evaluation agencies in almost all Bologna
signatory countries and even several agencies in some countries, either becauseof a federal state structure (e.g., Germany, Spain) or the unique situation of theHoly See within Italy, a binary sector (e.g., Ireland) or different institutional
statuses and types (e.g., three Austrian quality assurance agencies cater to public
universities, private universities and colleges). A few of the agencies have beenlegally established but are not operational yet or have replaced previous
structures and are about to start. Countries without a national quality agency
have typically a tiny higher education sector.
Specific European evaluation instruments
In addition, and certainly also in response to the creation of the European
quality framework described above, several European evaluation instruments
have been developed in recent years. Some of the early examples include theevaluations done by the European veterinarians (piloted in 1985-89), the EUA‟s
Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) that was created in 1994 and has sincecarried out well over 200 institutional audits in 41 countries, and the European
Foundation for Management Development‟s (EFMD) EQUIS Programme
launched in 1997 which focuses on the evaluation and accreditation of businessschools. After the success of the European “Tuning Project” in benchmarking
many disciplines over the last five years, the European Commission has also
more recently funded the development of subject specific “quality labels” at
European level, for example in music engineering, chemistry and informatics.
Introduction of institutional internal quality processes
In parallel to these developments, the EUA launched a project in 2002 that
aimed at enhancing institutions‟ capacities to develop internal quality processes –introducing the concept of institutional “quality culture”. The rationale for the
project was that external QA processes were not sufficient to improve quality
and must be combined with institutional processes; that it was essential toenhance the self-regulatory capacity of institutions in order to successfully argue
for increased institutional autonomy; and that when the institutions‟ role inquality assurance increases, it might result in „lighter touch‟ external quality
assurance (EUA, 2006).
Today, most institutions have developed internal quality processes, albeit
sometimes at the faculty or departmental level rather than the institutional level.

Lesley Wilson & Andrée Sursock

39

Page

Institutional responses to the Trends 2010 questionnaire revealed that for 60% of
HEIs, one of the most important changes in the past ten years has been enhanced
internal quality processes and for 53% enhanced cooperation with other higher
education institutions. Moreover, institutions that have primarily a European
focus are those that are most likely to evaluate both teaching and research
activities regularly, a correlation confirmed by the Trends 2010 site visits. Thus,
it has been possible to show progress made in the development of internal
quality processes and to demonstrate how important internal quality processes
are to inter-institutional cooperation.
Promoting quality in doctoral education
The changes in doctoral education described earlier and the creation ofqualifications frameworks have led to more conscious attention being paid byinstitutions to quality issues and to the type of measures that institutions should
be considering in order to effectively monitor the quality of the new „reformed‟
European doctoral programmes.
Links between the master‟s degree and the doctorate
There is a consensus that the third cycle differs significantly from the firstand second cycles, but at the same time cannot be seen separately, in particularfrom the master‟s level which in most European countries is the entry point to
the doctorate. According to the Dublin Descriptors (JQF, 2004), education at
the master‟s level “provides a basis or opportunity for originality in developing
or applying ideas often in a research context” and demonstrates “problem
solving abilities [applied] in new or unfamiliar environments within a broader(or multidisciplinary) context”. Thus, a master‟s degree is supposed to containresearch elements, and as such is the obvious route from which to progress to thethird cycle. However, the master‟s level is not yet stabilised across Europe andvaries from country to country.
In a recent EUA survey, Davies notes that while the master‟s degree isrelatively well-defined in terms of its duration and credit points and its level ofacademic attainment is expressed by agreed level descriptors, “its profile
remains clouded by titles and nomenclature which, although usually clear atnational level, lose clarity when viewed across external borders.” (Davies, 2009,p.7). Sandwiched between the bachelor‟s degree and the doctorate, it serves
multiple purposes. The study identifies several types of master‟s programmes
and notes the problems of having a proliferation of designations and orientations:

40

Reform in European higher education with a focus on quality assurance and the changing nature of doctoral educationPage・ Academic master: used in binary systems to distinguish theuniversity-based programmes from the Professional master awarded by
non-university HEIs;
・ Consecutive or Continuation master: a master‟s programme undertaken
immediately following, or very soon after a bachelor‟s qualification in thesame discipline;
・ Conversion master: a master‟s study undertaken in a discipline other thanthat studied in the preceding bachelor‟s course;
・ Joint master: a master‟s degree delivered by two or more HEIs eachawarding one or more diplomas;
・ Lifelong master: used in some systems to designate a second cycle
provision delivered quite separately from a Consecutive master(Davies, 2009, pp.12-13)
Thus, while the introduction of the master‟s degree is a significant
innovation in European higher education, the variety in the types of master‟sawards on offer and their differing research content can be a challenge inmanaging the transition from the master‟s to the doctoral level and thus
underline the need to consider further the interface between the two levels. One
example is the difference in the extent to which specific types of master‟sdegrees involve the completion of a comprehensive scholarly thesis. These areimportant questions in relation to the „research pipeline‟ and ensuring the supplyof highly qualified young researchers. They are becoming all the more urgent
given the growth of international cooperation and mobility at both master‟s anddoctoral levels, including the establishment of joint master‟s and doctoral
programmes.
The unique nature of doctoral education
Doctoral education is often described as the bridge between research andeducation and thus also the essential link between the European Higher
Education and Research Areas. Universities across the continent have the main
responsibility for providing training both in and through research. As the main
component of the doctorate is the original research performed by each doctoralcandidate, doctoral education cannot be considered and evaluated in the same
way as bachelor‟s and master‟s programmes. Moreover, and despite newmodels of multiple supervision, doctoral training is heavily dependent on the
one-to-one relationship between the doctoral candidate and the supervisor. This
makes evaluation even more challenging and explains that most of Europe‟sLesley Wilson & Andrée Sursock

41

Page

quality agencies do not have responsibility for evaluating doctoral education.
The large diversity in the organisation of doctoral education across Europe,
both at national level and between institutions, presents further challenges. As
has been described above, recent developments show an increasing trend
towards more structured doctoral programmes and the establishment of doctoral,
graduate or research schools and away from the traditional, individual study
programmes agreed between the doctoral candidate and the supervisor. Thismodel is increasingly viewed as being unsuited to the preparation of young
researchers who will pursue multiple careers both inside and outside of academia.
While these changes are occurring rapidly in the sciences and engineering, more
traditional structures, however, still tend to be prevalent in the social sciences
and humanities.
The new structures being put in place often differ significantly from one
institution to another; they are difficult to compare and may have different names,
which can lead to confusion or misunderstanding among those not familiar withthe system in question. In most countries and institutions, however, a mixtureof different models (i.e., both individual and structured study programmes andschools) is a common organisational feature. Thus, there is no one-size-fits-all
approach, as with the US graduate school model for example. Different routes
are being chosen, tailored to the specific profile, mission and goals of each
institution.
This specificity in nature and diversity in the organisation of doctoral
education makes evaluation – either internal or external – highly complex. In
general, evaluation includes two main but rather distinct aspects: the quality ofthe doctoral training on offer (educational part) and the quality of research being
carried out (including the quality of the research environment, the supervisor andthe research team, research outcomes, international reputation). The challenge
is for each university to consider its own internal quality processes andmechanisms, taking account of its specific mission and goals, rather than relying
only on external standards or purely quantitative methods and checklists that do
not take into account the diversity of organisational models and profiles.
Some of the elements of internal quality assurance presently being
implemented – even if they are not always understood as such, and thus covered
under the overall umbrella of “quality assurance” arrangements within
universities – include: the introduction of internal regulations and codes ofpractice as well as agreements signed between the doctoral candidate, thesupervisor and the institution; improvements in standards of access, recruitment
and selection; flexible and optional transferable skills training that fits each42

Reform in European higher education with a focus on quality assurance and the changing nature of doctoral education

Page

candidate‟s career needs; the introduction of new supervision models including
professional development for supervisors; regular monitoring of each doctoralcandidate‟s progress; support for internationalisation and mobility; ensuring highstandards of the process of the thesis defence; introduction of procedures formonitoring TTD (time to degree) and completion rates and for tracking doctoral
graduates.
With growing institutional diversity and a focus on more distinct
institutional profiles, universities are increasingly identifying and implementing
internal quality indicators at doctoral level that make sense in their own specificcontext. Some focus more on improving access, recruitment and selection
procedures while others try to enhance the quality of supervision or follow
completion rates. The evidence suggests that these various elements of quality
assurance are easier to achieve and monitor if doctoral education is structured in
one way or another. While this does not mean that there is one model of „thedoctoral school‟ that works best or is the only way to organise doctoral education,
it is clear that the creation of appropriate structures and administrative processes
allows for better monitoring of progression and achievement and thus has amajor impact on quality.
It is clear that given the growing strategic importance and structuring ofdoctoral education in universities across Europe, national quality agencies are
becoming increasingly interested in including provision for the evaluation or
accreditation of doctoral programmes in their activities. At present only very
few national agencies address doctoral education as part of their core activities.
These include, in particular, the French national evaluation agency (AERES) thatexceptionally in Europe also has responsibility for the evaluation of university
based research activities and specifically includes a strand focused on theevaluation of doctoral schools. However, other initiatives are being developed,
for example, in Hungary, where considerable effort is going into developing asystem, including an online database, for the evaluation and accreditation of
doctoral schools, or in Germany where one state (Lower Saxony) has alreadyintroduced legislation setting out guidelines for the prior accreditation of new
doctoral programmes. Other countries have traditionally taken different
approaches. In the UK, the structuring of doctoral education at institutional
level is one of the elements that is considered in the QAA‟s programme ofinstitutional audits while in other countries the evaluation of doctoral education
is linked to the funding of the specific doctoral programmes and thus often the
responsibility of research bodies. However, this is a rapidly changing area andone that requires further examination and analysis.

Lesley Wilson & Andrée Sursock

43

Page

Conclusions
Developing a European architecture for quality assurance in which adiversity of national agencies using different procedures can co-exist by using
the same standards and guidelines for their work and where institutions are able
to develop their own distinctive quality culture through internal quality processes
and mechanisms that make sense in terms of their specific missions and goals
have been one of the achievements of the first decade of the Bologna reform.
The challenges in the future will be to consolidate and further develop a
European Higher Education Area that combines diversity across – and within –46 countries while adhering to unifying principles and values, and to set thesecommon “standards” in such a way that they do not stifle diversity, innovative
practices and creativity.
The growing stress on indicators, however, may overshadow the importanceof keeping a balance between accountability and improvement, quality
measurement and quality assurance, and between what needs to be doneinternally (at the level of institutions) and externally (by governmental or
quasi-governmental agencies). It would be unfortunate if the European quality
framework that has been agreed were undermined by such a development.
The success of Bologna has hinged on the involvement of all actors,
including students and institutions, in policy discussions. This modus operandi
at the European level must continue and be strengthened at the national andinstitutional levels in order to ensure future successes. Thus, one of the
on-going challenges for the sector is to press for the continuing engagement of
all stakeholders in quality assurance developments and for a clarification of thedivision of labour between governments, institutions and quality assurance
agencies, particularly in the changing context brought about by reforms inautonomy and the strategic importance of higher education and research for theconstruction of Europe.

References
Joint Quality Initiative (JQF). (2004). Shared „Dublin‟ Descriptors for Short Cycle, First Cycle,
Second Cycle and Third Cycle Awards. A report from a Joint Quality Initiative informalgroup. Retrieved October 18, 2004 from http://www.jointquality.nl/

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. (2006).

Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: Education, Research and44

Reform in European higher education with a focus on quality assurance and the changing nature of doctoral education

Page

Innovation, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in European Higher
Education, Brussels: EUA.

European University Association (EUA). (2005). Bologna Seminar on Doctoral Programmes

for the European Knowledge society: Conclusions and Recommendations, Salzburg:

EUA.

EUA (2009). Collaborative Doctoral Education: University-Industry Partnerships forEnhancing Knowledge Exchange (DOC-CAREERS project by: Lidia Borrell-Damian).
EUA: Brussels.

EUA (2006). Quality Culture in European Universities: A Bottom-Up Approach, Report on theThree Rounds of the Quality Culture Project 2002-2006, Brussels: EUA.

Davies, H. (2009). Survey of Master Degrees in Europe, Brussels: EUA.

45
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.14, 2010 Page

Recent reform in university education and its
implications for student development in China

Xiangming Chen

1. Context: why reform?
With the rapid development of Chinese higher education, 1 together with
China’s economic reform and social change in recent years, many issues haveemerged in university education, especially in the curriculum 2 , and its
implications for student development. Although higher education in China
today is meeting more needs of society than ever before, there are concerns
about the adequacy, relevance and quality of its education for students as well as
for the state, society, the market and academia. As this paper aims to address
the relationship between university education reform and student development,
focus will be put on those concerns about this relationship.
1.1 Narrow scope of student majors and curricula
Due to the top-down reorganization of higher learning institutions in 1952,
student majors and curricula became very narrowly defined according to the job
distribution in the socialist reconstruction. Although they have been graduallybroadened every few years since the 1980s, compared with the rapid
development of China’s economy, science and technology as well as society,they still lag. Student majors are more focused on basic and traditional
Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking University, China, e-mail: xmchen@gse.pku.edu.cn
1
There are about 2,000 higher learning institutions, among which 640 are private, and 20
million students, among whom 3.93 million are private, in China today (see Sun, 2009).
2
The term “curriculum” here is defined in a broad sense, indicating the whole process ofcurriculum design, material development, teaching, student learning, assessment andevaluation.
46

Recent reform in university education and its implications for student development in China

Page

disciplines than applied, newly emerged and interdisciplinary ones. With
regard to master’s students, the education model is rather uniform, focusing
more on academic training than applied fields. The school time for master’s
degrees is too long (usually 3 years), and that for doctoral students is too short(usually 3 years as well). The knowledge base of doctoral students is neither
broad nor in-depth enough to make creative innovations.
According to one survey conducted in 2006, 30.1% of the doctoral students
enrolled in 2004 applied for the program out of non-academic motivations(Research Team on Chinese Degree and Graduate Education Development
Report, 2006). From 1995 to 2006, of all the graduates with a doctoral degree,
only 65.5% were teaching and doing research in higher learning institutions.
More and more graduates were working in non-academic fields, from 4.9% in1995 to 21.1% in 2006. This means that more practical majors and courses
should be provided for students.
In another study conducted in 2009, 72% of the master’s students and77.3% of doctoral students remained in the fields of study of their previous
degrees (Zhang, 2009). However, in the three years of schooling, they took, on
average, only one interdisciplinary course. Of the master’s students inhumanities and social sciences 44.2% took three interdisciplinary courses, but
31.6% of the master’s students and 35.1% doctoral students in natural sciences
never took any. It is obvious that more interdisciplinary fields and courses need
to be created to meet the needs of China’s development in all walks of life.
1.2 Insufficient choice of majors and courses
Although almost all universities claim that students can change their major
after enrolment, few provide easy access for this. It usually takes a very
complicated and time-consuming procedure for a student to change his or her
major. According to one study conducted in 2005, over 40% of theundergraduate students thought about changing their majors, but only about 5%
managed to do so (Chen & Wang, 2006). The study found that 43.6% of theundergraduate students thought that the time to choose their major should bedelayed to the end of the second year. Faculty, 85%, and students, 77.4%,
advocate a full credit system, so that schooling time could become more flexible
according to students’ learning progress.3
3

Most of student majors in China are still fixed entities, with fixed courses, faculty, officemanagement and equipment. They are not composed of related courses accounting for
credits. The schooling system is called the “school year plus credit” system.

Xiangming Chen

47

Page

In general, there is not enough choice for courses on the part of the students,and most of the courses are compulsory. According to one study conducted in
2005, of all the 35 credits required for master’s students, which accounted forabout 15 courses, only 2 were electives (Luo, 2005). For the humanities’
students, only about 40% took 5 or more electives. Compulsory courses
required by the state government such as politics and foreign languages took
about one quarter to one sixth of the required total. In the survey, 80% of themaster’s degree supervisors in humanities believed that these courses were
unnecessary for students. It was found that although students took many
courses on foreign languages their capacity to use the languages is rather poor.
In the survey, 90% of the humanities’ supervisors and 59.1% of engineeringsupervisors agreed that foreign language courses on student disciplinary subject
areas should be offered to replace the generic ones. In addition to politics andforeign languages, almost all students are also required to take compulsory
courses in computing and physical education: these occupy more of students’valuable time in their schooling, and prevent them from choosing more elective
courses based on their own interests and needs.
Even in graduate education, not enough training has been provided to
students on problem identification and problem solving. According to one
survey conducted in 2008, only 64.7% of master’s students took a course on
research methods, and no more than 55.8% took a course on the latest
developments in their fields (Luo & Xie, 2008). Over 42% of the master’s
students in natural sciences took no courses on research methods, and 66.7% of
the doctoral students took no courses on the latest developments in their fields(Luo, 2005). Over half of the graduate students in the humanities believed thatthey lacked knowledge in philosophy. Although 62% of the master’s students
and 58.7% of the doctoral students did not have any working experience before
they came to the program, there were insufficient courses on developing theircapacity for practical use or linking their academic knowledge with issues ofdaily life.
In general, the organization of courses for graduate education is not closely
related to student’s research topics let alone catering for individual differences.
Master’s students usually take uniform courses in the first year, participate intheir supervisor’s research projects in the second year, and start their own thesis
research as late as the third year. In almost all universities, very few courses
are offered specially to doctoral students alone, due to lack of students’ time, andlack of freedom and capacity for supervisors to offer the courses (Research Teamon Chinese Degree and Graduate Education Development Report, 2006, p.72).

48

Recent reform in university education and its implications for student development in China

Page

The main help that graduate students can get in their learning is throughinteraction with their supervisor. However, due to rapid expansion of graduate
education in China, the ratio of supervisors to doctoral students has decreased
from 1:3 in 2000 to 1:5 in 2003 nationally, and two-thirds of doctoral supervisors
also supervise master’s students (National Office of Chinese Association of
Political Consultation, 2004). According to a survey of 990 doctoral students
from 97 higher education institutions and 20 research institutes, the ratio ofsupervisors to graduate students in 2006 was 1:1; of the supervisors, 16.8%
were responsible for over 30 graduate students (Research Team on Chinese
Degree and Graduate Education Development Report, 2006, p.72). To makematters worse, 22.7% doctoral students rarely, and 15.3% never, had an
opportunity to attend academic conferences. Only 0.6% of the doctoral
students attended an international conference abroad in their 3 years of study.
1.3 Concerns for quality of students
In addition to insufficient choice of courses for students, the quality of thecourses is also a concern. As a result of the above problems, among others,
student quality has become a focus of attention for both government anduniversities. More specifically, for undergraduates, the capacity to find theirown academic interest and to lay a good foundation for their future development
is a major concern. For master’s students, the capacity for hands-on practice
becomes the focus, while theoretically-oriented education to prepare students for
doctoral degree study calls for more thorough reform and flexible arrangement.
For doctoral students, the capacity for innovation and problem solving needs tobe emphasized (Luo, 2005).
Another big concern is caused by the current trend of “internationalization”
of higher education in the world. Due to the strong pull and financial supportof some Western universities, many young talented students leave China forfurther study abroad. More and more high school graduates go to foreigncountries such as the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore as well as
districts like Hong Kong and Macau for their undergraduate study. The first
choice of the best undergraduates from China’s first-class universities is graduate
study in the best Western universities. Many master’s graduates also opt to go
to foreign countries for doctoral programs. According to one study, in 2006, of
all the 45,596 doctoral degrees conferred in the US, 4,774 came from China(including those from Hong Kong, but not from Taiwan, which took 10.5% of
the total) (Research Team on Chinese Doctoral Students Quality Analysis, 2010,p.48). As a result, Chinese universities are losing their best young talents as a

Xiangming Chen

49

Page

resource pool for their training of top creative students.
Of course, different kinds of universities with different objectives andstandards of training their students have different priorities in their concerns andfoci of attention. For example, higher vocational education needs morepractical activities and field work; research-oriented education requires morelaboratory work and systematic training on research design and implementation;teacher education asks for a more holistic approach through self-reflection andlearning-by-doing in a supportive community of practice, to name only a few.
The above summary of concerns for different levels of education (undergraduate,
master, doctoral) is only a simplistic picture for the sake of easy analysis.

2. Strategies: how to reform?
2.1 Reform of the training model
In order to meet the changing demands of China’s socioeconomic reform,
the scope of student major courses has been broadened to a large extent. In
1997, the Ministry of Education (MOE) issued a new list of majors, which
reduced the 654 second-level majors to 381, while the first-level majors
increased from 72 to 88 (Xie, 2003, p.182). The new majors have allowed
students to acquire a wider range of knowledge and skills in order to adapt to thedevelopment of disciplines and workplaces. Newly emerged fields of study
have been added to the second-level majors such as environmental science andengineering, bio-medical engineering, and binocular engineering.
With the initiation of MOE’s Top Talents Training Program in Basic
Sciences, some interdisciplinary majors have been established in order to train
creative talents for cutting-edge research. In Peking University, for example,
majors such as ancient biology, politics-economics-philosophy, and the historyof foreign languages have been set up in 2009. Tutors and students in the
Yuanpei Program of Peking University (named after the famous president of theuniversity, an historian) have helped to set up such majors, with its
interdisciplinary resources and unique model of management.
The Yuanpei Program was established in 2001 with its mission “to produce
talents with a broad base of basic knowledge, good humanistic quality, masteryof scientific research methods, capacity for self-study and hands-on activities, astrong sense of innovation and social adaptability”. One of its main objectives
is to provide high quality students for graduate study, and the original plan was
to train students in a cycle of 10 years for academic talents. As the program
developed, this ambitious plan was modified to a more practical and diversified

50

Recent reform in university education and its implications for student development in China

Page

output, with the majority of students going on to graduate study, while others
become leading figures in their workplaces.
There are 5 reform strategies within the Yuanpei Program.
1) Students are divided into two broad learning areas, humanities and naturalsciences, in the first one and a half years.
2) They can choose their majors and courses based on their interest andcapacity as well as the provision of academic disciplines and the teachingplans of the university.
3) The period of study is flexible ranging from 3 to 6 years depending on thestudent’s own progress.
4) Students can choose a tutor, who is appointed by the university to provide
personal guidance .
5) Students from different disciplines live together in the same dormitory inorder to promote interdisciplinary exchange of ideas.
Established in 2001 with fewer than 100 students, the Yuanpei Program
became Yuanpei College in 2008, with increasing student enrolment as well as
human and financial support from the university. In recent years, the program
has won a number of big awards from the government and academic associations
for its innovation in higher education. Over 75% of its graduates go on tograduate study, with quite a few entering world-renowned universities like
Harvard, Stanford and Yale. Very few students join the work force directly
after graduation. Many students have won first-rank prizes in research projects
and innovation competitions.
According to a 5-year longitudinal study of the Yuanpei Program from 2001
to 2006, more Yuanpei students (71.3%) thought that their major was in line with
their own interest than non-Yuanpei students (54.9%) in 2005 (Chen & Wang,2006). The percentage in recent years is much higher as the channel ofchoosing their major is more accessible than before. The majors of the 329
students from Grade 2001 to Grade 2003 were spread over 22 departments andcolleges, not clustered on a few “hot” (popular) majors like management,
economics and law. Some students whose preliminary choice is a “hot” fieldeven changed to unpopular ones like philosophy and history. At the time ofgraduation, most of the Yuanpei students found themselves more at ease withmaking choices in uncertain circumstances, more independent and more creative
than their counterparts in the university.
Similar programs to the Yuanpei Program have also been in operation in
many research-oriented comprehensive universities like Fudan University,

Xiangming Chen

51

Page

Nanjing University, Nankai University, Zejiang University and Sun Yat-sen
University, to name only a few. In Fudan University, an undergraduate college
has been set up to take care of learning and daily life for all students.
The model for graduate education has also been diversified. A number ofprofessional degree programs have been set up since 1991. By 2006, 16
professional programs had been set up, such as masters for business management,
engineering, architecture, law, education, clinical medicine, agriculturaldissemination, veterinary medicine and public management, as well as doctoral
programs for clinical medicine and veterinary medicine (Research Team on
Chinese Degree and Graduate Education Development Report, 2006, p.38;
Zhang, 2009). Some universities such as Peking University, Beijing Normal
University, and China Central University of Science and Technology have started
to experiment on an Ed.D program since 2003, enrolling adult, in-service
students who come to the university at intervals. These programs are more
pragmatic in their curricula, requiring students to work on issues from theirworkplaces, rather than purely academic ones. Resources of enterprises aretapped into by the university, and professors work hand in hand withprofessionals in a joint effort to train more practical students (Xie, 2003,
pp.246-250).
Accordingly, school years for master’s students have been reduced from 3
years to 2 years in these programs as well as in some academically-oriented ones.
The students enrolled in the more practical programs should have worked,
usually for 3 years, before entering the program. However, due to pressure
from the job market, some programs now also enroll students without any
working experience in order to delay their entry into employment. As a result,the objective of this kind of program, to train practical manpower, may bethwarted to a certain degree.
In order to attract good students for graduate study as well as improving
continuity between undergraduate education and graduate education, many
universities have established programs to let undergraduates go directly into
graduate study after 4 years without qualifying examinations. Programs linking
masters and doctoral degrees have also been implemented to ensure talented
students can go into cutting-edge research more directly within a shorter time by
reducing the master’s program to only 2 years. Though attracting good
students to a higher level of learning, this strategy is not without shortcomings.
As the students do not have the chance to conduct research for a master’s thesis,
they encounter bigger challenges while working for their doctoral dissertations.
Another drawback is that as most of these students have no working experiences

52

Recent reform in university education and its implications for student development in China

Page

before they enter the program, they are put in a disadvantaged position in morepractical fields like education, management and law, to name only a few.
Offering a free choice of majors for undergraduates has been trialed in someuniversities. In the Yuanpei Program of Peking University mentioned above,
fresh-men and -women are divided into two broad learning areas, humanities andnatural sciences; they do not decide on their majors until the end of the second
year. In the first one and half years, they take mostly courses on general
education and learning area platform courses in order to understand the academic
disciplines at large before identifying their individual interests and capacity.
2.2 Reform in curriculum and instruction
Almost all universities, especially research oriented comprehensive
universities, have been offering general education courses for undergraduates inorder for them to acquire a broader basis of knowledge. In Peking University, 5
areas of academic disciplines are defined for general education courses:
mathematics and natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy and psychology,
history, and languages-literature-arts. Students are required to choose 16
credits in four areas apart from their own disciplinary area. According to asurvey conducted in 2005, 84.5% of the students thought that general education
courses had expanded their knowledge scope, 74.5% believed that the courses
had broadened their ways of thinking, and 65.6% agreed that the courses were
helpful for them to acquire knowledge outside their own field (Chen & Wang,
2006, p.67). However, due to a lack of accurate understanding of general
education and low motivation to offer this kind of course on the part of thefaculty, the quality of the courses leaves large room for improvement.
In addition to general education courses, programs like the Yuanpei
Program of Peking University have also offered a kind of platform course for its
students. Students of natural sciences and humanities share certain platform
courses, such as mathematics and Chinese language (with varying degree ofdifficulties), while taking different ones, such as ancient Chinese language,academic research protocols and writing for the humanities students, and physics,
chemistry and biology for the science students. Students take these courses in
the first one and half years before deciding on and entering their major. They
are also given more freedom than their counterparts in choosing courses in any
departments, under the guidance of their tutor, in order to discover their potential
and interest.
Some universities like Zhejiang University have set up a research-centeredtraining model for its graduate students, offering students courses on research

Xiangming Chen

53

Page

methodology, problem solving skills, and student research topics. In order tohelp students understand research more thoroughly, some institutions ask
students to join a certain number of research projects for a fixed length of time,e.g. at least one year. In the School of Education, Peking University, students
are required to attend at least 9 academic forums in order to get one credit for
their study record, in addition to more than one year of research experiences.
International collaboration in curriculum and instruction has also been
operating in recent years. Courses from advanced foreign countries like the US
and UK have been shared with Chinese students on the internet throughadvanced technology.
Joint efforts in developing cross-cultural andinternational courses are also underway. Sponsored by MOE and someinternational organizations, such as the World Bank, many high quality English
textbooks have been translated into Chinese and used by faculty and students.
To improve the quality of university education, teaching methods aregradually becoming more participatory, student-sensitive and practical. In
addition to traditional lectures, faculty members are using more and morediversified methods such as seminars, discussion groups, experiments, casestudies and academic forums. Advanced technology like Power Point andmultimedia equipment are increasingly employed in classroom teaching andlearning. Students are encouraged to do more self-study and internship in
workplaces. Summer schools have been added to the university calendar since1998, with credits counted in the students’ record (Zhang, 2009). In the past
few years, MOE has been sponsoring a graduate student summer school, with
one university hosting one discipline each year. Well-known scholars of thediscipline are invited to the university to teach graduate student representatives
from all over China.
In order to improve doctoral students’ capacity to do research, thosestudents in research-centered universities are required to publish a number ofarticles (usually 2) in the leading journals of their fields before dissertation
defense. This requirement has enhanced students’ sense of urgency for
publication, and enlarged the number of publications for the university in theheated nationwide competition for academic reputation. However, this strategy
has also hindered students conducting long-term, systematic and in-depth
research. Some students are keen on easier and shorter-term projects, and seek
less influential journals for publication, thus decreasing perceptions of thequality of their research.
In recent years, quite a few projects have been set up by MOE and local
educational authorities to improve teaching materials for university education.

54

Recent reform in university education and its implications for student development in China

Page

A special fund has been set aside to organize experts to develop high quality
materials. MOE has initiated a project called Excellent Courses by selecting
excellent courses from all universities. These courses get an award from MOE
with financial support before being recorded to the internet to be disseminatednationwide.
In order to ensure the quality of education, a systematic evaluation ofteaching and learning quality of the university has been conducted by MOE once
every 5 years since 2003. Although the evaluation has helped the university
sort out its achievements and problems, there are a lot of complaints from faculty
and staff, due to the heavy workload of preparing materials and high-riskpressure.
Evaluation of graduate education programs started from 1994, and those
programs which are not up to the standard have been dismissed by thegovernment (Xie, 2003, p.101). Since 1999, prizes for the 100 best doctoral
student dissertations have been elected annually nationwide; in some institutions,those colleges and departments whose students win such prizes will be allocatedmore doctoral student places in the following year (2 slots for one). Since 2000,
the theses of graduate students have been randomly assessed by MOE for their
quality.
2.3 Inter-institutional reform
In order to make the best use of resources and become more competitive in
name, if not in substance, many universities have been forming alliances in theireducation in recent years. On October 9, 2009, at the 7th conference for the first
9 universities in the 985 Program, 4 a 9 University Alliance was established (C9for short). The universities involved are Peking University, Qinghua University,
Zhejiang University, Fudan University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Nanjing
University, University of Science and Technology of China, Harbin Institute ofTechnology, and Xian Jiao Tong University. The 9 universities signed amemorandum on collaboration and exchange of talents among the first-classuniversities, with the purpose of producing top talents in China and eventually inthe world.
According to the memorandum, the C9 will administer the following 10
new measures:
4This program was initiated by MOE to promote a number of key universities to become
world class speedily. The 9 universities named here were the first group to have received
financial support from MOE for this purpose. More universities joined the group in later
years.

Xiangming Chen

55

Page

1)

Mutually acknowledge credits and scores of their undergraduate
students
2) Accept visiting graduate students for more than 6 months andacknowledge their credits
3) Jointly organize summer schools
4) Establish linkages with US Ivy League and Australian G8 Universities
5) Develop textbooks and other learning materials together
6) Publicize C9’s core excellent courses, and make use of their long distantlearning platform
7) Alternate in hosting an annual meeting on reform in the areas of student
enrolment, degree conferring, schooling recording and training
mechanisms
8) Train young faculty members by using the joint facilities of the C99) Establish a network to review doctoral student dissertations byprofessors of the other universities in order to improve the quality of
doctoral students
10) Organize joint field work, internship, research design, social
investigation, and social practice mainly for undergraduate students.
According to some scholars, this new alliance will produce positive impacts
on student development, but not without negative implications (Science Time,2009). For one thing, the opening of all courses in the 9 universities willencourage more interdisciplinary learning and research among students. Free
choice of courses among the C9 will force faculty to improve their teachingquality, as students may choose to transfer from less qualified courses to betterones. As each university encourages its students to proceed to higher learningin the other universities, the phenomenon of inbreeding may be reduced to acertain degree.
But while acknowledging its positive impact, some scholars think that theC9 is in fact an alliance of mutual interests, which will make the strong stronger
and the weak weaker. Having monopolized most of the resources in China’s
higher education, the 9 universities, within such an alliance as the C9, may
support each other in seeking more resources from the government. As a result,second-class universities and local universities, especially those in the remoteand poor western part of China, may be further deprived of chances for equity.
Although the alliance seems to be an activity creating first-class university
stars, tacitly supported by the government, others argue that it is more a
non-governmental action. The universities take initiatives of their own in56

Recent reform in university education and its implications for student development in China

Page

making the best use of each other’s strengths, which shows their increasing senseof independence and self-alliance. It is advocated that more alliances can beorganized bottom-up by region, level, discipline, training model, and even bycountry (Science Time, 2009).

3. Future Prospect: What Next?
In spite of the reform strategies mentioned above, Chinese universities still
face many challenges in their education for student development. One area for
improvement is the relatively low standard for student graduation. As China’s
practice is “tight in and loose out”, students enter the university after a very
competitive national examination, and the graduation rate is very high, close to100%. There is lack of rigorous quality checking and dismissal of students inthe process of their learning. Take doctoral student learning for example,
although there are at least 6 hurdles for students on their way to complete theirdegree (course work, qualifying exams, research proposal, preliminary oral
defense, final thesis defense, publications), each hurdle seems undemanding.
In order to ensure their students find a job after graduation, the academic
committee is usually quite willing to let them progress. Protecting the “face” ofthe supervisor is also an influential factor in this easy-going process.
Although more practical degrees have been set up to train more practicalstudents, there is still a tendency to educate all students according to academic
standards and methods. This is mainly due to lack of thorough understandingof different levels and kinds of education for different students for different labormarkets, insufficient capacity of the faculty in pragmatic fields, and not enoughresources and equipment for hands-on activities. An alternatively danger, inoveremphasizing practical ways of training, may lead to an uncalculated
lowering of education quality for students.
In spite of the many positive impacts of programs like the Yuanpei Programon student development mentioned above, the students have suffered a lot fromthe two-track system, that is, the Yuanpei Program has been running in parallel tothe traditional model in the departments and colleges. As a result, students
encounter conflicts of time in taking courses and exams, as well as discontinuityof courses in their chosen departments and colleges. As departments andcolleges have not adopted the model of general education, many basic courses
have already been completed by the time that Yuanpei students enter the
departments and colleges. Since Yuanpei students spend more time oninterdisciplinary courses and platform courses, their average point scores areXiangming Chen

57

Page

usually not as high as their counterparts in the departments and colleges. Thishas put them at a disadvantage in applying for graduate study. With limited
resources, some departments and colleges do not take Yuanpei students asseriously as their own students. Sometimes, Yuanpei students feel neglected
and discriminated against by the departments and colleges.
Neither has the tutor system produced the expected effect. Although theprogram increased the number of tutors from over 10 in 2001 to over 30 in 2009,
they are still too few to meet the students individually. Besides, the tutors are
all famous professors, often too busy to talk with students at length. In recent
years, younger faculty members and retired professors have been added to thelist of tutors, but the number is still not enough for the needs of the students.
The mixed dormitory arrangement has proved to be a good idea, but
students of different disciplines rarely have chances to talk in depth. The
fresh-men and -women are too busy with their own courses, or they know too
little about their own disciplines to talk in depth about it with students of otherdisciplines.
For graduate education, although a lot of reform strategies have been
underway, there are still concerns about the relevance and quality of its
education. More specially, more diversified models of training of students areneeded to meet the varying needs of job markets in addition to academia. Moreflexible schooling time and time accorded to teaching and learning management
should be employed. Better quality of education provision should be ensured
both in contents and methods, by way of more individualized guidance bysupervisors, group work among students, and closer linkages between study andwork. A more rigorous procedure of screening students during the process ofgraduate education is also an important concern.
All in all, Chinese universities are facing many challenges and areas for
improvement in their efforts to provide good quality education for different
groups of students with varying needs and interests. Although a lot of reform
strategies have been implemented, there is still a long way to go. Any reformin university education requires synchronized action by all the forces of life.
Fortunately, China is now on the way of becoming a world power, and there are
more opportunities and potential for the university to tap into. The university
in China needs to seek the support of the government and society, while
venturing into its own innovations for student development.

58

Recent reform in university education and its implications for student development in China

Page

References
Chen, X., & Wang, Z. (2006). An Inquiry into General Education Model for University

Undergraduate Students: A Case Study on Yuanpei Program of Peking University. In D.

Gang (Ed.), China’s Education: Research & Review (10th Issue). Beijing: Education

Research Press.

Luo, Y. (2005). Reflections on the Reform of China’s Curriculum System. Journal of Higher
Education, 26, (11).

Luo, Y., & Xie, A. (2008). Relevance and Integration: Theoretical Reflection on theConstruction of Doctoral Student Individual Curriculum. Research on Chinese Higher
Education, 7th Issue.

National Office of Chinese Association of Political Consultation. (2004). Importance Should
Be Attached to Issues Caused by the Expansion of Doctoral Students (July, 22, 2004).

Special Newspaper on Political Consultation Information.

Research Team on Chinese Degree and Graduate Education Development Report (2006).

Report on the Development of Academic Degrees and Graduate Education in China.

Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Research Team on Chinese Doctoral Students Quality Analysis. (2010). Report on Chinese
Doctoral Students Quality. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Science Time. (2009). The Strategic Implications of C9 Can Not Be Underestimated (October
20, 2009). Science Time Newspaper.

Shen, W. (2009). Diversity, Internalization and Structuration: Transformation of Current

Doctoral Student Education and Its Policy Implications (Unpublished article). Beijing:

Peking University.

Sun, R. (2009). Conference Summary of Chinese Higher Education in Changsha (Unpublishedarticle). Beijing: Peking University.

Xie, G. (2003). Chinese Higher Education in the 20th Century: Volume on Degree System andGraduate Education. Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Zhang, G. (2009). Policy Analysis on China’s Graduate Curriculum (Unpublished article).
Beijing: Center for Curriculum and Textbook Development, Ministry of Education.

59

Special Speech

60

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.14, 2010

59

60

Pursuing Excellence in Graduate Education

Masuo Aizawa

61

62

Pursuing Excellence in Graduate Education

Masuo Aizawa

63

64

Pursuing Excellence in Graduate Education

Masuo Aizawa

65

66

Pursuing Excellence in Graduate Education

Masuo Aizawa

67

68

Pursuing Excellence in Graduate Education

Masuo Aizawa

69

70

Pursuing Excellence in Graduate Education

Masuo Aizawa

71

72

Pursuing Excellence in Graduate Education

Masuo Aizawa

73

74

75

Conclusion

76

75
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.14, 2010 Page

Polices, practice, and implications concerning
graduate education and its quality assurance: fromglobal, regional, national, and institutional
perspectives

Futao Huang

The Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE) of Hiroshima
University organized its first international workshop, entitled “Producing
Qualified Graduates and Assuring Education Quality in the Knowledge-based
Society: roles and issues of graduate education”, as part of the Strategic
Research Project on University Reform from November 19-20, 2009. At theworkshop, Dr Simon W. Marginson, professor at the Centre for the Study ofHigher Education, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of
Melbourne, Australia, and Dr Ryo Hirasawa, professor emeritus at the Universityof Tokyo, Japan, provided the two keynote speeches. Ms Lesley Wilson,
Secretary General, European University Association, Belgium and Dr
Xiangming Chen, professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking University,
China, were invited to make another two presentations; and Dr Masuo Aizawa,
Executive Member, Council for Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) at the
Cabinet Office, Japan contributed a special speech. With participants fromdifferent parts of Japan, approximately 50 people attended the workshop.
As indicated in the title, the major theme of the workshop was to deal with
the issue of how to produce well-qualified university graduates and how toassure the quality of education especially at the level of graduate education in theknowledge-based society. Based on the presentations and speech, the key
points for each of the speakers can be practically identified as follows.
The first keynote speech, given by Dr Marginson, was mainly concernedProfessor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

76

Polices, practice, and implications concerning graduate education and its quality assurance

Pagewith global movements in research labor and doctoral students. By identifying
the three different but interrelated domains of higher education and research
practice: the global dimension, the national dimension, and the local dimension,
Dr Marginson affirmed that we are in a “glonacal” era of higher education, in
which glonacal indicates some combination of global, national and local factors.
He emphasized that the main challenge for most higher education systems,
except for some research universities and nations, was to contribute to shaping
the global dimension. With respect to the creation of global dimension, heillustrated four distinguishable strategies that help to shape the global dimensionof higher education in international and comparative perspectives. These aregovernment-driven strategies, institution-driven strategies, jointly-driven
strategies, and multiple actor strategies.
Against the background of
globalization and especially the current process of achieving global dimensionsof higher education through various strategies in individual nations, Dr
Marginson concluded his argument by suggesting three implications ofUniversity rankings that can help to shape the patterns of mobility of talent.
Universities should focus on performance and its marketing. Second, higher
education systems, and individual research universities, now need to build
research capacity at home and improve cooperation with other national researchsystems. Third, the global competition for mobile talent is now a powerfuldriver of university and national decision-making. Finally, he posed issues
related to the global flow of talent.
Dr Hirasawa presented a case study from Japan that focused on a
mission-oriented knowledge system in graduate schools. He began his
discussion by pointing out four major issues facing graduate schools in Japan.
In order to deal with these issues, Dr Hirasawa identified two aspects that havebeen adopted by Japan’s government: exploration of new science and technology
and implementation of mission-oriented research. As mission-oriented researchis opposed to traditional, discipline-based research, Dr Hirasawa elaborated thedefinition of the former and illustrated two striking case studies in Japan related
to mission-oriented research. In addition, Dr Hirasawa, by examining several
evaluations exercised in the last decades, suggested measures that should be
implemented to realize mission-oriented research that is of direct benefit tosociety.
By providing extensive quantitative data from findings of surveys acrossEuropean countries, Ms Wilson placed the emphasis of her talk on reform in
European higher education on quality assurance and the changing nature of
doctoral education in the European continent. In her introduction to the last

Futao Huang

77

Page

decade of reform in European higher education, Ms Wilson looked back on thereform agenda, doctoral education across Europe, and the role of thequalifications frameworks for the European Higher Education Area. Then she
made a brief historical sketch of quality assurance in Europe, especially changes
occurring since the Bologna Process with the purpose of creating a European
framework for quality assurance, and the measures that should be carried out inorder to promote quality in doctoral education. According to her analysis, thesemeasures include increased links between the master’s degree and the doctorate
and the unique nature of doctoral education from the perspective of quality
assurance. Ms Wilson concluded her discussion by identifying the achievementthat has been made in developing a European architecture for quality assurance,
on-going challenges, and the future challenges in further building up a European
Higher Education Area that combines diversity across – and within – forty six
countries while adhering to unifying principles and values, and setting thesecommon “standards” in such a way that they do not stifle diversity, innovative
practices and creativity.
Dr Chen’s presentation dealt with recent reform in university education andits implications for student development in China. By illustrating the changing
context of China’s higher education reform, Dr Chen gave a detailed account of
the strategies which have been implemented in Peking University to undertake
reform in producing qualified graduates at both first degree and postgraduatelevels. Among these, two changes have had significant impacts on theuniversity. They are reform of the training model, typically represented in a
totally new educational program: the Yuanpei Program; and reform of thecurriculum in terms of its structure and contents, as well as instruction. With
regard to future prospects in this regard, Dr Chen argued that, as Chinese
universities are facing many challenges and areas for improvement in theirefforts to provide good quality education for different groups of students withvarying needs and interests, they leave a great deal to be improved at national,
institutional and program levels.
The final special speech was delivered by Dr Aizawa on the pursuit ofexcellence in graduate education based on a case study of Japan. In his
introduction, by describing briefly the increasingly competitive world, Dr
Aizawa urged that Japan should strengthen its international leadership ininnovation and intellectual presence. As for the strategy that should be
developed to achieve this, he emphasize that the policy of strengthening graduate
education should be part of a national strategy and a vital part of the national
education system. Dr Aizawa concluded his speech by making two proposals.

78

Polices, practice, and implications concerning graduate education and its quality assurance

Page

First, Japan’s graduate education should be strengthened through pursuing
excellence on a global perspective. Second, research universities should be
encouraged to be globally competitive through a spiral evolution of recruiting
world-ranked top researchers and attracting the best and brightest students fromaround the world.
Evidently, the theme of the workshop lent itself to examination at diverselevels and to a wide variety of perspectives by the five speakers from theirdifferent countries. As a scholar in social politics and higher education, Dr
Marginson discussed issues concerning the mobility of researchers and doctoral
students at the level of a world perspective so as to provide us with an overview
of global trends. The two Japanese speakers: Dr Hirasawa and Dr Aizawa
addressed issues relating to quality assurance systems and particularly graduate
education, including the doctoral level, from the perspective of policy changes
and through typical case studies in Japan. As one of the top administers in theEuropean University Association (EUA), Ms Wilson contributed to theworkshop by touching on a wide range of topics with a focus on the changing
reforms on structures of quality assurance and doctoral education across Europe
at a regional level. In contrast, Dr Chen’s presentation was more concernedwith changes and reforms on the production of qualified graduates and on
curriculum development in a research university at an institutional and programlevels.
Through the inspiring presentations and panel discussion, some noticeable
implications can be gained, as follows.
・ It is important for nations and individual institutions, and especially for
research universities, to adopt a global dimension in order to enhance thequality of graduate education and research activities.
・ There is an increasing demand for graduate education to be more flexible inthe changing world, and more responsive to the demands of industry andsociety at large.
・ The generally-accepted standards or frameworks for quality assurance at aregional level, for example, across the European continent, and thediversifying internal quality assurance mechanisms or structures could
co-exist, even when they are concerned with the quality of doctoral
education.
・ Various factors might contribute to the improvement of quality andexcellence of graduate education. However, in some countries, such as
Japan and China, national HE reforms and national policy seem to haveplayed a central role in affecting the quality of production of graduates,
including doctoral students.

79

Appendices

80

79

Appendix 1:

Conference Program

International Workshop on Graduate Education
Date: November 19-20, 2009
Venue: Hiroshima University

Thursday, November 19
12:30 -

Registration*** Opening Addresses ***13:00 - 13:15
Toshimasa Asahara, President, Hiroshima University, Japan
Shinichi Yamamoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima University, Japan*** Presentations ***MC: Futao Huang, Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, Japan
13:15 - 14:15
Keynote Speech 1“Global Movements in Research Labour and Doctoral Students:
implications for national systems and universities”
Simon W. Marginson, Professor, Centre for the Study of Higher
Education, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The
University of Melbourne, Australia
14:15 - 15:15
Keynote Speech 2“Mission-Oriented Knowledge System in Graduate Schools: how
can we ingrain it and assure the quality?”
Ryo Hirasawa, Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, Japan
15:15 - 15:30

Coffee Break

15:30 - 16:15

Speech 1“Higher Education Reform for a Knowledge Society in Europe:
diversification, quality and accountability”
Lesley Wilson, Secretary General, European University
Association, Belgium
Speech 2“Recent University Curriculum Reform and its Implications forStudent Development in China”
Xiangming Chen, Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking
University, China

16:15 - 17:00

17:00 - 17:30

Q&A

80

Conference Program

Friday, November 20*** Special Speech ***MC: Shinichi Yamamoto, Director, RIHE, Hiroshima University,Japan
9:30 - 10:30“Pursuing Excellence in Graduate Education”
Masuo Aizawa, Executive Member, Council for Science andTechnology Policy Cabinet Office, Japan ∕ Former President, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Japan*** Panel Discussion ***“Graduate Education and Producing Qualified Graduates”
10:30 - 12:00
Panelists:
Masuo Aizawa
Simon W. Marginson
Ryo Hirasawa
Lesley Wilson
Xiangming Chen

81

Appendix 2:

List of Participants

OVERSEAS PARTICIPANTS
Invited Experts

Simon W. Marginson
Lesley Wilson
Xiangming Chen

Professor, Centre for the Study of Higher Education,
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The Universityof Melbourne, Australia
Secretary General, European University Association,
Belgium
Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking
University, China
and another 4 overseas participantsJAPANESE PARTICIPANTS
President

Toshimasa Asahara

Invited Experts
Masuo Aizawa
Ryo Hirasawa

President, Hiroshima University

Executive Member, Council for Science and Technology
Policy Cabinet Office ∕ Former President, Tokyo Instituteof Technology
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo

Research Institute for Higher Education（RIHE）
Shinichi Yamamoto
Ikuo Kitagaki
Tsukasa Daizen
Futao Huang
Naoyuki Ogata
Jun ObaMasataka Murasawa
Kazunori Shima
Satoshi Watanabe
Hideto Fukudome
Yumiko Hada

Director and Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor

and another 33 Japanese Participants

As of November, 2009

82

83

R.I.H.E. PUBLICATION IN ENGLISH
RIHE International Publication SeriesNo. 1: Kaneko, M. (1987). Enrollment Expansion in Postwar Japan.
No. 2: Guocai, Z. (1989). Higher Education Research in China: An Annotated Bibliography.
No. 3: Abe, Y. (1989). Non-University Sector Higher Education in Japan.
No. 4: Kaneko, M. (1989). Financing Higher Education in Japan: Trends and Issues.
No. 5: Kaneko, M. (1992). Higher Education and Employment in Japan: Trends and Issues.
No. 6: Morgan, J. Keith (1999). Universities and the Community: Use of Time in Universities
in Japan.
No. 7: Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2001). University Reforms and Academic Governance: Reports ofthe 2000 Three-Nation Workshop on Academic Governance.
No. 8: Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2002). University Reforms and Academic Governance
Reconsidered: Report of the Six-Nation Higher Education Research Project.
No. 9: Arimoto, A., Huang, F., and Yokoyama, K. (eds.) (2005). Globalization and Higher
Education.
No.10: Huang, F. (ed.) (2006). Transnational Higher education in Asia and the Pacific Region.

Higher Education Forum
Higher Education Forum Vol. 1 (2003).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 2 (2005).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 3 (2006).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 4 (2007).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 5 (2008).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 6 (2009).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 7 (2010).

Higher Education Research in Japan
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 1 (2003).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 2 (2005).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 3 (2006).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 4 (2007).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 5 (2008).

84

COE Publication Series
No. 6: Construction and Quality Assurance of 21st Century Higher Education (Reports of the2003 COE International Symposium) (2003).
No. 7: Mergers and Cooperation among Higher Education Institutions: Australia, Japan andEurope (Reports of the 2003 COE International Seminar on Mergers and Cooperation)(2004).
No.11: Organization Reforms and University Governance: Autonomy and Accountability(Reports of COE International Seminar) (2004).
No.12: Enhancing Quality and Building the 21st Century Higher Education System (Reports
of COE International Seminar/Eight-Nation Conference) (2004).
No.20: Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International
Perspectives (Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop) (2006).
No.21: A Cross-National Analysis of Undergraduate Curriculum Models: Focusing on
Research-Intensive Universities (2006).
No.22: Gender Inequity in Academic Profession and Higher Education Access: Japan, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States (2006).
No.23: Constructing University Visions and the Mission of Academic Profession in AsianCountries: A Comparative Perspective (Reports of COE International Seminar) (2007).
No.29: Changing Governance in Higher Education: Incorporation, marketisation, and otherreforms  A Comparative study  (2007).

RIHE International Seminar Reports
No. 1: Perspectives for the Future System of Higher Education (Report of the Hiroshima
International Seminar on Higher Education) (1977).
No. 2: Higher Education for the 1980s: Challenges and Responses (Report of the Second
Hiroshima International Seminar on Higher Education) (1980).
No. 3: Innovations in Higher Education: Exchange of Experiences and Ideas in International
Perspective (Reports of the Hiroshima/OECD Meeting of Experts on Higher Educationand the Seminar on Innovations in Higher Education) (1981).
No. 4: Comparative Approach to Higher Education: Curriculum, Teaching and Innovations in
an Age of Financial Difficulties (Reports of the Hiroshima/OECD Meetings ofExperts) (1983).
No. 5: The Changing Functions of Higher Education: Implications for Innovation (Reports
from the 1984 OECD/JAPAN Seminar on Higher Education), (1985).
No. 6: Higher Education Expansion in Asia (Reports from the 1985 International Seminar on
Asian Higher Education) (1985).
No. 7: Public and Private in Asian Higher Education Systems: Issues and Prospects (Reports
from the Third International Seminar on Higher Education in Asia) (1987).
No. 8: The Role of Government in Asian Higher Education Systems: Issues and Prospects

85(Report from the Fourth International Seminar on Higher Education in Asia) (1988).
No. 9: Foreign Students and Internationalizaion of Higher Education (Proceedings of
OECD/JAPAN Seminar on Higher Education and the Flow of Foreign Students)(1989).
No.10: Academic Reforms in the World: Situation and Perspective in the Massification Stageof Higher Education (Reports of the 1997 Six-Nation Higher Education Project
Seminar) (1997).
No.11: Higher Education Reform for Quality Higher Education Management in the 21stCentury: Economic, Technological, Social and Political Forces Affecting Higher
Education (Proceedings of the 1999 Six-Nation Presidents’ Summit in Hiroshima)(2000).
No.12: The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives (Report of the International Conference on the Changing Academic
Profession Project, 2008) (2008).
No.13: The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International, Comparative, andQuantitative Perspectives (Report of the International Conference on the Changing
Academic Profession Project, 2009) (2009).

86