RIHE International
Seminar Reports No.20

No.20, October 2013

ISBN978-4-902808-83-4

Hiroshima University

Seminar Reports

THE CHANGING ACADEMIC PROFESSION IN ASIA:TEACHING, RESEARCH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENTRIHE International

No.20, October 2013

RIHE International
Seminar Reports
THE CHANGING ACADEMIC PROFESSION IN
ASIA: TEACHING, RESEARCH, GOVERNANCE
AND MANAGEMENT
Report of the International Conference on
the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2013
Organized by: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University andResearch Institute for Higher Education, Kurashiki Sakuyo University

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY

Takatoo Print Media Co.,Ltd.
3-2-30, Senda-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima City
730-0052, Japan
TEL: +81-82-244-1110, FAX: +81-82-244-1199

i

ii

i

1

23

37

51

61

71















Keynote Speeches

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 2013

1

The Academic Profession in International andComparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and theworld

Akira Arimoto

Introduction
Over time the academy as well as the academic profession changes overadapts to changing conditions. The academic profession fundamentallychanges its characteristics whenever academia changes in response to socialchanges, since the former conducts its research, teaching, and service in relation
to the demands of the latter. The university’s shift from the medieval to themodern and the future (post-modern), first wave, to second wave and third wave,
respectively, is responsive to successive social changes from an agricultural
through an industrial to a knowledge society. At the same time, this kind ofshift responded to knowledge changes from the pre-scientific revolution to post
scientific revolution.
The university transitions from a first to second and third wave
corresponding with the pre-modern to the modern, and, finally to the future,
respectively. The prototype of the pre-modern university was created aroundthe 12th century by the medieval university and lasted for about six centuries
until the end of the pre-modern era, focusing its function on academics’ teaching,while that of the modern university was created in the 19th century, focusing its
function on academic research in addition to teaching. While this university
prototype lasted for the majority of the university’s history by corresponding to
the first and second waves with a focus on teaching and research, the future
Director & Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education, Kurashiki Sakuyo University,
Japan, e-mail: akira.arimoto@ksu.ac.jp

2

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world

university is emerging coinciding to the third wave with a focus on student
learning (or study).

Framework of research
The framework displayed in Figure 1 explains the concept of a changing
university sector over the time span of past-present-future from pre-modern tomodern and, finally, to the future university. Corresponding to this transition,
the academic profession has also changed its characteristic function fromteaching in the pre-modern university to research in addition to teaching in themodern university and, finally, to the type of academic profession focusedconcurrently on research, teaching and student learning (study) (R-T-S nexus).
At the time of the second wave, the academic was expected to assume theidentity of teacher committed to instruction and then that of researcher
specializing in his/her own specific discipline in addition to that of teacher
committed to instruction. At the advent of the third wave, the academic was
expected to forge a multiple identity set of researcher and teacher.
First wave

Second wave

Third wave

Pre-modern
Univ.

Modern Univ.

Future Univ.

Academic staff

Academic
Profession 1

Academic
Profession 2

University sector
Agriculturalsociety

Industrial
society

Knowledge
societyNon-university sector
Higher education
Junior college
Tertiary education

Figure 1. Transform of university and academic profession

It is said that this framework is generally applicable to academics in theuniversity sector. Although the university sector was institutionalized as asocial institution for the first time during the first wave age in the West,Akira Arimoto3

especially in Europe, the non-university sector (other higher education
insitutions), which was usually labelled higher education and short-cycle higher
education like junior colleges, was institutionalized for the first time in thesecond wave age in the West, especially in the United States.
Historically, the university sector is considered to be an institution with adual research and teaching orientation through graduate school after the
institutionalization of the modern university in the 19th century, while thenon-university sector consisting of other tertiary education institution isconsidered to be the institution with a teaching and student learning (or study)
orientation. After the modern university was institutionalized by stressing the
research function, academic staff having an identity as teacher in the
pre-modern university were forced to change to the “academic profession 1” –having an identity as researcher in addition to teacher. However, in theemerging third wave, the “academic profession 1” is expected to shift to the“academic profession 2” who must pay more attention to students as learners,
particularly at the undergraduate level of the university.
In this context, the university in its role of research or teaching in the third
wave age is viewed as competing with the non-university sector, especiallytertiary education which is increasingly responsible for universal stage of higher
education, in terms of teaching and student learning (study) for the increasingly
massified and diversified student body.
Based on this framework, this paper discusses “The Academic Profession inInternational and Comparative Perspectives: Trends in Asia and the World”, witha focus on the R-T-S nexus in the third wave. In the analysis of thesedevelopments, the author attempts to draw upon previous studies including theCarnegie 1992 survey and the CAP 2007-08 survey (Altbach, Ed., 1996;
Arimoto & Ehara, Eds., 1996; Arimoto, Ed., 2008, 2011; Kogan & Teichler, Ed.,2007; RIHE, 2008, 2009).

The teaching and research nexus in the knowledge society
Transformation from knowledge society 1 to knowledge society 2
As depicted in Figure 2, the university’s functions of discovery,
dissemination, service, and administration, shifted from an information-based toa knowledge society. At this stage, information as well as knowledge was stillworking independently within the university but separated from society outside
university. In this sense, the university was “a knowledge society 1”, while the4

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world

latter (university+society) is “a knowledge society 2” (Arimoto, 2007; 2009a, p.4).
Continuity of the two societies (knowledge society 1 and knowledge society 2) isclearly shown by the compatible existence in recent years of all the functions ofresearch (discovery of knowledge), teaching (dissemination of knowledge), andstudent learning (understanding of knowledge) in the two societies. In theknowledge society 1, there is a solid border between the university and society atlarge so that “CUDOS” consisting of Communality, Universalism,
Disinterestedness, and Organizational Skepticism (Merton & Storer, Eds., 1973;
Arimoto, 1987; Musselin, 2010, pp.95-96) was working as an ethos of academic
science only inside the university, while in the knowledge society 2, such an
ethos of academic science hardly exists.

Figure 2. Development from knowledge society 1 to knowledge society 2

As far as knowledge is concerned, at this stage, two types of knowledge
have been assimilated in both societies of University 1 and University 2 to theextent that a similar kind of knowledge is usefully working at both of them. In
this context, it is interesting that the nature of knowledge is transformed asshown by the fact that Gibbons and others have discussed how knowledge itself
has been transformed from Mode 1, or pure knowledge, which was useful only
to the university, to Mode 2, or applied and development knowledge, which isuseful also to society as well as to the university (Gibbons, et al., 1994). These
two-types of knowledge, Gibbons and others argued, are related to all theknowledge functions consisting of research, teaching, learning and service, eventhough they are deeply related to the research function. In the emerging
knowledge society (= knowledge society 2), it is accurate to say that theAkira Arimoto

5

university and society at large could not survive without these knowledge
functions, especially research, teaching and student learning because of theirincreasing social significance.
Academic discipline, academic productivity and the R-T-S nexus
The relationship between knowledge and academic work is tightly coupledin the context where the university as an organization is involved in academic
work with various kinds of activities such as research, teaching, service, andmanagement and administration on the basis of “knowledge as stuff” (Clark,
1983). In general, knowledge consists of general knowledge and advanced
knowledge which is referred to as an academic discipline. In the modern
university, academic staff who usually specialize in their specific disciplines inorder to pursue research, teaching and service, develop these activities (Becher& Parry, 2007; Parry, 2007). Academics’ conformity to the academic
disciplines in which they specialize is fairly high as shown in the results of the
Changing Academic Profession (CAP) survey that compares the extent to which
each of the following affiliations is “very important”: academic discipline(60.4%); department (34.2%); institution (33.1%).
The university is an institution dealing with “knowledge as stuff” on which
all activities are based and conducts academic work integrating the functions ofknowledge. Accordingly, it is undeniable that academics are basically given
the role of pursuing this kind of academic work in the modern university.
Among these kinds of academic work, research has developed rapidly after
the introduction of the graduate school in the late 19th century and, as a result,research universities with graduate schools have developed to the point that theyencouraged a strong research orientation among academics who were solely
involved in teaching for many years in the pre-modern university. Related to
the rise of a research orientation, the study of “academic productivity”, a concept
derived from that of “scientific productivity” originally used by Robert K.
Merton as a technical term in his sociology of science inevitably arises, because
the main role of the academic research enterprise in the academic community is
to increase academic productivity, while the main role of the research enterprisein the scientific community is to increase scientific productivity (Merton &Storer, Eds., 1973; Shinbori, 1973; Arimoto, 1981, 1987, 2007, 2009b). The
concept of academic productivity is increasingly adaptable to various
phenomena such as Center of Learning (COL), Center of Excellence (COE), andUniversity ranking (Arimoto, Ed., 1996; Ben-David, 1977; MEXT-NISTEP,6

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world

2007; Shin, Toutkoushian & Teichler, Eds., 2011; van Vught & Ziegele, Eds.,
2012). This fact testifies to the weight that research has been assigned inacademic work in the modern university.
Competition for high research productivity naturally implies high academic
productivity including both research and teaching productivity, because researchand teaching are thought to be two vehicles indispensable to academic work. It
is noteworthy that this logic is adaptable not only to a research university but
also to a non-research university to a considerable degree. As a result, a R-T-S
nexus is necessary in the higher education in the 21st century including both theresearch university and non-university sector and also quality assurance of its
attainment is necessary (Clark, 1997; Nicholls, 2005; Arimoto, 2006).
Transformation from Teaching-Learning (T-L) to Teaching-Study (T-S)
An academic is thought to be a researcher and teacher at the same time in
the modern university. After research was accepted into the university,
providing students with expertise which was discovered by research activities
became an essential part of the teaching and learning process. University
teachers basically instruct students in the classroom on the basis of the research
conducted in the laboratory, the library and the office, teaching through researchas was the original meaning of the Humboldtian model of integration between
research and teaching (Ushiogi, 2008). “At the higher level, the teacher does
not exist for the sake of the student: both teacher and student have theirjustification in the common pursuit of knowledge” (von Humboldt, 1910 [1970],
p.249).
The university teacher described above is different from the pre-19th
century classroom where the academics’ work lay in requiring students to show
ability in recitation of a textbook, not of teaching the findings of research
activities (Ushiogi, 1986, 2008). Academic staffs were not used to conduct
research until that time, which may parallel today’s teachers in the elementaryand secondary schools who are not ordinarily required to conduct research.
Strictly speaking, students have to study instead of learning when they are taught
by teacher’s instructing through research, though they learn by themselves when
they are not taught by such teacher’s instruction. In this context, teaching-study(T-S nexus) is realized instead of teaching-learning (T-L nexus) in the modern
university. In this new process, students are expected to study with creative
thinking rather than to learn what teachers instruct without it.
The great effect of the medieval and pre-modern universities with their

Akira Arimoto

7

teaching orientation was recognized well in the time when the modern university
was established; hence the need to reform the old tradition. Actually, later inthe 19thcentury, American universities clung to the traditional type of teachingorientation. For example, Harvard University did not introduce research into
teaching consistently until the introduction of the elective system in the late 19th
century, although it succeeded in the tradition of teaching orientation derived
from the medieval university. “The forty-year campaign for the elective system
waged between 1869 and 1909 by Charles William Eliot, President of Harvard
University, is legendary. Through Eliot’s efforts, Harvard abolished all course
requirements except English composition by 1897” (Harper & Jackson, Eds.,
p.111).
Until that time, the academic staff who usually taught many subjects were
not true researchers specialized in a specific discipline but rather directors ofteaching in the classroom, – managing students’ recitation of the designatedtextbook. As Roger Geiger describes the 19th century college in the UnitedStates, they were “institutions that conveyed only textbook knowledge to mostly
adolescent boys”, (Geiger, Ed., 2000, p.1). Academics were not expected toresearch a specific discipline and also to teach students on the basis of theirmajor specialty in the discipline. However, a research orientation was
encouraged more and more after 1876 when Johns Hopkins University was
institutionalized as a “home of science” together with the establishment of a
graduate school for the first time in the history of the world’s higher education.
The research paradigm has substantially prevailed in modern universities
since they were institutionalized in Germany for the first time in the 19th century,even though the teaching and research nexus was proposed by the Humboldtian
ideal in early 20th century (von Humboldt, 1910).
Logic of R-T-S Nexus
In the third wave age, students’ importance increases gradually because ofquantitative growth thanks to the appearance of the universal stage of higher
education development, and in due course, it is undeniable that the function of
student learning (or study) increases its weight in both the university and thetotal society. Considering that teaching prevailed in the university before themodern time while research prevailed after the modern time, learning is expected
to prevail in the third wave age.
In the 21st century when the emphasis on learning is expected to increase,
the integration of research and teaching seems to have become fairly difficult to8

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world

realize perhaps because of the strong pressure of the research paradigm prevalent
in the university, – and the integration of research, teaching, and learning may beeven more difficult to realize. That this is true is attested to by the fact thatsome scholars have already discussed the problem of reconsidering scholarshipas well as the R-T-S nexus (von Humboldt, 1910; Clark, 1997; Boyer; 1990,
Nicholls, 2005).
Given this situation, if one thinks about how a fruitful outcome of theteaching and learning process can be obtained, it seems to be necessary to seek aharmonious relationship of the teacher’s intention for instructing and thestudent’s intention for learning. In other words, the most effective output will
be realized by integrating the intention of instructing through research on theside of the teacher with the expectation of study through research on the side of
the student.
Four categories can conceptually be created from a combination of teachers’
and students’ intentions and expectations: Type A (teacher+, student+); Type B(teacher+, student-); Type C (teacher-, student+); Type D (teacher-, student-).
Type A is thought to be decreasing today in universities and colleges to aconsiderable degree, though it theoretically represents the standard traditional
type of teaching and learning process. On the other hand, Types B, C, and D,
though they are deviant types, seem to be increasingly acceptable today in many
universities and colleges. Even so, Type D exists only conceptually andremains unavailable in practice. Among these four types, two types of A and B
which have teacher’s positive intention (+) are inside academia, while two typesof C and D which have teacher’s negative intention (-) are outside of academia –because academia must continue to be the institution with a teacher’s positive
intention for instructing.
Type B in particular is likely to become more popular among all types at atime when the emerging universal stage of higher education has inevitably
created a situation of super-diversification of students with less enthusiasm andability for study and learning. This is evident in the fact that a series of new
approaches to these students, such as remedial education, first-year educationand career education, are thought to be appropriate pedagogical approaches totheir needs so as lead them to active learning orientation. If we are to send
these students to a knowledge society, or even an inquiring society, before andafter their graduation from universities and colleges, it is clear that the R-T-S
nexus becomes more and more important so as to enhance these students’
academic achievements by transforming their intentions from negative topositive.

Akira Arimoto

9

Reinforcement of research orientation in fifteen years
1992 survey
The Carnegie International Survey on the Academic Profession was
conducted in 1992 by 14 participating countries1 (Altbach, Ed., 1996).
Based on the Carnegie survey, an analysis of academics’ orientation toresearch and teaching identified three types: a research orientation; a researchand teaching orientation; and a teaching orientation (Arimoto & Ehara, Eds.,
1996). The first type, designated a German model, stresses research more thanteaching, and is found in countries such as the Netherlands, Japan, Germany,
Sweden, and Korea. The second type, designated an Anglo-Saxon model,
stresses research and teaching evenly, and occurred in countries such as theUnited Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and Hong Kong. The third type,designated a Latin American model, stresses teaching more than research, and isfound in countries such as Argentina, Chile, and Brazil.
The Anglo-Saxon model seems to approach the Humboldtian ideal mostclosely in the sense that it seems to conform to the pattern of integrated researchand teaching. On the other hand, the German model, with its strong emphasis
on research, places too much emphasis on academic staff as researchers and too
little on students as learners. In contrast, the Latin American model puts moreweight on teaching and the students and less on research and the academic staff.
2007 survey
The CAP survey was conducted in 2007-2008 with the participation of 19
countries2 (Arimoto, Ed., 2008).
Figure 3, which is based on academics’ responses to Question B2“Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching orin research?”, shows teaching and research orientation by country in the state oforder from high percentage to low percentage in nineteen countries. Research1

In reality, 13 countries, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Germany, Israel, Japan, Korea (Republic ofKorea), the Netherlands, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, andone region, Hong Kong. From Asia, Japan, Korea and Hong Kong participated in the survey.
2
In reality, 18 countries, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, the United
Kingdom, and the United States, and one region, Hong Kong. From Asia, China, Japan,
Korea, Malaysia, and Hong Kong participated to the survey.

10

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the worldorientation is highest in Norway (83%), followed by Italy, Japan, Australia, andKorea, while teaching orientation is highest in Mexico (57%), followed by theUnited States, South Africa, China and Malaysia. These are the top fivecountries in research orientation and teaching orientation respectively. In Asia
differentiation of two groups is observable: a research group consisting of Japanand Korea, and a teaching group consisting of China and Malaysia. The total
average percentage in all countries for research orientation is 60 percent and thatfor teaching orientation is 40 percent and so research orientation is higher thanteaching orientation by 20 percent in all countries.

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Figure 3. Teaching and research orientation by country (%)

If one compares this result with that of seven countries such as Brazil, Hong
Kong, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States in the
Carnegie survey, which can provide data useful for a comparison of trends

Akira Arimoto

11

between the two surveys, the former (research) is 51 percent and the latter(teaching) is 50 percent (Arimoto, 2011, p.8).
Accordingly, the academic profession in all participating countries
reinforced its research orientation by 9 percent average increase from 51 to 60
percent in the fifteen years since 1992. As far as seven countries are concerned,
the average increase percentage is 7 percent from 51 to 58 percent. As far as 19
countries are concerned, the number of countries above average percentage forresearch orientation are ten countries including Canada, the United Kingdom,
Finland, Hong Kong and Germany in addition to the top five countries
mentioned above. The number of countries above average percentage forteaching orientation are nine countries including Brazil, Portugal, theNetherlands and Argentina in addition to the top five countries mentioned above.

Figure 4-1. Hours spent on research when classes are in session and not insession (arithmetic mean): advanced countries

Figure 4-2. Hours spent on research when classes are in session and not insession (arithmetic mean): developing countries
Note: CA: Canada, US: United States, FI: Finland, DE: Germany, IT: Italy, NL: Netherlands,
NO: Norway, PT: Portugal, UK: United Kingdom, AU: Australia, JP: Japan, KR: Korea,
HK: Hong Kong, AR: Argentina, BR: Brazil, MX: Mexico, ZA: South Africa, CH:
China, MY: Malaysia

12

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world

As Figures 4-1 & 4-2 show, total research time per week in session and not
in session in advanced countries is 38.5 hours, while it is 26.7 hours indeveloping countries. They are higher in advanced countries, especially timespent not in session. Total research time is higher in Italy, Canada, Korea,
Norway, and Japan, while it is lower in Brazil, South Africa, and Malaysia.
Intensified research orientation
According to CAP survey results, three types were transformed mainly tothe research orientation including the fact that numbers of countries with theAnglo Saxon type decreased while those with the German type increased (Figure3).
Summarizing these findings, one can recognize that the academic
profession worldwide has reinforced its research orientation during the fifteen
years since 1992. At the CAP Conference in 2009, William Cummings pointed
out that “While several countries exhibit an increased stress on research, nocountry for which there is data for both 1992 and 2009 indicates a notable
increase in the stress on teaching.” (Cummings, 2009, p.41) This fact meansthat the manifest increasing development of differentiation between research andteaching is now directly opposed to attainment of a Humboldtian ideal of
integrated research and teaching.
The international trend of intensifying research orientation has been
discussed thus far based on a comparative survey. Are there any differencesamong countries in terms of research orientation? It has previously been notedthat advanced countries have been more involved in research orientation thanemerging ones. Three types of countries can tentatively be categorized: core
(Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan), semi-core (Canada,
Australia, Korea, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, Portugal, and HongKong), and periphery (China, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Malaysia, and South
Africa).
Figures 5-1, 5-2 & 5-3 show percentage of research orientation by
university and non-university: core countries (68%, 45%), semi-core countries(72%, 51%), and periphery countries (51%, 40%). University is higher than
non-university in terms of research orientation in all countries.
What differences are can be seen among core, semi-core, and peripherycountries? Figures 6-1, 6-2 & 6-3 show that in average, core countries have notchanged (from 62% to 61%), while semi-core countries increased a little bit from60 to 65 percent. Periphery countries increased most from 37 to 46 percent.

Akira Arimoto

13

In the core countries, it is interesting that the United States decreased, while theUnited Kingdom increased. Precisely speaking, Germany (from 66% to 63%)
and Japan (from 73% to 71%) decreased slightly. In the semi-core countries
and periphery countries, all countries except the Netherlands increased. As aresult, it can be said that almost all countries except the U.S. and the Netherlands
increased research orientation in the past fifteen years.

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Figure 5-1. Research orientation by university and non-university:core-countries (%)

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Figure 5-2. Research orientation by university and non-university:semi-core-countries (%)

14

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Figure 5-3. Research orientation by university and non-university: peripherycountries (%)

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Figure 6-1. Research orientation by country in 1992 and 2007: core
countries (%)

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Figure 6-2. Research orientation by country in 1992 and 2007:
semi-core countries (%)

Akira Arimoto

15

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Figure 6-3. Research orientation by country in 1992 and 2007:
periphery countries (%)

Perspective for academics as well as students in the 21st century
Uncertain as well as unpredictable future

In the 21st century, growing trends such as the knowledge society,globalization, and marketization will be strengthened more and more so thatpeople will be increasingly confronted with an uncertain as well as unpredictable
future by amalgamation of these trends. At the same time, the universalization
stage coming after massification stage of higher education development will
necessarily bring about super-diversification of students against homogeneous
students in the elite stage and diversified students in the massification stage.
Probably, the individual student has to face unpredictable hard times throughout
his/her lifelong career, which is different from what other individual students
have had to face because each student must determine his/her own life-course.
Under this circumstance, the life-course of the individual student is expected toform creatively throughout life not only from entrance to the university tograduation but also from graduation to the death.
As was discussed previously, the teaching and research nexus has been
facing increasing difficulty of realization owing to the effects of the dominantresearch paradigm for many years and since development within the universityof a graduate school as a core place for research orientation. However,considering that among many social institutions only the university has thefunction of research and teaching together as its two indispensable vehicles, theachievement of integration of these two functions presents an inevitable problem
to be solved as soon as possible.
First, in a knowledge society, research-based teaching is necessary more orless at all levels of education from primary education to tertiary education.

16

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world

Furthermore, for a system of lifelong learning from birth to death,research-based teaching is necessary in order to develop human education for
independent and autonomous thinking. Especially this is true in universities
and colleges where integrated research and teaching is considered to be mostimportant among all levels of educational institutions.
Second, as part of their evolving professionalism, academics are expected
to pursue teaching through research rather than merely by instruction. Students
as learners have high possibilities of achievement from study as well as fromlearning when they are taught in universities and colleges by academic staffs
with research ability rather than those who lack it (Zuckerman, 1977).
Third, however, as discussed previously, the greater importance of learning(or study) in addition to that of teaching is increased to a great extent inaccordance with the needs of the universal stage of higher education
development. Accordingly, it appears inescapable that achieving an R-T-S
nexus will be extremely difficult in an environment that has yet to accept an R-T
nexus. Academics like Japanese academics, who are strongly involved inresearch orientation, have to resolve this difficult problem at all costs.
Is there different culture between university and non-university?
Figures 7-1 & 7-2 compare the research orientation between the university
and the non-university (other higher education), finding that the researchorientation is higher in university than in non-university in both advanced (71%,49%) and emerging countries (51%, 40%). The research orientation is stronger
in advanced than in emerging countries (71%, 51%; 49%, 40%). The researchorientation in university is also stronger in advanced countries. The researchorientation is higher than the average (71%) in some countries: Japan, Norway,
Finland, the Netherlands, Korea, Italy, and Australia. In some countries, theresearch orientation is especially stronger in university than in non-university at
the differentiation of more than 30%: Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, andthe United States.
Figures 8-1 & 8-2 reveal there is a closer relationship between scholarshipand original research in university than in non-university (other higher education
institutions) in advanced countries (73%, 63%), though there is even relationshipin emerging countries (58%, 58%).

Akira Arimoto

17

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Figure 7-1. Research orientation by university and non-university (%):
advanced countries

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Figure 7-2. Research orientation by university and non-university (%):
developing countries

Question B5: Please indicate your views on the following (Scale of answer 1=Strongly agree, to 5=Strongly disagree)

Figure 8-1. Relationship between scholarship and original research by
university and non-university (%): advanced countries

18

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world

Question B5: Please indicate your views on the following (Scale of answer 1=Strongly agree, to 5=Strongly disagree)

Figure 8-2. Relationship between scholarship and original research by
university and non-university (%): developing countries

In non-university, the research orientation is smaller in both advanced andemerging countries (63%, 58%), even though the former is slightly higher thanthe latter. As the result, we can underline the fact that university is considered
to reflect the characteristics of research university possessing high researchorientation because university has been usually given research university
function since modern university was institutionalized.
Based on this trend, the university sector having a research university
function has strengthened the research orientation thus far and it is assumed tostrengthen it in future when universities will be expected more and more to
become competitive institutions in the world ranking competition (Cf. Shin,Toutkoushian, & Teichler, Eds., 2011). On the other hand, the non-university
sector (other higher education institutions) will emphasize the teaching function
rather than research function by introducing the tertiary education function(Arimoto, 2012). Accordingly, the university is now at a turning point, seeking
a more research orientation like the function of graduate course and a teachingorientation like the function of undergraduate course in the midst of constructing
an R-T-S nexus as an ideal in the third wave age of higher education.

Concluding remarks
First, whether the university strengthens its role of a research orientation ora teaching orientation in the third wave age when the non-university sector,
especially tertiary education which is increasingly responsible for universal stageof higher education, is thought to be competing with the university in terms ofteaching to increasingly massified and diversified students.
Second, both teaching through research and learning (or study) throughAkira Arimoto

19

research are necessary, even though academics undertake teaching to conform tothe curriculum and students also undertake learning (study) to conform to theteachers and the curriculum.
Considering these factors, integration of research and teaching, and, evenmore, integration of research, teaching and learning (study) (R-T-S nexus) is
necessary. In reality, however, such integration is rarely achieved due to theincreasing tendency for differentiation between research and teaching.
Third, concerning the conflict between differentiation and integration ofteaching and research, the Carnegie survey identified conformity to three types:
a research orientation; a research and teaching orientation; and a teachingorientation. By the time of the CAP survey, after a fifteen-year interval, thedistribution between these types had changed to a considerable degree.
Academics’ conformity to a teaching orientation and to a research and teachingorientation had decreased, while conformity to a research orientation had
increased.
Fourth, as discussed in this paper, considering the present situation, in
which creating even an R-T nexus is difficult due to academics’ heavy
involvement in research orientation, will necessarily impose greater difficulty so
as to realize an R-T-S nexus.
Fifth, in this context, the academic profession worldwide is confronted withthe challenge of finding the means to achieve an ideal to be realized in the third
wave age of higher education development. On the other hand, the university is
now confronting a turning point of seeking a more research orientation like thefunction of graduate courses and also for teaching orientation like the function ofundergraduate courses in the midst of constructing an R-T-S nexus.

References
Altbach, P.G. (Ed.) (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen
Countries. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Arimoto, A. (1981). Sociology of Academics (in Japanese). Tokyo: Gakubunsha Publishing co.
Arimoto, A. (1987). Study of Mertonian Sociology of Science: Formation and Development of
Its Paradigm (in Japanese). Tokyo: Fukumura Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (2006). Institutionalization of Faculty Development with a Focus on Japan. In
RIHE (Ed.), Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia:International Perspectives (Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop,

20

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world
COE Publication Series, No.20, pp.3-20). Research Institute for Higher Education(RIHE), Hiroshima University.

Arimoto, A. (2007). National Research Policy and Higher Education Reforms with Focus on
Japanese Case. In S. Sorlin, & H. Vessuri, (Eds.), Knowledge Society vs. Knowledge
Economy: Knowledge, Power, and Politics (pp. 175-197). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Arimoto, A. (2009a). Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007. In
RIHE (Ed.), The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International,
Comparative, and Quantitative Perspectives (International Seminar Reports, No.13,
pp.1-37). RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Arimoto, A. (2009b). The Competitive Environment of Academic Productivity and theAcademic Research Enterprise in the Case of Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 29-46.
Arimoto, A. (2011). The Changing Nature of Academic Work from an International
Comparative Perspective. Higher Education Forum, 8 (March 2011, RIHE, Hiroshima
University), 1-22.
Arimoto, A. (2012). Linking Graduate and Undergraduate Education in the Knowledge
Society: Exploring Key Quality Issues from a Japanese Perspective. In D.E. Neubauer(Ed.) The Emergent Knowledge Society and the Future of Higher Education: Asian
Perspective. London and New York: Routledge.
Arimoto, A. (Ed.) (1996). Study of Center of Learning (in Japanese). Tokyo: Toshindo
Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (Ed.) (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in Japan (in Japanese) (CAPJ).
Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Arimoto, A. (Ed.) (2011). The Changing Academic Profession in the World (in Japanese).
Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Arimoto, A., & Ehara, T. (Eds.) (1996). International Comparison of the Academic Profession(in Japanese). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Becher, T., & Parry, S. (2007). The Endurance of the Disciplines. In I. Bleiklie, & M. Henkel(Eds.), Governing Knowledge: A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education㸫
A Fertscrift in Honour of Maurice Kogan (pp.133-144). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of Learning: Britain, France, Germany, United States: An
Essay. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Clark, B.R. (1983). Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National
Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, B.R. (1997). The Modern Integration of Research Activities with Teaching andAkira Arimoto

21

Learning. Journal of Higher Education, 68 (3, May-June 1997), 241-55.
Cummings, W.K., (2009). Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy. In RIHE
(Ed.), The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International, Comparative,
and Quantitative Perspectives (International Seminar Reports, No.13, pp.33-55). RIHE,
Hiroshima University.
Geiger, R. (Ed.) (2000). The American College in the Nineteenth Century. Nashvill: Vanderbilt
University Press.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994) The
New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary
Societies. London: SAGE Publications.
Harper, S., & Jackson, J.F.L (Eds.) (2011). Introduction to American Higher Education. New
York and London: Routledge.
Kogan, M., & Teichler, U. (Eds.) (2007). Key Challenges to the Academic Profession,
UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge. Werkstattberichte, 65,
International Center for Higher Education Research Kassel at the University of Kassel.
Merton, R.K., & Storer, N.W. (Eds.) (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical andEmpirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MEXT-NISTEP. (2007). NISTEP REPORT No.102 (Report on the World Top Class COE inthe U.S.). Tokyo: MEXT-NISTEP.
Musselin, C. (2010). The Market for Academics. New York and London: Routledge.
Nicholls, G. (2005). The Challenge to Scholarship: Rethinking Learning, Teaching, andResearch, Key Issues in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Parry, S. (2007). Disciplines and Doctrates. Dordrecht: Springer.
RIHE. (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in International, Comparative andQuantitative Perspectives (International Seminar Reports No.12). Hiroshima: RIHE,
Hiroshima University.
RIHE. (2009). The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International,
Comparative, and Quantitative Perspective (International Seminar Reports No.13).
Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Shin, J.C., Toutkoushian, R.K., & Teichler, U. (Eds.) (2011). University Rankings: Theoretical
Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Shinbori, M. (1973). Research of Academic Productivity (in Japanese). Daigaku Ronshu,(No.1,
pp.11-19). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Ushiogi, M. (1986). A Report on Campus Ecology (in Japanese). Tokyo: Chuokoron
Publishing Co.
Ushiogi, M. (2008). Is The End of Humboldtian Ideal?: New Dimension of Modern University(in Japanese). Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing Co.
Van Vught, F.A., & Ziegele, F. (Eds.) (2012). Multidimensional Ranking: The Design and22

The Academic Profession in International and Comparative Perspectives: trends in Asia and the world
Development of U-Mulitrank. Dordrecht: Springer.

Von Humboldt, W. (1910). On the Spirit and the Organizational Framework of Intellectual
Institutions. Berlin. E. Shils (Trans.), Minelva, 8 (1970), 242-50.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: The
Free Press.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 2013

23

What Happened to Universal Education?
– in the West and in Asia –William K. Cummings and Katrina Santner

Introduction
Higher education once viewed as an elite privilege has become more widely
experienced. The early leader it its expansion was the United States where by
the late 1970s about 80 percent of the high school graduates class were enteringsome form of tertiary institution, the Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) was over 50
percent, and approximately 40 percent of the college age cohort “attained” adegree. Canada and a few European countries were slightly behind the UnitedStates in terms of these indicators of tertiary educational participation.
In Asia, Japan was the leader with about 45 percent of the late 1970’s highschool cohort entering a tertiary institution, and nearly all who enteredcompleted their degree program.
Reflecting on the elitist character of tertiary education systems, Martin
Trow (2005) predicted that most systems were destined to follow the UnitedStates lead of expansion or massification, and he suggested that might entail:New students less prepared
New students in search of practical education
Students unwilling to pay full fare
Shift from universities to teach only institutions
So growth of junior colleges, distance education, etc.

Professor of International Education, The Graduate School of Education and Human
Development and The Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington
University, USA, e-mail: wkcum@gwu.edu
Master’s Student, The George Washington University, USA, e-mail: ksantner@gwu.edu

24

What Happened to Universal Education? −in the West and in Asia−

And for the United States and Japan he predicted continuing expansion
towards advanced massification or even universal higher education.
This study will review what has happened since then, why, and what are theimplications for the academy and for youth? Special attention will be devoted
to the Asian experience.

But what has happened?
At the time of Trow’s projection, the Tertiary Gross Enrollment Ratio(TGER) was the preferred indicator of educational development (and it still is
the indicator with the widest coverage). In terms of the TGER, both the UnitedStates and Japan exhibit further massification between 1980 and 2005 (Table 1)– though both are outpaced by South Korea and Finland. And several othersystems follow closely (Sweden, New Zealand, Norway).
But some analysts prefer to focus on the proportion of the age group that
actually complete an academic program – as contrasted to the proportion who
simply enroll. In East Asia, most who start a program complete it. In contrast,in the United States and many European countries only a fraction who enter atertiary program complete it in a timely manner; indeed, a sizeable minority who
begin a tertiary program never complete it. Reflecting this preference, tertiary
educational participation can be measured by the percent of an age cohort“attaining” tertiary education (that is, actually completing a certificate or degree
program). Then the 55-64 age cohort in 2010 is roughly equivalent to the
Tertiary Gross Enrollment in 1980 (TGER80) group and the 25-34 age cohort isequivalent to the Tertiary Gross Enrollment in 2005 (TGER05) group.
For many countries the TGER80 is similar to the 55-64 higher educational
attainment indicator (e.g. for Japan 31 % and 29 %, for South Korea 13 % and
13 %, for Finland 32 % and 30 % respectively). The United States represent a
different pattern with a TGER80 of 53 percent compared to a 55-64 educational
attainment of 41 percent; Canada, France, and Sweden share in this pattern.
Focusing on the trend of educational attainment over time, most countries
report a steady increase. The United States is a notable exception with noincrease in the percent attaining a credential of educational attainment over the
past 30+ years – that is with a steady 40 to 43 percent level across the
progressive age cohorts. The expansion in enrollment (or participation) is notaccompanied by an expansion in attainment. Put differently, the system has
become significantly less efficient over time. Israel is another country with thistrend.

William K. Cummings & Katrina Santner

25

Table 1. TGER for 1980/2005 and percent of population that has attained
tertiary education (2010) by age groups
TGER80

TGER05

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

United States

53

82

42

43

40

41

Japan

31

55

57

50

46

29

South Korea

13

94

65

47

27

13

Norway

25

79

47

41

33

27

Ireland

17

56

48

42

30

21

Russia

45

72

55

58

54

44

Canada

48

60

56

57

47

42

New Zealand

26

81

46

42

39

34

United Kingdom

19

48

46

41

35

30

France

25

55

43

34

22

18

Israel

31

58

44

49

44

45

Sweden

36

82

42

37

30

27

Finland

32

92

39

46

39

30

Source: OECD, Education at a Glance 2010, Table A1.3a; World Development Indicators.

For most countries, the increase in TGER has been accompanied by anincrease in the percent attaining a credential of program completion. In a few
cases the increases for the two indicators are about the same (Japan, Ireland,
Russia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and France). For example, Japan
experienced an increase of 24 percent in TGER and an increase of 28 percent of
the cohort attaining a credential.1
An equally common pattern is for both indicators to increase, but with the
TGER increasing much more rapidly as in the cases of South Korea, Norway,
New Zealand, Sweden, and Finland.

Data issues and patterns
Moving beyond Asia, there are several anomalies of the data that need to beconsidered:
1. The old measures (percent of high school graduates going on and GER)
were crude. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
1

Japan has experienced an increase in the percent of the cohort attaining a tertiary degree, but
Japan has experienced a sharp decrease in the size of its youngest cohort so in terms of actual
numbers Japanese enrolments have decreased (not shown here).

26

What Happened to Universal Education? −in the West and in Asia−(OECD) has collected more precise data – percent of age cohort attaining
a degree.
2. Some of the data may be misleading – e.g. the Japanese data probably
neglected or undercounted tertiary type b.
3. Expansion involves both percent change and volume change – which isit ?
a. In the case of the United States, size of cohort increases making
possible volume change while cohort size is stable.
b. In the case of Japan, size of cohort actually decreases. So cohort
percent goes up, even though the number of youth attending
colleges may go down.
4. Trow focused on Europe where baseline TGER were in the 10-25 percent
range. But for Asia, 1980 baseline is often much lower – e.g. in China
only 1.2 percent. Still the rapid expansion in recent years is often
thought of as massification. Similarly today many African countries aregoing through rapid expansion from low baselines, and they refer to thisas massification. So for many analysts the massification concept may
refer to the rate of expansion instead of the level of participation or
attainment.

A note on the United States
Unique features of these two countries labor markets and demographics
explain why their enrollment and attainment rates have plateaued somewhat
short universal education.
1. Human Resources
The importance of human resources for national development isrecognized in the United States but there also has been competition to use
funds traditionally allocated to human resources for other purposes (e.g.
welfare, health, defense, transportation). So there is an increased
tendency to say higher education is a private good. But the public finds
the costs to be high, so where market driven the demand for higher
education has been somewhat dampened.
2. Major Differences in College Preparation
Major differences in college preparation of high school students –American youth have weak preparation. Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) data are illustrative. (Table 5) College may
be a shock, leading to students dropping out, at least for a while. The

William K. Cummings & Katrina Santner

27

percent of youth who attend and graduate from high school is high. The
percent of high school students who enter some kind of tertiary
institution is also high. But a very large proportion of these entrants
drop out in a few months to one year after entering.
3. Re-entry
Students possibly drop back in at a later date – thus adding numbers toolder cohorts
4. Major Differences in Institutional Retention
The norm is stricter in the United States; a typical four-year institution
only expects 50 percent of entrants to graduate.
5. Institutional Openess to Transfers
American institutions welcome quality transfers.
6. Differences in Student Loyalty
Student loyalty is weak in United States; students readily considertransferring if it will benefit their image or marketability (an illustrationis sports transfers, but equally applies to academic transfers)
7. Differences in Corporate Acceptance of Training of Others
United States employers actually place a positive value on student
transfer to acquire new experience, but Japanese employers are skepticalof such behavior. Hence Japanese participation in tertiary is largely
limited to college days, whereas United States is more diversified in timeand place.
Table 2. TGER for several Asian countries 1980 and 2005
Country

TGER05TGER80

China

19.4

1.2

India

10.8

5

Indonesia

16.5

3.7

South Korea

93.5

12.8

Malaysia

29.3

4.1

Mongolia

44.7

26.3

Philippines

27.5

24.2

Thailand

43.9

10.3

Vietnam

15.7

2.5

Note: Excepting the Philippines, the Asian countries had modest TGER in 1980 (Mongolia
figures are doubtful). But since the 80s there has been explosive growth in South
Korea and very rapid growth in Thailand, approaching the Japanese level. And
there has been significant growth in many other Asian countries. While the region ismuch poorer than Europe, higher education enrollment has caught up.

28

What Happened to Universal Education? −in the West and in Asia−

What about other Asian countries?
We conclude that many of the developments since the 1970s concerning
massification are surprising. Specifics are quite different from those Trow
predicted – the United States and Japan are passed by other countries, Asia
passes Europe. Nonetheless his arguments are stimulating and clearly
demonstrate dramatic expansion over the past two decades.

Correlates of massification
One method of analyzing the differences in the levels of massification is to
examine the statistical association of indicators of massification (e.g. Tertiary
Educational Attainment of those aged 25-34 and the Tertiary GER) withappropriate indicators of socioeconomic change. Table 3 presents somepreliminary findings for a group of 57 countries (29 countries for educational
attainment). The table suggests that the higher the economic level of a society,the higher is the percentage of youth enrolled in higher education. But thehigher the population growth rate the lower is the tertiary enrollment rate. The
higher the secondary enrollment rate and the higher the secondary level
graduation rate the higher is the tertiary enrollment rate. The larger the private
sector’s share of total tertiary places, the higher is the percentage of youth
enrolled in higher education. The greater the public expenditure on educationand especially on research, the greater the enrollment and completion rates.
Interestingly measures of economic globalization and of in-migration were notrelated to rates of tertiary enrollment or attainment.
These correlations invite more complex multiple regression analyses.
Table 3. Pearson correlations of socioeconomic indicators with two indicators oftertiary level participation
Tertiary Ed attainmentof those age 25-34

TGER 2005

GDP per capita

.432

.474

Population growth rate

-.279

-.597

Secondary GER

.501

.609

Graduation rate 2005

.661

.760

% Tertiary enrollment in private sector

.283

.142

Public spending on education as % of GDP

.060

.360

Public spending on R&D as % of GDP

.439

.508

William K. Cummings & Katrina Santner

29

Some consequences of massification
Massification is now seen as inevitable. On the positive side it expands
opportunities for eager youth. But the literature suggests it may have several
negative correlates:
Resources are spread thinnerClass sizes increase
Students are not as well prepared
Instruction becomes mechanized
Some faculty become teaching machines, with research being neglected
Are these suggested negative correlates true or false?
somewhere in between and if so why?

Or are they

Concerning resources
Table 4 suggests a possibility concerning resources. In six cases of the ten
countries included, the increase in student numbers is greater than the increase in
number of faculty. But in four the opposite is true, that is the student-teacher
ratio decreased with massification.
Table 4. Enrollment in total tertiary education, GER, and teaching staff, 1992-2007
Year

1992
Total
tertiary

GER

Australia

559,365

0.40

Hong Kong, China

85,214

0.19

Japan

2,899,143

0.30South Korea

1,761,775

Brazil

1,591,176

MexicoGermany
Netherlands

2007%
Increasein Totaltertiary%
Increasein Teaching
staff

Total
tertiary

GER

28,417

1,083,715

0.75

34,413

94

21

5,978

194,236

0.42

10,500128

76

286,166

4,032,625

0.59

515,732

39

80

0.40

77,4583,208,591

0.96

201,851

82

161

0.10

134,4035,272,877

n.a.

367,638231

174

1,302,590

0.13

134,424

2,528,664

0.28

274,61894

104

2,033,702

0.35

279,806

2,278,897

n.a.

295,447

12

6

Teaching
staff

Teaching
staff

493,563

0.42

41,217590,1210.62

44,63220

8United Kingdom

1,385,072

0.33

89,5002,362,815

0.58

129,930

71

45

United States

14,360,965

0.78

826,000

17,758,870

0.86

1,310,453

24

59

Source: UNESCO. For Australia: Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations(and its antecedents). ‘STAG1992’ and ‘STAG2007’ Staff aggregated data sets.
Notes: Mexico 1993 data, Mexico Teaching Staff for 1991, Germany 2007 Total Tertiary excludes
ISCED Level 6 and hence GER 2007 (Levels 5&6) is not available, Germany Teaching
Staff is for 1993. UNESCO does not provide statistics for Hong Kong, so we report
estimates supplied by the Hong Kong research team. Australian figures include academic
staff who only do research.

30

What Happened to Universal Education? −in the West and in Asia−

Concerning student preparation
A frequent assertion is that massification is associated with admitting
increasing numbers of poorly prepared youth into higher education. Within
particular countries this may be the case. But across countries, as illustrated inTable 5, the countries with the highest average academic achievement are theones that have the highest levels of massification – in other words, a relation justthe opposite of expectations.2
Table 5. Extent of massification and 2003 math achievement among OECD countries% 25-34 years old
with HE in 2010

2

PISA 2003 MathSouth Korea

65

542

Japan

57

534

Canada56

532

Russia55

Ireland48

Norway47

495

New Zealand

46

523

United Kingdom

46

503

Australia

44

Israel44524

France43

Sweden42509

United States

42

483

Netherlands

41

538

Finland

39

544

Spain

39

485

Denmark38

514

Poland37490

Iceland36

515

Germany26

503

Greece26

445

Portugal25

466

Mexico

22

385

Italy

21

466

Argentina

16

Brazil

12

China

6

The two columns have a high spearman rank order correlation of .65.

William K. Cummings & Katrina Santner

31

Faculty teaching and research
Yet another assumption is that massification leads to an increase in theacademic workload of individual professors. This may be because greater
effort is required to attract students, to retain them, and to secure the revenues tosupport academic research. Or it may stem from the need to formalize andbroaden the procedures used for measuring the performance of the individuals
and units that comprise the academic enterprise.
One insight on faculty work comes from the professors themselves. Thisis possible by using the CAP survey of 19 countries including Japan and theUnited States – which we have been working on for the last 5 years – inconjunction with a similar survey carried out in 1992.
The surveys give an indication of what professors do and what they think
about what they do. For the analysis below, we have divided the 19 countries
into three groups – the first called the elite group refers to those systems that still
have low enrollment rates; at the other extreme is the advanced mass groupwhere enrollment rates exceed 50 percent; and finally there is the in-between ortransitional group. The systems in these respective stages are as follows:
Elite: Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia, Mexico, China, South Africa
Transitional: Hong Kong, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal
Mass: United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Norway, Japan, South Korea,
Australia
Are there differences between professors who work in university systems
that have reached the higher end of the mass stage compared to those in systems
that are still essentially at the elite stage?
Work load
Our interest here is in differences in faculty load as systems approach or
realize the mass stage of expansion – do the professors in systems at this stage
work harder or differently when compared to professors at the elite stage or thetransitional stage?
Actually at the undergraduate level, professors in the elite systems have on
average more students – though this is an average elevated by the large number
reported for South Africa. At the graduate level, professors in the advanced
mass systems have the most students. They have a modest edge at the masters
level, while at the doctoral the average for professors in the elite systems is 2.7
students compared to 5 in the transitional systems and 6 in the mass systems.

32

What Happened to Universal Education? −in the West and in Asia−

Concerning total hours of work per week, there also are modest differences:
39 hours per week in the elite, 44 in transition, 45.7 in mass. For the systems at
the elite stage, teaching gets the greatest allocation, whereas professors in theadvanced mass stage spend as many hours on teaching as do those in the elite
stage, but on top of that they spend more time on administration and on research.
Hence the total is greater.
Perceptions of teaching
Tables 6 & 7 present several indicators relating to the content of teaching,comparing the findings by the elite to mass stage (additionally given the Asia
focus of this meeting we provide the country scores for CAP Asia countries).
For example, the professors at all three stages of massification say they spend
more time than they like teaching basic skills. Also all three groups note thatthey stress practical knowledge. What stands out in Table 6 is the perception byprofessors in the massified group that they are encouraged to improve theirinstructional skills.
Table 6. Views on teaching

Practically oriented
Spend more time thanI like teaching basic
skillsEncouraged to
improve instructional
skillsElite

Transition

Mass

Average

Jp

K

Ci

Hk

M

78

68

65

70

53

76

76

69

68

60

56

56

57

61

58

58

56

50

51

40

58

50

67

62

63

53

63

Jp: Japan, K: South Korea, Ci: China, Hk: Hong Kong, M: Malaysia

Table 7. Innovations in teaching
Elite

Transition

Mass

Average

Jp

K

Ci

Hk

M

Individualized

70

63

77

70

77

56

69

78

72

Projects

46

48

46

47

25

45

24

59

78

ICT-based

37

25

27

29

31

7

31

29

49

Distance Education

19

13

16

16

5

12

5

9

15

Develop new material

61

72

69

69

28

63

25

77

70

Curriculum
development

54

55

59

56

25

49

38

62

68

William K. Cummings & Katrina Santner

33

Table 7 presents several potential areas for improvement. Professors in
the elite stage universities are as likely to use Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) or to provide some of their instruction via distance learning as
are the professors in the mass systems. On the other hand, professors in themass stage systems are more likely to provide individualized instruction and to
devote more time to developing new materials for their courses as well as
reviewing and improving the curriculum.
Research expectations
Whereas the expectations for teaching differ only modestly by stage, thosefor research are more dramatic. As illustrated in Table 8, professors in mass
stage systems are much more likely to perceive pressure for high research
productivity and particularly for research that is useful. While we have notprovided the breakdown, these differences are especially evident in the top strata
institutions of the mass stage.
To respond to these high expectations for research productivity, professors
in the mass stage systems are more likely to report that they are expected to raise
external funds (Table 9), though overall they are no more likely than professors
in the elite and transitional systems to perceive that their institutions expect themto engage in commercially oriented research. Ironically professors in China areamong those reporting the greatest pressure to engage in commercially oriented
research.
Table 8. Expectations from research
Elite

Transition

Mass

Average

Jp

K

Ci

Hk

M

Expectation ofresearch productivity

54

62

66

61

60

61

57

70

45

Expectation of useful
research

43

52

55

50

54

49

49

60

40

Table 9. Other research items
Elite

Transition

Mass

Average

Jp

K

Ci

Hk

M

Academics expected toraise external funds

53

76

75

65

78

59

48

76

55

Institution encourages
commercially oriented
research

37

38

41

39

27

31

42

34

65

34

What Happened to Universal Education? −in the West and in Asia−

Management
The major differences in the academic work of elite and mass systems seemto lie in the details. The number of hours that professors work are not thatdifferent nor is there a big difference in the allocation of time by function.
However, within the respective functions there are interesting differences.
Professors in the mass systems report greater pressure to improve theirinstruction by individualizing it and by updating the curriculum as well as the
instructional materials.
Especially concerning research productivity andfunding, professors in the mass systems report a stronger feeling of managerialpressure.
Table 10 suggests that professors in the mass systems perceive more
attention being devoted by managers to performance evaluation, both in theareas of teaching and research. Yet while managers devote more effort toward
performance evaluation, the professors in the mass systems report that thecommunication is not as good. Being asked to do more and being evaluated on
their compliance with these requests, yet not receiving clear explanations ofwhat is expected, professors in the mass systems are more likely to report that
their work is a source of considerable strain.
Also we computed a Spearman rank order correlation between tertiary
educational attainment of 25-34 year olds and the percent in the system who areexperiencing considerable strain; the coefficient was a substantial 0.67.3
Still the main story seems to be that professors in mass systems have about
the same reaction to their work as do professors at the elite stage – work content
is broadly similar as is work satisfaction. So this leads us to question thedoomsday predictions of some commentators on massification.
Table 10. Management pattern
Elite

Transition

Mass

Average

Jp

K

Ci

Hk

M

49

38

57

48

45

17

60

64

57

41

50

49

47

31

20

35

26

50

Good communication

37

25

27

27

24

20

35

26

50

Work source ofconsiderable strain

32

43

50

40

59

68

53

42

20

Performanceorientation
Dept head active inresearch evaluation

3

In a separate analysis we compared work load and content by the types of coordinating
systems in the respective national systems. Professors in systems with a market coordinating
system were the most likely to experience considerable strain.

William K. Cummings & Katrina Santner

35

Conclusion
In the field of higher education, perhaps no topic gets as much attention as
massification. Focusing upon the United States and Japan, we have considered
the general trends and then the reaction of professors to them. Massification,
especially rapid massification, can create strains for the higher educationenterprise – and for those teaching in this enterprise. Among the 19 countries
included in the CAP survey, South Korea has experienced the most rapid andradical massification and the Korean professoriate voice the highest incidence ofstrain. But overall the differences are not excessive. Mass higher education
looks much the same as elite higher education.
So how can higher education maximize the benefits associated withmassification and minimize the pain?
1. Foster collaborative relation between faculty and administration
2. Proceed slowly and deliberately
3. Maintain good ratios between faculty and students
4. Restrain impulse to introduce too many curricular innovations – go about
this deliberately and with adequate consultation with faculty
5. Limit emphasis on performance evaluations

Reference
Trow, M. (2005). Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access: Forms
and Phases of Higher Education in Modern Societies since WWII. In J.J.F. Forest, & P.G.
Altbach (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education (pp.243-280). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.

Presentations
Governance & Management

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 201337

The Spread of Western Learning to the East and theFormation of the Modern Chinese Academic
Profession

Fengqiao Yan

Introduction
Some historians record that prior to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), theworld remained in the pre-modern period, and the world development pattern
was very different than today. According to the statistical and econometricanalyses of Angus Maddison (2008, p.1) on world economy, China kept her
leading position in the world from the 10th century to the 15th century. Europe
did not catch up with China until the 17th or 18th century. Before the Qing
Dynasty (1636-1912), exchanges between East and West were very rare;
however, they were on the same page in academic progress. In On the Trend of
China Academic Thought Changes (2006[1902], p.2), Liang Qichao said “if welook through the world history, Chinese academic thoughts could be ranked firstboth before and during the Middle Age. However, we Chinese should beshamed about our academic progress and results in modern times.” China had
more than 1,200 academies (shuyuan) during the Ming Dynasty while Europe
only had dozens of universities (Fan, 2011, p.2). Therefore, Prof. William
Kirby (2009) from Harvard University once said the Harvard established in 1636
could not compete with Donglin Academy founded in China at the same time.
Dr. Joseph Needham, an expert on China studies, has also pointed out that before
the 16th century, overall scientific development in China outclassed that ofwestern countries (Needham, as cited in Fan 2011, p.1).
Professor, Institute of Economics of Education, Graduate School of Education, Peking
University, People’s Republic of China, e-mail: fqyan@gse.pku.edu.cn

38

The Spread of Western Learning to the East and the Formation of the Modern Chinese Academic Profession

Since the Age of Discovery in the 15th century, Europe had accelerated its
international trade and military expansion; the 17th century saw a series ofhistoric events in Europe which helped to promote modernization; and the
combination of rationalism and empiricism in the West in the 16th and 17th
centuries helped to form the spiritual foundation of modern science and themodern scientific research method system characterized by experiments andinduction, improving academic development (Barber, 1991[1970], p.60 & p.69).
The new generation of scientists, including Copernicus and Newton, advanced
new disciplines such as astronomy, physics, mathematics, etc. The founding of
the Royal Society in 1662 and the French Academy of Sciences in 1666 marked
the beginning of the scientific research system (Chen, 2010). Fortunes gained
during the Industrial Revolution initiated by the invention of the steam engine
outnumbered what humankind had accumulated previously. After that, westerncountries gradually became the world bellwether. The establishment of
Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin launched the modern university prototype which
integrates teaching and research. At the end of the Qing Dynasty (late 19th
century), the West surpassed China in science, social sciences and many otherfields, while China was just awaken from its empire dream to look around theworld.
Throughout history intellectuals have existed both in the East and the West.
However, Eastern intellectuals differ dramatically from those in the West, in
terms of ‘community’ and the ‘individual’. The ‘individual’ incorporates apersonal thinking mode, value system, and academic methods, whereas‘community’ can be characterized as a cooperative model, organization form,social status etc. From a comparative perspective, Chinese academia habituates
itself to a thought that man is an integral part of nature (Tian ren he yi). From
the Sui (581-618) and the Tang (618-907) Dynasties to the late Qing Dynasty,
Chinese scholars treated learning as a way to attain official position and fame,
while Western scholars focused on study and speculation, becoming an
independent force apart from religion and authority in the society and cultivatinga tradition of learning for the sake of knowledge. Empiricism, rationalism,
humanism, and romanticism in the western context has never happened in China.
The three major academic forms in China – poetry and prose (ci zhang),philosophical connotations (yi li); and textual research (kao ju) – found nocounterparts in western culture. From an historical perspective, China has
undergone different academic atmospheres in different dynasties: Confucianclassic (ru xue) studies in the Han Dynasty, metaphysics (xuan xue) in the Wei
and Jin Dynasties, philosophy (li xue) in the Song and Ming Dynasties;

Fengqiao Yan

39philology (pu xue) in the Qing Dynasty, etc. (Liu, 2008, p.33). In Chinese
academic history, there have been various so-called academic paradigms asadvanced by Thomas S. Kuhn and transitions between them, such as the disputes
between the Old Text School (gu wen jing xue) and the New Text School (jinwen jing xue).
Only modern academia in the West and that in the East since the late 19th
century are comparable. The scholarly community of modern China did notform until the end of the Qing Dynasty when western learning spread to the east;
the integration between Chinese learning and western learning defines aboundary between past and modern academia in China. Since then, a modern
sense of academic institutions and intellectuals has come into existence, and theChinese academic system really has become in reality a constituent part of theworld academic community. According to Zuo Yuhe (2008a, p.56) modern
universities in China were products of the imitation and transplantation ofwestern universities in modern times, and differed greatly from the Imperial
College in feudal China. Zhou, Zhang, Sun & Guo (2012, p.10 & p.21) andother scholars have held that the transition from a traditional academy to amodern university dates from the late 19th century in China, and universities had
become a gathering place of modern scholars. For Liu Mengxi (2008, p.112),
the differentiation between modern and ancient academialies in the fact thatscholars bred a sense of academic independence and absorbed new concepts
from global community from the end of Qing Dynasty.
Prior to discussing formation of the modern academic profession from theend of the Qing Dynasty, a brief review of Chinese studies and research on theprofession, especially the academic profession, is presented.

Profession and academic profession
At the outset two concepts need to be differentiated: What is a profession?
What is an academic profession?
Various works define ‘profession’ similarly. Waddington (1985) sees aprofession as a group of people of special occupation who have self-control andautonomy without interference from others. Tang (2008) suggests thatprofession means a particular occupation which requires abstract theory andknowledge after a prolonged formal training. Furthermore, he advances
standards as follows to distinguish professional from non-professional:
Several attributes set professionals apart from non-professionals:(1) establishing formal means of recruiting and training members for

40

The Spread of Western Learning to the East and the Formation of the Modern Chinese Academic Profession

the occupation; (2) creating associations to disseminate knowledge
in the field, represent and promote the interests of its practitioners,
and regulate and standardize its practices; (3) establishing stringent
membership requirements and standards in practice; (4) getting
official recognition; (5) developing a code of ethnics to makeexclusive claims on qualifications, expertise, and jurisdiction. (Tang,
2008, pp.515-517)
In a word, externally, professionals need to meet high requirements so as to
avoid free entry of outsiders and to assure high income, and power to a certain
extent, a lot of freedom, and self-satisfaction in work. All the definitions above
are made against a western context. At that time, China had not formed suchdetailed social division of labor like doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers, andengineers in a background of agricultural economy. Patterned after the western
academic system, the modern Chinese academic system did not yield an
academic profession until the late Qing Dynasty, and thus a comparison could bereached in the fields of recruitment requirements, education and training,
regulation and theory, association and other academic system, all of which arecovered in the following passages.
As an objective social existence, the formation and development of aprofession is very complicated. Sociologists have different views about
profession, among which structural-functional analysis is the mainstream.
However, recently much criticism based on Hoyle (1994) has been directed
towards it: firstly profession, more of an Anglo-Saxon social phenomenon, does
not apply to some occupational types in Europe, for many European
professionals are employed by government; secondly, functionalistic
interpretation lacks historic elements and ignores that some professions are theproduct of power instead of its own performance; thirdly, the restricted access to
profession is the result of closure and credential rather than capacity; fourthly,
analysis based on controlling the market to get professional status and indicatorsfrom elite rationalization cannot reflect real working ability; fifthly, the term
‘profession’ is always manipulated by elites and government in a rhetorical andideological sense to enhance their control over schools.
As studies on profession continue, the concept is expanded from a meretechnical term, to an institutional and historical thought, which is related to acertain historic stage and a country’s trend during that time. In the Middle Ages,
only three occupations in Europe were passed from one generation to the next,that is doctors, lawyers and priests who also worked as teachers in universities
since the 12th century. At that time, universities had religious ties and only
recruited clergy as professors. With social development, new occupations

Fengqiao Yan

41

requiring skills appeared, and thus different kinds of professions grew. Any
occupation that demands prolonged training in a specific field can be called aprofession or a semi-profession. Before the 19th century, some professions
avoided dominance by the church, formed independent associations and gained
high social status. In the 19th century, dentists, architects, engineers and otherprofessions gained recognition. With the development of division of labor andenhancement of rationalism in the industrialized workplace in Europe and theUnited States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a trend toward
professionalization was more and more marked. Some occupations endeavoredto rise to a higher social rank through professionalization. In the United States,
universities took the role of promoting professionalization in technique andculture. For instance, pharmacists and masseurs became a marginal profession,nurses, teachers in public schools, social workers, and librarians, technicians,
assistants and lawyers became a semi-profession. (Waddington, 1985) Whensome countries entered post-industrial or knowledge-based economic societies in
the late 20th century, the range of professions and degree of professionalization
had advanced to a new level.
In the West, the professoriate has a long history, and only people withspecial training are qualified for it and enjoy some working freedom. Weber(1998) in his Science as a Vocation, presents four characteristics of the modern
academic profession firstly, devotion to academic research can earn a living;
secondly, scholars need to be specialized; thirdly, knowledge in modern
academia is no longer truth like religion, but can be constantly corrected anddiscarded; lastly, modern academic study shall be neutral and free from politicaland theoretical values. Above all, the summary is based on observation andstudies of western or German academia, which can be regarded as theoretical innature rather than a practical standard for China, for the traditional Chinese
intellectuals are distinct from that of modern Europe.
Although academic profession means all communities which are devoted toacademic research, it is often referred to as professors in universities inEnglish-speaking countries, for modern academic work usually takes place inuniversities and professors play a large role in the modern academic profession(Barber, 1991[1970], p.166). Especially in the popularization of higher
education, the number of professors has increased tremendously. Anotherrelated concept is ‘intellectual’. American scholar Edward Albert Shils defined
intellectual as people who regularly uses abstract symbols to express theirunderstanding towards life, society, nature and the universe, which includes
professor, experts on humanistic studies, personnel working in media and42

The Spread of Western Learning to the East and the Formation of the Modern Chinese Academic Profession

communication, editors, writers, free-lance writers and so on (Shils, as cited inXu, 2003, p.7-8). Externally, the range of the academic profession and that ofintellectuals has overlapping and different parts. The studies on these two
communities, likewise, share and differ at the same time. Their similarities lie
in that both pay attention to the tension between a group of knowledgeable
people with other social communities, especially the political one, while theirdifferences rest with the research focus: the academic profession emphasizes
community character, whereas intellectuals lay stress on a small number ofscholarly representatives, especially humanistic thinkers and their social
influence.
The academic profession expressed in sociological terms is examined in aparticular economic and political context. In different societies, the academic
professions have different features. In those continental countries like France,
Germany and Italy, professors are public servants, enjoying tenure as part of the
public service system. On the contrary, the British government abolished thetenure system in the 1980s, and replaced it with an employment system.
Moreover, tenure in the United States is widely divergent from that in Europe, inthat it is a special form of contract. In Latin America, professors have tocompete regularly with new applicants for their occupied positions (Lawrence,2008).
Based on the aforementioned summary of profession and the academic
profession, past research and studies focus on structure and function, whileneglecting political and institutional perspectives. Studies of the academic
profession in higher education literature are also not fully aware of matters like
associations, journals, academic standards, and academic philosophy. The next
section discusses the transition and formation of modern Chinese academia
around related aspects.

Transition of the Chinese traditional academy
In Chinese academic history, there were two open periods of learning whichwere open to other countries. The first one was in the Tang Dynasty whenpeople studied Buddhism in India, contributing to the fusion of Confucianism,
Buddhism and Taoism; the second one was the spread of western learning to theEast in the Qing Dynasty in which the Chinese modern academic system wasestablished. The academic in both of the above periods promoted the Chinese
academic system; however, the focus of this paper is on the spread of westernlearning to the East during the late Qing Dynasty. From the end of the Qing

Fengqiao Yan

43

Dynasty, western imperialist countries accelerated external expansion to poor
countries, including China. The Qing government was forced to sign a series ofunequal treaties with western countries which surrendered her sovereign rights
under humiliating terms. At that time, the Chinese government began toawaken from the dream of the Heavenly Kingdom, and began the modernizationof learning emulating western learning. Development of the academy andnational power interact with each other as both cause and effect. Realizing thelimitation of the traditional academy, Chinese scholars conducted a series ofrevolutions, such as introduction of western learning; founding modern learning;abolishing imperial examinations; founding new types of schools; the New
Culture Movement; etc. The process is called the spread of western learning to
the East, and is divided into two periods by Liang Qichao. The first one from1840 (First Opium War) to 1894 (the Sino-Japanese War), centered on theWesternization Movement with a policy of “Chinese learning as the base,western learning for application”. The second period from 1895 to 1919,
during which China carried out the Reform Movements of 1898 and 1911,
overthrew the feudal system, and founded the republic. The failure of the
Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 is attributed to the underdevelopment ofeducation. It is said “the reason for the western countries’ development is thatthey are better in education, rather than in military power” (as cited in Chen,
1996, p.97).
The following examples demonstrate that the effect western learning
exerted on the transition of the Chinese academy is comprehensive and dispersed.
Before the First Opium War, some western disciplines, including mathematics,
geography, industry, etc., were taken to China by European missionaries andbecame part of the curricula in church schools (Wu & Tian, 2012, p.45). Under
this aspect of Chinese Han learning (emphasizing textual research) and western
positivism, philology began to lead the academy in the Qing Dynasty (Elman,
2012, p.29).
Philologists are called Han scholars; philology was inherited from textual
criticism in the Han Dynasty. Philologists in the Qing Dynasty stressed morepositivism research than the tradition of abstract-study (xing xin zhi xue) (Elman,
2012, p.43). The scholars charged with compiling Si Ku Quan Shu (which isalso named Complete Library in the Four Branches of Literature) criticized thelack of academic contribution of the Ming Dynasty, and praised new creation in
the Qing Dynasty (Elman, 2012, p.51). However, the traditional intellectuals’
skeptical attitudes were limited merely to humanistic knowledge, as for thecreation in the field of science and society, their skepticism was ignored (Elman,

44

The Spread of Western Learning to the East and the Formation of the Modern Chinese Academic Profession

2012, p.176).
There are great differences between traditional Chinese learning andborrowed western learning. The traditional Chinese academy is characterized
by the following: firstly, Confucianism, predominant in the Chinese academy, isa kind of moral education, and Confucian orthodoxy which is believed by the
Chinese people is different from westerners’ belief system (Xu, 2003, p.94-95).
The Confucian school of idealist philosophy, which was formed in the Song
Dynasty and dominated the academy for a long period of time, focuses more on
the person than on objects. Scholars advocated that people cultivate their
original nature, to learn philosophy, and to despise the industry. Therefore, Liu
Mengxi (2008, p.27) noted that the most important separation of the Chinese
traditional academy and the modern academy is whether it focuses on the personor on learning. Secondly, the Chinese academy worships authority. Thereappeared different leading forms in each dynasty: philosophy (zi xue) in the
pre-Qin period; study of Confucian classics (ru xue) in the Han Dynasty;
metaphysics (xuan xue) in the Wei and Jin Dynasties; Buddhism (fo xue) in the
Sui and Tang Dynasties; the Confucian school of idealist philosophy (li xue) in
the Song and Ming Dynasties; philology (pu xue) in the Qing Dynasty, and New
study (xin xue) in the late Qing Dynasty (Liu, 2008, p.9). Thirdly, there
appeared a study style praising the harmonization from the warring states period(Luo, 2007, p.97). In the last two thousand years, the main stream of theChinese academy was to oppose to separating each course of knowledge, thus
the foundation of modern disciplines had not been layed. At the end of the
Qing Dynasty, the Chinese academy had seen the change from learning the
Confucian classics (jing), history (shi), philosophy (zi) and literature (ji) to sevenbranches of knowledge (that is science, engineering, farming, medicine, art, law,and business) (Zuo, 2004). In terms of form, Chinese traditional learning was
limited to art of western learning. From the end of Qing Dynasty, Chineseteachers began to place more emphasis upon the classification of the academy.
After the May 4th Movement of 1919, Mr. Hu Shi advocated reorganizing
cultural heritage, that is to sort out Chinese academic resources in history bymodern disciplines. In 1922, the School of Chinese culture (guo xue yuan) was
founded in Peking University, where the scholars came from departments ofChinese literature, history, and philosophy. This is an action to respond Mr. Hu
Shi’s advocating of reorganizing cultural heritage (Liu, 2008, p.107-108).
Fourthly, the Chinese traditional academy lacks logic and scientific method.
Mr. Yan Fu said, logic is “the most important method, and the most importantlearning”. He also said, “it is a truth that the more experiment you haveFengqiao Yan

45

operated, the more logic you will get.” (as cited in Liu, 2008, p.131-132). Mr.
Hu Shi considered that science is a method, an attitude, and a spirit: “Boldhypothesis and cautious verification” will contribute to the scientific method.

Formation of the modern Chinese academic profession
Ancient Chinese society consisted of four kinds of people: officials (shi),farmers (nong), workers (gong), and merchants (shang). The officials (shi)were government officers, rather than learners. While, one of the brightest
ways for the learners was to become officials, just as the old adage says a goodscholar will make an official. The close connection between scholars andofficials was based on the logic of governing a country-officials are the productof spirit and education, without which moral and educational skills cannot be
served for political order (Yu, 2012, p.131). Therefore, the social stratum oflearners (or professors) had not been formed due to the fact that only a few
people had the opportunity to obtain education in Chinese feudal society. Why
had there not been a modern academic career before late Qing Dynasty in China?
Firstly, the intellectuals lacked independence. Chinese feudal society saw the
integration of education and state (zheng jiao he yi), and that of government andscholars (guan xue he yi). Furthermore, the connection between education andgovernment was strengthened for the sake of the establishment of the imperial
civil examination system (ke ju), leading to the lack of academic independence,and the vagueness of the concept of teachers (Wu & Tian, 2012, p.10). Zhou
Guping et al. (2012, p.9) pointed out that traditional intellectuals did not havetheir identities due to the lack of knowledge ontology, political absolutism, andthe intellectuals’ impotence in social economic activities. Moreover, the deeproots of integrity of government and education made people maladjusted to thetransition from “learning from imperial’s professors” to learning from scholars
after the development of new schools (Wang, 2007, p.63). Secondly, professors
lack independence in the terms of the economy. For most teaching was viewed
as a sideline, rather than their way of life. Consequently, scholars would seek achance to become either an officer or a farmer (Wang, 2007, p.57). Finally, thenumber of intellectuals was reduced. Before the Qing Dynasty, the scale ofeducation was very small, both for public and private schools. After 1912,
when the Republic of China was founded, the total number of students of higher
education was 2,312 (as cited in Chen, 2012, p.31).
From the late Qing Dynasty, the academic profession began to form
alongside the social reforms which focused up on the idea of university and46

The Spread of Western Learning to the East and the Formation of the Modern Chinese Academic Profession

disciplinary knowledge, the establishment of modern academic institution,
academic association and the academic publication system.
I.

Establishment of the academic institution

From the late Qing Dynasty, China enhanced its traditional academic
system emulating learning in the West. In 1905, the Qing government banned
the thousand-year-old imperial examination system (ke ju), and then founded
several state institutions of higher learning, including Northern Imperial
University (1895), Nan Yang Public University (1896), Imperial University ofPeking (1898), and Shan Xi University (1902), all of which were embryonic
Chinese universities (Chen, 2012, p.15). During the 1920s to 1930s, China
followed the example of the west to found a series of research institutions,
including Academia Sinica, the National Academy of Peiping, and theDepartment of Chinese Classics in Peking University (Chen, 2002, Preface).
II.

The idea of the university

With the spread of western learning to the East, the idea of western
university management, represented by America and Germany, spread to China.
Mr. Cai Yuanpei, who was educated in Germany, translated The Features ofGerman Universities on Academic Journal in 1910, thereby introducing theconcept of the German university to China. The key figure of the German
university was academic priority, academic freedom, and academic autonomy, allof which were new to Chinese intellectuals (Zhou et al., 2012, p.72). In 1912,
the University Act was promulgated by Education Minister Mr. Cai Yuanpei,
declaring that the purpose of universities is to instruct indepth disciplinary
knowledge, cultivate intellectuals, and provide service to the state. At the
beginning of the 20th century, Dewey’s pragmatism exerted a deep influence on
Chinese universities as a result of the return of overseas students and Dewey’s
visit to China. Based on his research on American education, Mr. Cai Yuanpei
defined the features of American universities as ‘common’, which contained
vulgarization of the academy and popularization of educational opportunities.
The reason for the deep influence of pragmatism was firstly because university
students were required to be responsible for saving the country; secondly
because it was very compatible with Chinese traditional culture (Zhou, 2012,p.72).

Fengqiao Yan

47

III. The scientific research method
One of the key points of the Chinese academic transition is the formation ofscientific spirit. During the May 4th Movement in 1919, Chinese intellectuals
regarded science as scientific spirit and methods rather than subjects likemathematics, philosophy, chemistry and so on (Luo, 2009, p.331).
Liang Qichao (1902[2006], p.92) defined scientific spirit as following:Firstly, scholars should take a skeptical attitude, tend to find thedifferences, and then seek for the truth, rather than merely follow theformer learners. Secondly, when engage in scholarship, scholars
should trace to its roots with logic and examples. Thirdly, theacademic research should be taken as a system, requiring scholars tolearn from the former learners, and to innovate from the former
achievement. Even if the research cannot be complete, it may
contribute to the latter study. Fourthly, scholars are required to begood at comparison, with the help of which to find the best answer
from series of results.
Liang Qichao (1902[2006], pp.7-8) also pointed,
Just as Bacon recommended investigation of things, he insisted thatpeople cannot believe in the result unless it is verified; Descartes
also advocated that a theory which is believed even by the opponents
deserve following.
IV. The knowledge system and discipline classifications
During the May 4th Movement in 1919, ‘Mr. D’ (Democracy) and ‘Mr. S’(Science) were introduced to China from the West. Chinese learners introduced
the concept of democracy and science from Japan, the key result was to classify
the disciplines (Luo, 2009, p.227). Scholars in the department of Chineseclassics at Peking University adopted a modern discipline classification insorting out the traditional civilization, abandoning the old classification ofConfucian classification of classics, history, philosophy and literature.
Furthermore, they constructed and explained Chinese history and culture in the
new academic vernacular (Chen, 2002, p.327).
V.

Associations and journals
The Science Society of China exerted the most important influence on the

48

The Spread of Western Learning to the East and the Formation of the Modern Chinese Academic Profession

development of the concept of science because it tried to explain science andmethods (Zhang, 2008, p.96). In 1843, many western academic books weretranslated by the London Missionary Society Mission Press which wasestablished by British missionaries in Shanghai, introducing western science toChina. The translated books in Jiangnan Machinery Manufacture General
Bureau represented the apogee of learning western science in the late Qing
Dynasty. Shanghai Serial published by London Missionary Society Mission
Press in 1857 was the embryonic form of modern scientific journal, while The
Peking Magazine and the Chinese Scientific and Industrial Magazine created in
Beijing were the real scientific journals (Zhang, 2008, pp.28-31).

Concluding remarks
During the spread of western learning to the East in the late Qing Dynasty,
Chinese intellectuals were active in learning western academic achievements andreforming the traditional Chinese knowledge system. The academic profession
in modern terms developed in the formation of the corollary modern academic
system. It was one of the key points of Chinese intellectuals’ transition tomodern times that they changed from universal geniuses to experts. The
following processes, summarized by Mr. Chen Pingyuan, were very important intheir transition: firstly, they reformed the relationship between academy andpolitical; then, the methods system and discipline were founded; furthermore,
scholars revised the relationship between imparting professional knowledge andpropagating morality; the last, they shifted the priority of devoting to learningand morality education (Chen, 1998, pp.10-11).

References
Barber, B. (1991). Science and the Social Order, Collier Brooks [Gu Xi trans.]. Beijing: The
Joint Publishing Company Ltd. (Original work published 1970)
Chen, P.Y. (1998). The Formation of Chinese Modern Academy: on Zhang Taiyan and Hushi.
Beijing: Peking University Press.
Chen, S.W. (2010). The Evolution of Modern China’s Academia System and the Emergence of
the Academia Sinica, vol.7, no.2. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Chen, X.X. (1996). The Selected Works of Chinese Modern Education. Beijing: People’s
Education Press.

Fengqiao Yan

49

Chen, Y. (2012). On Chinese Professors: The Mutual Influence between Modern Professors,
Universities, and Society. Taiyuan: Shanxi Press & Media. & Shanxi Education Press.
Chen, Y.A. (2002). The Rise of the Chinese modern Academic Institutes. Nanchang: Jiangxi
Education Press.
Elman, A.B. (2012). From Philosophy to Philology [Zhao Gang trans.]. Nanjing: Jiangsu
Peoples Publishing Ltd. (Original work published 1984)
Fan, Y.Y. (2011). Dual Origin and System Formation. Wuhan: Huazhong University of
Science & Technology Press Co., Ltd.
Hoyle, E. (1994). Teachers as professionals. In Torsten Husen, & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.),
The International Encyclopedia of Education (vol.10, pp.6092-6096). Exeter, UK:
Pergamon.
Kirby, W. (2009). On the Universities of China, Europe, and America, China Scholarship,vol.7, no.1. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Lawrence, J.H. (2008). Professoriate. In W.A. Darity (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of theSocial Sciences (2nd edit., vol.6, p.517-521). Detroit: Thomson Gale.
Liang, Q.C. (1902/2006). On the Change of Chinese Academic Thoughts. Shanghai: ShanghaiCentury Publishing Group.
Liu, M.X. (2008). A Brief Introduction of Chinese Modern Academy. Beijing: The Joint
Publishing Company Ltd.
Luo, Z.T. (2007). The History and the World: From Culture to Figure. Beijing: Peking
University Press.
Luo, Z.T. (2009). The Inheritance in Reform: Chinese Culture and Academy in the Early
Twentieth Century. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.
Maddison, A. (2008). Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run AD, second edition.
Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press.
Rozman, G. (2010). The Modernization of China. Nanjing: Jiangsu Peoples Publishing Ltd. &Phoenix Publishing &Media.
Tang, J. (2008). Professionalization. In W.A. Darity (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of theSocial Sciences (2nd edit., vol. 6, p.515-517). Detroit: Thomson Gale.
Waddington, I. (1985). Professions. In A. Kuper, & J. Kuper (Eds.), The Social Science
Encyclopedia (p.650-651). Longdon: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wang, R.Q. (2007). Century of Chinese Modern Higher Education: Changes among State,
Academy and Market. Taipei: Research Centre for Chinese Mainland in National
Cheng-chi University.
Weber, M. (1998). Wissenschaft als Beruf und Politik als Beruf. Beijing: The Joint Publishing
Company Ltd.
Wu, H.C., & Tian, M. (2012). History of Professors in Late Qing Dynasty. Baoding: Hebei
University Press.

50

The Spread of Western Learning to the East and the Formation of the Modern Chinese Academic Profession

Xu, J.L. (2003). Ten Lectures on Chinese intellectuals. Shanghai: Fudan University Press.
Yu, Y.S. (2012). China Mood. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Zhang, J. (2008). Chinese Modern Science and Scientific Institutionalization. Chengdu:
Sichuan Publishing Group & Sichuan People’s Press.
Zhou, G.P., Zhang, Y., Sun, X.L., & Guo, C.H. (2012). Modern Transformation of Chinese
Universities. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University Press.
Zuo, Y.H. (2008a). Migration and transformation: The Establishment of Chinese Modern
Academic Institute. Zhengzhou: Daxiang Press.
Zuo, Y.H. (2008b). The Formation of Chinese Modern Academic System. Chengdu: Sichuan
Publishing Group & Sichuan People’s Press.
Zuo, Yuhe (2004). From Complete Library in the Four Branches of Literature to Seven
Branches of Knowledge: Academic Classification and the Formation of Chinese Modern
Knowledge System. Shanghai: Shanghai Bookstore Press.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 2013

51

Governance and Performance: the case study ofJapanese academic profession

Masataka Murasawa

1. Aim of this paper
This section focuses on the influence of governance on academic activities,
especially on research outcomes, through application of a multilevel statisticalanalysis method.
Specifically, the aim of this study is to examine how and to what extent
top-down or bottom-up governance based on the Academic Profession in Asia
(APA) survey held in Japan, shown in questionnaire E1, and the time cost of
governance involved with doing administrative work, shown in questionnaire B1,
affect research outcomes, shown in questionnaire D4_3.

2. Top-down and bottom-up governance in Japanese higher
education: influence of inside and outside actors on institutional
decision-making
Prior to beginning our causal analysis, summary statistics of indicators inthis slide are presented. These figures show the indicator of top-down andbottom-up governance that are composite variables of questionnaire E1 in APA.
These variables range from 0 to 11, indicating that the larger values
represent the stronger impact of actors on various decision-making in each
institution. As shown in Figure 1, faculty committees have more impact ondecision-making within institutions than the other actors.

Associate Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: mrswm@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

52

Governance and Performance: the case study of Japanese academic profession

Government

Institute manager

Department manager

Faculty committee

Individual faculty

Figure 1. Actors affecting institutional decision-making

Table 1 presents the correlations between actors of governance. The
relationship between each actor is negative. This suggests that each actor isalternative or even in conflict, and not complementary or not coexistent.
In this study, these variables are treated as indicators of top-down andbottom-up governance as a matter of convenience. However, the dividing point
between top-down and bottom-up is unclear. Incidentally, the indicator of
influence of students on internal governance is not used, because its variance isclose to zero.
This study also examines the time cost of governance. We represent thisconcept by using time spent for administrative work by faculties, as shown inquestionnaire B1. These figures provide the histogram, mean and medianvalues of research, teaching administrative work and social service.
This shows that time spent on administrative work is much shorter thanresearch and teaching, the average is 6.17 with the median of 5.0 hours.
Table1. Correlation matrix among actors influencing on institutional governance
1

2

3

4

5

1. Government, stakeholders

1.000

2. Institutional managers

.015

1.000

3. Academic unit managers-.032-.086***

1.000

4. Faculty committees/boards-.065 *-.437***-.310***

1.000

5. Individual faculty-.030-.100***-.029-.100***

1.000

6. Students

.014

.001

-.070 *-.029

.072 *

6

1.000

Note: significant at the 0.1 level; * significant at the 0.05 level; ** significant at the 0.01 level;*** significant at the 0.001 level.

Masataka Murasawa

53

Note: Indicator “Students” is not used because the variance is close to 0.

Figure 2. Relation among influential actors on institution-level governance:
visualization

researchteaching

administrativesocial service

Figure 3. Histogram, mean and median of time spent on various function by
Japanese academic profession

3. Performance measure: research outcome
The presented in Figure 3 histograms and the summary statistics are on two
kinds of research outcomes. One is on number of refereed articles and the otheris on number of all articles published. An average of 4.76 with a median of
2.00 refereed articles were written by Japanese faculties, and an average of over
8 with median 5 articles were published by Japanese faculties. As can easily berecognized, these distribution are not normal and the nature of data like articles
is count data with no negative value. Therefore, it is better to apply a moresuitable method, Poisson regression, to use those count data as response
variables.

54

Governance and Performance: the case study of Japanese academic profession

Number of referred articles

Number of articles

Figure 4. Histogram, mean and median of research outcome: number of articles

4. Methods
In order to accommodate the hierarchical design of APA data and the natureof count data, a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), in other words,
multilevel Poisson regression model, is employed for estimating the relationshipbetween research outcomes and higher education governance. The GLMM
represents a class of regression models arising in almost all areas of statisticalapplication with a hierarchical data structure. It is probably suitable for the
purpose of our analysis with the possible cluster effects at different levels (i.e.,
professors in 23 institutions) that naturally exist in the sampled data.
The simple random intercept model is estimated in this study with theequation shown in the presentation:
Yij =γ00 + ∑γpXpij + uj + eij, i=individual professors, j=institutions
Where Yij represents the number of articles or refereed articles published byan individual member i, affiliated with an institution j. Xpij are covariates with acorresponding vector of fixed effect coefficients γ and the number of covariates
is represented in p. The next variable uj capture the random effect atinstitution-level, in other words, the unobserved heterogeneities at theinstitution-level. The last term, eij, is defined as the disturbance that is notnecessarily normally distributed. In this case, based on the descriptive analysis

Masataka Murasawa

55of the raw data shown in Figure 4, Poisson distribution would be appropriate forthe maximum likelihood estimation of the above model. Thus, our estimation
model would be considered as the multilevel Poisson regression model.
In this model, the effect of institution-level governance on researchoutcome is focused on as fixed effects. Other explanatory variables were also
added: sex, year of birth, doctoral/master’s degree, academic rank, discipline as
the individual-level variables, type of institution as institution-level variables.

5. Estimation results
The GLMM estimation is presented in Table 2. It is noteworthy that
random effects in two models are found highly significant. This indicates that
it is essential to control the unobserved heterogeneities among institutions.
Squared and cubed effects of time spent in administrative work on researchoutcome are significant in model 1. Single and cubed effects of time spent in
administrative work on research outcome are significant in the model 2.
Top-down governance represented by the influence of government andoutside stakeholders on decision-making within institution, has significant
effects. Top-down governance has negative effect in model 1 and model 2 informer imperial universities, and positive effect in model 2. Bottom-up
governance represented by faculty committee influence on outcome has alsosignificant, positive effect on both model but negative in model 2 with former
imperial universities. Academic unit managers are difficult to define as
top-down or bottom-up governance indicators, because of the negative effectwith both institution managers and faculty committee. Academic unit
managers have limited positive effect on both models with former imperial
universities.
Estimated effects of time spent in administrative work on research outcome
by discipline are graphically summarized in the form of predicted values in thisFigure 5, with model 1. Research outcome of faculty gradually declines withadditional administrative workload. However, with over 15 hours of workload,
the outcomes gradually increase. This tendency, however, is only in theoreticalfigures. As practical value of administrative workload is thought to be around
5 to 6, the actual tendency is a reduction function, as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 denotes that academic productivity declined with an increase oftime devoted to administration, It also implies that time cost of governance up to
10 hours preclude the possibility of producing 1 article, especially in the majorof engineering, agriculture, natural science and health and medical science.

56

Governance and Performance: the case study of Japanese academic profession

Table 2. Causal analysis of governance and performance: GLMM estimation(Intercept)
Fixed effects:
Individual level(base=female)(base=1945)(base=bachelor)(base=professor)(base=humanities)

Sex (Male)
Year of birth
Doctor degree
Master degree
Associate Professor
Lecturer
Assistant Professor
Social science
Natural science
Engineering
Agriculture
Health and Medicine
Fine arts
Teacher training
Other
time spent on research (classes are in session)
time spent on research (classes are not in session)
time spent on teaching (classes are in session)
time spent on teaching (classes are not in session)
time spent on administrative work (classes are in session)
time spent on administrative work (classes are not insession)time spent on administrative work (classes are insession) squared/100
time spent on administrative work (classes are insession) cubed/1,000
time spent on social service work (classes are in session)
time spent on social service work (classes are not in session)
Influence on decisions: Government or external
stakeholders
influence on decisions: Institutional managers
influence on decisions: Academic unit managers
influence on decisions: Faculty committees, boards
influence on decisions: Individual faculty

institution level(base=non imperial university) former imperial university(base=bachelor university)
Extensive doctor university
Intensive doctor university
Extensive master university
Intensive master university
interaction effects
former imperial univ. x influence: Government
former imperial univ. x influence: Institutional managers
former imperial univ. x influence: Academic unit
managers
former imperial univ. x influence: Faculty committee
former imperial univ. x influence: Individual faculty
Random effects:
Institution (standard deviation)
Goodness of Fit indicesdeviance explained (v.s. no random effect㸧
deviance explained (v.s. with random effect, intercept only)
deviance explained (v.s. null model: no random effect,
intercept only)nn groups (institution)

Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’, 0.0 01 ‘**’, 0.01 ‘*’, 0.05 ‘+’

Model 1
Number of referred articles
Beta
S.E.
-1.194(.948)

Model 2
Number of articles
Beta
S.E.
1.536 (0.479) **

.132
.019
.137
.195
-.445
-.562
-1.015
-.590
1.074
1.309
1.277
1.064
-.115
.142
-.490
.014
-.004
-.002
.014
.032

(.076) +(.003) ***(.080) +(.064) **(.056) ***(.094) ***(.080) ***(.149) ***(.118) ***(.116) ***(.130) ***(.126) ***(.474)(.202)(.518)(.002) ***(.001) **(.003)(.004) ***(.025)

.193
.015
.061
.083
-.476
-.558
-1.195
-.018
.660
.889
.815
.614
.033
-.142
-.004
.007
.001
-.009
.014
-.034

(0.062) **(0.003) ***(0.061)(0.052)(0.047) ***(0.078) ***(0.069) ***(0.089)(0.084) ***(0.081) ***(0.096) ***(0.092) ***(0.251)(0.155)(0.268)(0.002) ***(0.001)(0.002) ***(0.003) ***(0.007) ***-.007(.006).001(0.005)-.654(.261) *

-

-

.284

(.080) ***.085(0.015) ***

.024
.002

.018
.004

-.189

(.008) **(.008)(.063) **.201(0.007) *(0.007)(0.035) ***

-.011
.013
.027
-.029

(.014)(.016)(.011) *(.021)

-.003
.009
.024
-.035

(0.013)(0.014)(0.010) *(0.019) +

-.752
1.238
1.452
1.050
1.574
.124
.032

(.460)(.868)(.891)(.860)(.877) +(.108)(.021)*(.023)

-.238
-.228
-.065
-.229
-.063
-.179
-.019

(0.288)(0.412)(0.427)(0.406)(0.419)(0.066) **(0.017)*(0.019)

.050

.039

-.025
(.019).049(.032).572 ***.033 ***.528 ******.585-.047 (0.015) **.007 (0.026).333 ***.039 ***.527 ***.586 ***

651
23

579
23

Masataka Murasawa

57

Figure 5. Change in the number of articles by the time spent on
administrative work: theoretical value (model 1)

Figure 6. Change in the number of articles by the time spent on
administrative work: theoretical value (model 1)

The same tendencies can be seen in Figure 7, in predicted values ofresearch outcome with time cost of governance, based on model 2. Although a
gap exists among disciplines, up to 12 hours of administrative workload reduce
research outcomes. Then, with over 12 hours of administrative workload,
research outcomes begin to increase, as the hypothetical figure shows.
However, practical the representative value of time spent for administration is an58

Governance and Performance: the case study of Japanese academic profession

average of 6 hours and a median of 5 hours. Therefore, the actual range would
be up to around 10. Under this hypothesis, time increase in administration
would preclude writing articles (Figure 8).

Figure 7. Change in the number of articles by the time spent on
administrative work (model 2)

Figure 8. Change in the number of articles by the time spent on
administrative work (model 2)

Masataka Murasawa

59

6. Conclusion
Finally, the results may be summarized as follows: Firstly, time cost of
governance had mostly a linear relation with research outcomes, reducing
research performance. However, there is a gap among disciplines. Secondly,
top-down governance effects were inconsistent. Negative effects were seen onrefereed articles, and all articles of former imperial universities. Positiveeffects were seen on all articles published. Those effects may imply thatgovernment-led governance does raise the QUANTITY but not the QUALITY of
outcomes for Japanese faculties.
Thirdly, bottom-up governance effects are consistent. Positive effects offaculty committees on outcomes could be seen. Fourth, it would be hard toevaluate the positive effects of academic unit managers on outcomes in former
imperial university. Is this a top-down or a bottom-up effect? Results of thisstudy suggest reconsideration of the enforcement of top-down governance underJapanese higher education context.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 201361

Academic Profession and University GovernanceParticipation in Japan

Akiyoshi Yonezawa

Introduction
University governance is becoming a core policy issue in Japan and Asia.
The increasing pressure of globalization forces every university to implement
strategic and speedy decision-making for survival. On the other hand,strengthened leadership by higher education managers may cause tension withfaculties’ wish to participate in university governance. In the case of Japan,
university faculties have enjoyed a systemic assurance of governanceparticipation through faculty and school level “professorate (Kyojukai)” underlegal settings. Namely, Article 93 of the School Education Act requires each
university to have professorates in order to discuss important matters, and thatthe professorate may include associate professors and other staff members.
This implies a powerful role for professors to participate in the university’s
governance, and also limited leadership influence by presidents and otherinstitutional level managers.
However, in 2013, amendment of this system is now under discussion by
the Central Council of Education, the advisory committee of the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). The aim of this
proposed amendment is to strengthen the decision-making power of university
presidents and other institutional level managers. However, there is widespread
agreement among academics in Japanese universities that institutional
governance authority should be located at the faculty or school level professorate,
as a symbol of university autonomy.
Associate Professor, Graduate School of International Development, Nagoya University,e-mail: yonezawa@gsid.nagoya-u.ac.jp

62

Academic Profession and University Governance Participation in Japan

Discussion of university governance, especially related to the governanceauthority of professoriate has a long history. Clark (1983) developed acoordination model among university, state, and government. Here, he used aterm “academic oligarchy”, symbolizing a very strong authority of theprofessoriate in Italy in 1970s. The introduction of New Public Management in
the late 1980s in Europe brought a concept of “institutional autonomy” thatreferred the United States and British university governance where theinstitutional managers (university presidents or vice-chancellors) have stronger
leadership authority, and intervention by state governments is rather limited.
At the same time, the general characteristics of these institutional managers
have also shifted from academic icon towards business oriented managers.
Ehara (1998) utilized a discussion by McNay (1995) on the changing
organizational culture of British universities, to examine the future direction ofuniversity governance in Japan. In McNay’s argument there are four types ofuniversity governance based on the degree of control on university policy
definition and practices: (1) collegium (loose policy definition and loose
practices); (2) bureaucracy (loose and rigorous); (3) corporation (rigorous andrigorous); and (4) enterprise (rigorous and loose) are identified. Ehara (2010)
argues that the recent university reforms have transformed the organizational
culture of universities from collegium into enterprise.
Through the comparison of Carnegie data in 1992 and Changing Academic
Profession (CAP) data in 2007, Fujimura (2008) concluded that the degree ofparticipation towards university governance by faculty members has decreased
among national (public) universities in Japan. On the contrary, he alsosuggested that the participation by faculty members in private universities, hasrather improved while the absolute degree of participation is far below that in
public universities. However, his discussion is basically limited to theargument of centralization (top-down) and decentralization (bottom-up) inuniversity governance.
What are the determinants of the characteristics of participation towards
university governance by individual faculty members? In this article, theauthor implements an exploratory analysis of the characteristics of faculty
participation towards university governance in Japanese universities, by utilizing
data of the Academic Profession in Asia (APA) survey by Arimoto et al. The
data was collected from stratified quota sampling of 23 universities in Japan.
The survey team administered 6,283 questionnaires to faculty members using thename lists available on the websites through postal mails, and received 1,045
responses (16.6%) in November and December 2011.

Akiyoshi Yonezawa

63

Influential actors in decision-making
In the questionnaire, actors having primary influence on various types ofdecisions were queried. As can be seen in the Figure 1, there appears threemain actors in the decisions, namely, (1) faculty committee/boards, (2)institutional managers, and to less degree, (3) academic unit managers. In thecase of Japan, the exact term used for the category of faculty committee/boards
is Kyojukai. The questions related to faculty status (choosing new faculties,
making faculty promotion and tenure decisions), and academic planning andpolicy (setting admission standards for undergraduate students, determining theoverall teaching load of faculty, and approving new academic programs) are
decided mainly by university faculty. On the other hand, decisions related
financial planning and policies (determining budget priorities, evaluatingteaching and research), and international linkages are decided mainly by theuniversity managers.
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Choosing new faculty
Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions
Setting admission standards for undergraduate students
Determining the overall teaching load of faculty
Approving new academic programs
Selecting key administrators
Setting internal research priorities
Evaluating research
Evaluating teaching
Determining budget priorities
Establishing international linkages
Government or external stakeholders

Institutional managers

Academic Unit managers

Faculty committees/boards

Individual facultyStudents

Source: by author based on the APA data

Figure 1. Actors who have primary influence on decisions

100%

64

Academic Profession and University Governance Participation in Japan

As to decisions by the university faculty, institutional managers have more
influence than academic unit managers in almost all items. As to evaluatingteaching and research, academic unit managers have almost equal influence withinstitutional managers. In Japan, there is some variety in the appointment
system of institutional managers. In the case of national universities, each
university organizes committee appoint a presidential selection consisting mainlyof the university board and senate members both from inside and outside of theuniversity. Based on the recommendation of the selection committees, the
MEXT appoints the president of national universities. Then the national
university presidents appoint the vice presidents and other board members.
Therefore, theoretically, decisions by institutional managers (presidents andothers) should be independent from the preference of faculty representatives.
Some national university presidents are actually appointed from outside theuniversity, and sometimes from among non-academics. However, most of thenational universities implement the election or ‘opinion survey’ for knowing thepreference of the faculty members, and strong candidates are highly likely toappear from inside.
Adding to this, in almost all cases, deans ofschools/faculties are elected by the voting of the faculty members. On the other
hand, directors of research institutes and centers tend to be appointed by theuniversity presidents, again, frequently referring to the preference of theacademic members. Local public universities have similar system with national
universities.
More variation can be recognized among the private universities as to theappointment of institutional managers. As legal entities, private universities areoperated by school corporations. The top decision-making bodies of a school
corporation are the governing boards headed by the chair (Rijicho). In somecases, Rijicho and the governing board have strong influence in the selection ofuniversity presidents. Also the Rijicho and the university president are
frequently the same person. On the other hand, old universities typically
implement election as the method of selecting university presidents, and theelected presidents may also assume the role of Rijicho. Deans are appointed insome private universities but elected in most of the private universities.

Personal influence in helping to shape key academic policies
The Kyojukai in Japan may also define personal influence as a factor
shaping key academic policies among faculty members. The actual discussionof the Kyojukai meeting is closed with only members and related administrative

Akiyoshi Yonezawa

65

staff as observers. The record of the proceedings may be opened, but it isalmost impossible to determine who is influential in the actual discussion.
Therefore, we do not have a clear picture based on research of the actual
decision-making process through Kyojukai. There is a big diversity in thedecision-making process and structure among different institutions and schools.
As to the membership professors and associate professors are typically
included as members of Kyojukai. Lecturers or assistant professors may also be
members, but it depends on the regulation and customs of respective schools.
Research associates, research assistants and other non-faculty researchers at
many are not allowed to attend Kyojukai. Some schools and universities also
hold Kyojukai only for full professors in addition to the regular Kyojukai. In
Kyojukai, main examination agendas such as degree granting and personnel
matters are decided by vote of faculty members. Large schools, for example,
those with more than one hundred faculty members, tend to treat Kyojukai as ameeting for approval, rather than one for active discussion. Many schools tend
to have committees for discussion of specific topics such as academic affairs, or
small group members to assist the deans (Shikkobu). At the department andsmaller levels, meetings tend to be open to all academic members, including
non-academic members as observers.
Figure 2 outlines the manner in which governance structure of Japanese
universities may define the role of personal influence in shaping key academic
policies. In general, personal influence tends to increase at a smaller level. It
is quite interesting that the results do not indicate that the personal influence is
not necessarily highly assured by the existence of Kyojukai system at bothschool/faculty level and institutional levels. At the same time, respondents withhigher job status tend to have more personal influence. Especially, the full
professorship appears to be a minimum requirement for possessing personal
influence at the institutional level.
Decisions of selecting key administrators and setting internal research
priorities are decided both by the university faculty and managers. Here, it
should be noted that the faculty in the Japanese case is absolutely dominated by
Kyojukai. In other words, the influence of the individual faculty is highly
limited. Their influence can be seen only partially in decision related to settinginternal research priorities and evaluating research.

66

Academic Profession and University Governance Participation in Japan

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Departmental level

Professor

Associate professor

Faculty/School level

Lecturer

Institutional level

Assistant professor, Research Associate

Source: by author based on the APA data

Figure 2. Personal influence in helping to shape key academic policies

Evaluation and assessment
In Japan, the idea of university evaluation occurred in the late 1980s.
Since then the practices of evaluation and assessment have been strengthened todemonstrate accountability, quality improvement, and strategic management.
Especially after the incorporation of national universities and the introduction of
mandatory institutional level accreditation for all public and private universities
in 2004, regular based evaluation and assessment towards faculty members havebeen widely implemented.
In the questionnaire, the assessors of regular based evaluation are answered
as multiple choice, and the result is shown at Figure 3. In teaching, students are
the primary assessor, and over half of the respondents answered that theirteaching is evaluated by their students. At the same time, the result shows thatdepartment heads, senior administrative staff and respondents as self-evaluation
are equally committed to the assessment in education, research and services
respectively.

Akiyoshi Yonezawa
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

67

50.0

Yourself (formal self-assessment)

The head of your department or unit

Senior administrative staff at this institution

Your peers in your department or unit

Your students

External reviewers

No one at or outside my institution

Members of other departments or units at this institution

Teaching

Research

SeviceSource: by author based on the APA data

Figure 3. Assessors of regular based evaluation

Perspectives on governance structure
In the questionnaire, perspectives of respondents towards various aspects ofgovernance structures were asked. Figure 4 presents the summary results ofthese questions.
A relatively positive response is shown for collegiality in university
governance. Support of academic freedom by university administrators is also
perceived positively. However, negative responses appear on communication
between management academics, information sharing, provision of professional
development for administrative/management duties for individual faculties, andfaculty involvement towards university governance.
Top-down governance appears to be more common in recent Japanese
universities. Respondents pointed attested to the existence of a top-down
management style, stress of institutional mission, competent leadership by the
top level administrators, and strong performance orientation. However, actual

60.0

68

Academic Profession and University Governance Participation in Japan

administrative practices may not conform to this direction. Funding of
departments is basically perceived to be decided by the number of students, andperformance based funding does not appear to have been substantially
implemented.
Strong attention towards research capacity in the personnel assessment also
continues. Responses show that research quality is considered more thanteaching quality and practical relevance/applicability of the work. The
university industry linkage is not encouraged substantially. Respondents werealso satisfied with the supportive attitudes towards teaching and research
activities. However, they complained about a cumbersome administrative
process.
The aforementioned results suggest incompleteness in practice of stressedideas both in top-down management and in collegiality. These could be
attributed to a long standing bureaucratic routines and customs that may protect
a high level of academic freedom and individual autonomy.

-1.0000-.8000-.6000-.4000-.2000

.0000

.2000

.4000

.6000

.8000

The administration supports academic freedom
Collegiality in decision-making processes
Lack of faculty involvement is a real problem
I am kept informed about what is going on at this institution
Good communication between management and academics
Professional development for administrative/management duties for…
A strong emphasis on the institution's mission
A strong performance orientation
A top-down management styleTop-level administrators are providing competent leadership
Funding of departments substantially based on numbers of students
Evaluation based allocation of resources to academic units
Performance based allocation of resources to academic units
Funding of departments substantially based on numbers of graduates
Considering the teaching quality when making personnel decisions
Considering the practical relevance/applicability of the work of colleagues…
Considering the research quality when making personnel decisions
Encouraging academics to adopt service activities/entrepreneurial…
Encouraging individuals, businesses, foundations etc. to contribute more…
Recruiting faculty who have work experience outside of academia
Students should have a stronger voice in determining policy that affects them
A supportive attitude of administrative staff towards teaching activities
A supportive attitude of administrative staff towards research activities
A cumbersome administrative process

Source: by author based on the APA data

Figure 4. Perspectives on governance structure

1.0000Akiyoshi Yonezawa

69

Conclusion
As to the characteristics of university governance in Japan, we may define it
as closer to bureaucratic than collegial. Here, the job status does matter inparticipation towards governance. At the same time, considering the fact thatpresidents and deans tend to be elected by the faculties, one cannot draw clear
distinction between faculty and mangers in university governance. On theother hand, market based stakeholders, namely, students and industry havesubstantially less influence in university governance.
This article captures the basic characteristics of university governance inJapan, especially focusing on the participation by the academics. More detailed
comparative study with other Asian countries is needed.

References
Clark, B.R. (1983). Higher Education System: Academic Organisation in Cross-National
Perspective. Berkeley: California University Press.
Ehara, T. (1998). Faculty Perceptions of University Governance in Japan and the United States.
Comparative Education Review, 42 (1). 61-72.
Ehara, T. (2010). Tenkanki Nihon no Daigaku Kaikaku [Japanese Higher Education Reforms at
a Turning Point]. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press. (in Japanese)
Fujimura, S. (2008). Kanri Unei [Management], In A. Arimoto (ed.), Henbo suru Nihon no
Kyojushoku [The Changing Academic Profession in Japan] (pp.140-157). Tokyo:
Tamagawa University Press. (in Japanese).
McNay, I. (1995). From the Collegial Academy to Corporate Enterprise. In T. Schuller (Ed.),
The Changing University? (pp. 105-115). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Presentations
Teaching & Research Activities

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 201371

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

Yuto Kitamura and Naoki Umemiya

1. Introduction
Cambodia has been expanding its higher education system since the late
1990s, particularly after a relaxation of the university law in 1997 to allow theprivate sector to establish universities. As can be seen in Figure 1, there was a
rapid growth in the number of higher education institutions during the 2000s,
and this was mainly due to the establishment of private institutions. Thisphenomenon reflects the growing need and demand for a highly skilled labor
force in the Cambodian labor market under the strong influence of the globalized
economy. Also, because of economic growth, there has been an expansion of
the middle class population, and the younger generation in this growing middle
class has increased aspirations for higher levels of education.
Because of this rapid development of the higher education system, there has
been a growing awareness of the importance of improving the quality ofteaching and learning at higher education institutions. However, it is not easy
to improve the quality of higher education in Cambodia because of its relatively
short history, particularly due to the destruction of the entire education system
including higher education by the Coalition Government of Democratic
Kampuchea in the late 1970s. One of the most serious problems is the shortageof qualified academic staff. (Chealy, 2009) This paper analyzes data obtained
through a survey conducted as part of an international research project led by the
Research Institute for Higher Education of Hiroshima University on the
Associate Professor, Graduate School of Education, The University of Tokyo, Japan, e-mail:yuto@p.u-tokyo.ac.jp
JICA Expert (University Administrative Management), Malaysia-Japan International
Institute of Technology (MJIIT), Malaysia/Japan, e-mail: umemiya@mjiit.jp

72

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

academic profession in Asian countries, with an objective to reveal and better
understand current conditions and challenges of academic staff at higher
education institutions in Cambodia.
90

Number of Institutions

80
70
60
50

Private40

Public

30
20
10

19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
20
09

0

Year

Source: Williams & Kitamura (2011)

Figure 1. Growth in the number of higher education institutions (1979-2009)

2. Data collection
This survey on the academic profession in Cambodia was conducted incollaboration with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) which
coordinated the survey activities in Cambodia. The survey was conducted at 11
selected universities, both public and private, that deliver undergraduate andgraduate programs. The respondents were academic staff of the targeted
universities.
The self-administered questionnaire, which had been commonly designed
for all ten countries participating in the research project, was modified slightly
by the authors in order to capture the realities of academic staff in Cambodia.
Both English and Khmer language versions of the questionnaire were preparedand delivered to the universities in November 2011, along with technicalguidelines for completing the questionnaires.
According to the statistics of the academic staff at each university, it was
expected that a minimum of 800 completed questionnaires should be collected.
It was also noted that a number of academic staff teach at more than one
university and thus they would be required to complete only one questionnaire

Yuto Kitamura & Naoki Umemiya

73

for the university they think appropriate for their responses. The completed
questionnaires were collected by the end of February 2012.
The questionnaires were actually collected from only 10 universities, with
one university being dropped from the survey due to a mismatch with the scopeof the study. A total of 539 questionnaires were collected but eight duplications
were found (i.e., eight respondents completed two questionnaires) and were thus
excluded. Among the eight duplicated pairs, seven were from the Institute ofTechnology of Cambodia and one was from Cambodia University of Specialties.
So a total of 531 completed questionnaires were analyzed (Table 1).
Table 1. Collected completed questionnaires
Type

Location

Norton University

Name

PrivateCapitalNo. of questionnaires
95 (17.9%)

Royal University of Agriculture

PublicCapital65 (12.2%)

Royal University of Phnom Penh

PublicCapital99 (18.6%)

Institute of Technology of Cambodia

PublicCapital64 (12.1%)

Pannasastra University of Cambodia

PrivateCapital

44 (8.3%)

University of Battambang

Public

Non-capital

29 (5.5%)

Cambodia University of Specialties

PrivateCapital

44 (8.3%)

Royal University of Law and Economics

PublicCapital25 (4.7%)

Svay Rieng University

Public

Non-capital

15 (2.8%)

Royal University of Fine Arts

PublicCapital51 (9.6%)

Total

531 (100.0%)

The majority of respondents were male (452 respondents; 85.1%) while
13.4 percent of respondents were female (71 respondents). The rest (eight
respondents; 1.5%) were unknown. This proportion reflects the composition ofacademic staff by gender in the overall higher education system in Cambodia,
which was confirmed by both university administrators of the targeted
institutions as well as officials of the Cambodian Directorate General of Higher
Education at the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS).
As Table 2 shows, around 65% of the respondents were relatively young
and under 40 years old, mainly because of the historical circumstances of
Cambodia. This proportion also reflects the composition of academic staff by
age group in the overall higher education system in Cambodia, which was
confirmed by both university administrators and ministry officials (same as
gender). The Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979),
which was led by Pol Pot, abolished the entire education system and destroyed
many educational facilities. More than three quarters of all university academic

74

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

staff and 96 percent of students were massacred by the Khmer Rouge (Ayres,
2000). Even after the end of the Pol Pot regime period, there were continuousinternal conflicts and civil wars in Cambodia up to the middle of the 1990s, andit was very difficult for higher education institutions to educate and train theiracademic staff. This situation has resulted in fewer staff in their 40s and 50s.
Table 2. Composition of respondents by age
Age

NumberOver 61 years old

4 (0.8%)51-60 years old

44 (8.3%)

41-50 years old

115 (21.7%)

31-40 years old

221 (41.6%)

21-30 years old

131 (24.7%)

Other or N.A.
Total

16 (3.0%)531 (100.0%)

3. Career and professional situation
It is widely recognized that the qualifications of academic staff affect thequality of teaching and learning at higher education institutions. In the case of
Cambodia, this has been a serious problem and the government and higher
education institutions have been placing significant emphasis upon upgrading theacademic qualifications of academic staff since the 1990s (Chealy, 2009).
However, the average number of years of education after secondary level for
academic staff at both public and private institutions was still around 5.5 years in2008 (Williams & Kitamura, 2011). This means that the majority of academic
staff have received an undergraduate education and some post-graduate training.
At the institutions where the survey was conducted the situation seems to be
somewhat better than many other higher education institutions in Cambodia.
The majority of respondents (375 respondents; 71%) held a master’s degree.
But at the same time, we have to recognize that doctoral degree holders were still
limited to only 9 percent (49 respondents) of all respondents, while 19 percent(101 respondents) held only bachelor’s degrees.1
As Table 3 shows, the proportion of doctoral degree holders was high in thesocial sciences, engineering and agriculture, while it was low in the humanities,
1

There were six respondents (1.1%) who did not provide clear information about theireducational background.

Yuto Kitamura & Naoki Umemiya

75

natural sciences and fine arts. However, it is important to note that in any
disciplinary field the proportion of doctoral degree holders is usually 20 percent
or lower, and we need to stress that more efforts to encourage and support
academic staff to upgrade their academic qualifications are required.
Table 3. Degrees of academic staff (by discipline)
SocialHumanities sciences

Teacher
Health/Training
Natural&sciences Engineering Agriculture Medical Fine arts
sciences
Educationscience

Doctor’s

2

12

5

10

6

Master’s

29

65

56

42

36

Bachelor’s

15

6

7

5

2

Sub-total

46

83

68

57

44

% of Doctor’s

4.3

14.5

7.4

17.5

13.6

0

Other

Not
applicable

Total

0

45
295

1

5

4

2

8

16

39

2

0

31

4

11

2

83

2

40

25

54

4

423

0.0

2.5

20.0

7.4

0.0

10.6

The majority of respondents obtained their bachelor’s degree in Cambodia,
particularly those who were under 40 years old, and this can be considered to bea result of the expansion of the Cambodian higher education system, as Figure 1
shows. At the same time, it is obvious that over half of the master’s degree
holders and the doctoral degree holders obtained their degrees abroad. Thisdata shows that even though Cambodian higher education institutions havesignificantly developed their bachelor’s programs, most of them are still
struggling to provide post-graduate programs. (Table 4)
Table 4. Country in which academic staff obtained their degrees (by age)
Age

Cambodia
Bachelor’s Master’sOverseas

Total

Doctor’s Bachelor’s Master’s

Doctor’s Bachelor’s Master’s

Doctor’s

Over 41 yrs old

97

52

6

49

75

19

146

127

25

Under 40 yrs old

325

133

5

16

148

19

341

281

24

Total

422

185

11

65

223

38

487

408

49

It is interesting to note that among the respondents who held a doctoral
degree, those who were 41 years old or older mainly obtained their degrees in
the United States, while those who were 40 years old or younger obtained theirdegree in Japan (Table 5). These data reflect the fact that the Japanese
government and Japanese higher education institutions have been actively
providing opportunities for Cambodian academic staff to receive post-graduate
education since the 1990s, mainly by offering scholarships to young Cambodianscholars as part of its official development assistance.

76

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

Table 5. Country in which academic staff obtained their doctoral degree
Age

BD

CZ

UK

FR

DE

ID

JP

KR

PH

PL

RU

SG

TH

US

Total

Over 41

1

1

0

1

0

0

2

1

2

0

2

1

0

8

19

Under 40

0

0

1

2

1

1

9

0

2

1

1

0

1

0

19

Total

1

1

1

3

1

1

11

1

4

1

3

1

1

8

38

Note: Bangladesh: BD, Czech: CZ, England: UK, France: FR, Germany: DE, Indonesia: ID,
Japan: JP, Korea: KR, Philippines: PH, Poland: PL, Russia: RU, Singapore: SG,
Thailand: TH, United States: US

Moreover, almost all of the academic staff who held doctoral degrees were
found at higher education institutions in Phnom Penh, the capital city of
Cambodia. Regarding the degree they obtained, we did not find any significant
difference between the capital city and non-capital cities up to the master’s level.
We anticipate that gradually there will be more academic staff who hold thehighest degree, but at this moment, the Cambodian higher education system isstill in the initial stage of expanding outside Phnom Penh, and it may take moretime to see more qualified academic staff at institutions in non-capital cities
since there still are not enough highly qualified staff even in Phnom Penh. (Table
6)
Table 6. Country in which academic staff obtained their degree (by type of
institution)
Type ofinstitution

Cambodia
Bachelor’s Master’sOverseas

Total

Doctor’s Bachelor’s Master’s

Doctor’s Bachelor’s Master’s

Doctor’s

Capital public

254

82

5

32

158

23

286

240

28

Non-capital public

40

31

0

2

7

1

42

38

1

Private

138

81

6

35

60

14

173

141

20

Total

432

194

11

69

225

38

501

419

49

Table 7. Duration of current employment contract
Type ofinstitution
Capital public

Permanently
employed
242

Fixed-term
employment41

Non-capital public

38

3

Other

N.A.

Total

13

8

304

0

3

44

Private

71

89

18

5

183

Total

351

133

31

16

531

Yuto Kitamura & Naoki Umemiya

77

Regarding the working conditions of academic staff, more than half of them(66%) were permanently employed, while 25 percent of respondents were on
fixed-term employment contracts. It is clear that public institutions offer morepermanent employment, as over 50 percent of the respondents at private
institutions were in fixed-term employment. (Table 7)
Also, nearly half of the respondents (44%) had additional employment, witharound half of these working for another university. This situation reflects thelow salary level of academic staff at higher education institutions in Cambodia
and the need for them to earn additional income. Also, there is a shortage ofacademic staff at many higher education institutions because of the rapid
expansion of the higher education sector and a lack of qualified teaching
personnel at many institutions. It is apparent that at private universities, morethan half of the academic staff engage in paid work in addition to their regularjobs. (Table 8)
Table 8. Additional employment / Additional remunerated work
Type ofinstitution

No

Capital public

180

67

Non-capital public

33

6

Private

71

45

Total

284

118

% of those whohave additional
work

NonSelfOther
profit employed

N.A.

Total

9

16

20

1

11

304

37.2

1

0

3

1

0

44

25.0

20

25

12

5

5

183

58.5

30

41

35

7

16

531

43.5

University Business

The data presented in this section reveal that the situation seems to be
improving, at least at the leading institutions at which the survey was conducted
this time; however, there is still a need to make further efforts.2
2

We also collected data on the academic rank of the respondents and the majority reported
that they were either a Professor (33%) or Lecturer (56%), while very few responded that they
were either an Associate Professor (2%) or Assistant Professor/Research Associate (1%). The
rest placed themselves in some other category such as Research Assistant, Assistant, and Other.
In fact, this data puzzled us because to our knowledge, most of the academic staff at higher
education institutions in Cambodia hold the rank of Lecturer and very few are ranked as
executives (i.e., Rector, Vice-Rector, Director, etc.) and/or Professor. A new system ofclassifying academic rank was introduced quite recently in 2012 and very few academic staff
have adopted the new ranks which are based on the American system (i.e., Professor, Associate
Professor, Assistant Professor, etc.). We discussed this with a high ranking official from theAccreditation Committee of Cambodia and he confirmed that some of the academic staff
simply refer to themselves as Professor, even though their actual rank is Lecturer, because they
may be senior at the particular institution and/or consider the word “Professor” as a generaldesignation for academic staff at higher education institutions.

78

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

4. General work situation and activities
This section discusses the major findings from the analysis of responses
with regard to the general work situation and activities of the respondents.
Firstly, respondents were asked how many hours they spent in a typical week oneach of several different categories of activities, when classes are in session.
Table 9 shows the mean hours spent on each category of activity by age group.
Table 9. Mean hours spent when classes are in session by age group
Age
Over 61 years old

Number Teaching Research Service Administration

4

8.00

2.00

0.00

3.00

Other
academic
activities

Total

2.00

15.00

51-60 years old

44

15.41

11.77

6.67

9.09

5.25

48.19

41-50 years old

115

13.00

11.82

15.00

11.00

6.63

57.44

31-40 years old

221

13.70

9.95

8.33

11.04

7.25

50.27

21-30 years old

131

18.05

14.41

6.42

13.97

5.83

58.67

Other or N.A.

16

18.43

5.00

0.00

2.00

12.50

37.93

Total

531

14.77

11.45

9.43

11.47

6.63

53.75

Major findings from this table can be summarized as follows: First, theteaching load for each staff member, especially those between 21 and 30 years
old, was heavy. The greatest amount of time (14.77 hours on average) was
spent on teaching. This could be due to the overall shortage of academic staff,
which has resulted in a heavy teaching load for each staff member. Second, allstaff across different age groups spent a great deal of time on administrative
work. The second greatest amount of time, 11.47 hours on average, was spenton administration. Third, less time (11.45 hours on average) was spent on
research. Fourth, of the different age groups, young staff in their 20s spent thegreatest amount of time, and those in their 30s spend the second greatest amountof time on administration, which is not very usual in other countries, whereadministration work is taken care of by senior staff. This is due to the specifichistorical background of Cambodia, resulting in a shortage of senior staff who
would normally be expected to take on this responsibility. Academic staff intheir 20s and 30s have to spend more time on teaching and administration, which
results in their spending less time on research. This is one of the most serious
issues for Cambodian universities.
Then the respondents were asked how many hours they spent in a typicalweek on each of these activities, when classes were not in session. Table 10

Yuto Kitamura & Naoki Umemiya

79

shows the mean hours spent on each category of activity by age group.
It was found that first, academic staff spent the greatest amount of time
(12.01 hours on average) on research. Much time was also spent on teaching
and administration: on average, 10.49 hours and 8.84 hours, respectively.
Interestingly, the teaching load was heavy, even when classes were not in session.
This could be because academic staff spent time on part-time teaching outside
their university as discussed earlier.
Table 10. Mean hours spent when classes are not in session by age group
Age

Number Teaching Research Service Administration

Other
academic
activities

Total

Over 61 years old

4

3.33

8.00

5.00

4.00

2.00

22.33

51-60 years old

44

11.94

14.10

6.86

4.56

8.30

45.75

41-50 years old

115

11.04

10.83

12.20

11.69

5.20

50.96

31-40 years old

221

9.28

12.43

7.75

9.49

3.73

42.68

21-30 years old

131

12.38

11.52

3.77

7.85

3.73

39.25

Other or N.A.

16

16.50

10.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

26.50

Total

531

10.49

12.01

7.03

8.84

4.53

42.90

Table 11 shows the mean hours spent on each activity when classes were insession, by type of institution.
It was found that first, the teaching load was heavy, especially at private
universities. On average, 17.78 hours was spent on teaching at private
universities; at public institutions it was only about 13 hours. Second,
academic staff at public institutions in non-capital cities worked for a longer time
(63.05 hours on average) compared to less than 55 hours at other types of
institutions. In particular, they spent a great amount of time on administration(23.73 hours on average). A relatively longer time (12.44 hours on average)
was spent on research at public institutions in the capital city while only around10 hours was spent on research at other types of institutions.
Table 11. Mean hours spent when classes are in session by type of institution
Type ofinstitution
Capital public

Number Teaching Research Service Administration

304

13.30

Other
academic
activities

Total

12.44

7.93

11.12

6.28

51.08
63.05

Non-capital public

44

13.14

9.85

10.83

23.73

5.50

Private

183

17.78

10.05

10.61

7.16

7.50

53.11

Total

531

14.77

11.45

9.43

11.47

6.63

53.75

80

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

Table 12. Mean hours spent when classes are not in session by type of institution
Type ofinstitution

Number Teaching Research Service Administration

Other
academic
activities

Total

Capital public

304

9.85

12.86

6.60

10.69

3.93

43.93

Non-capital public

44

6.64

4.25

15.33

12.00

10.00

48.22

Private

183

11.79

11.13

6.79

5.18

5.11

40.00

Total

531

10.49

12.01

7.03

8.84

4.53

42.90

Table 12 presents the mean hours spent on each activity when classes were
not in session, by type of institution.
A similar tendency was found even when classes were not in session. In
addition, academic staff at public institutions in non-capital cities spent muchtime on service when classes were not in session.
Table 13. Evaluation of facilities, resources and personnel by type of institution
Type ofinstitution

Classroom

Capital public

2.60

Research
Technology
equipment Computer Library
Laboratories
for teaching&facilities facilities
instruments
2.83

3.51

3.48

3.08

2.74

Personal
Secretarial Telecomm
officesupport unications
space
3.14

3.16

3.28

Non-capital public

1.55

1.68

2.13

2.15

1.66

1.78

2.05

2.30

2.08

Private

2.19

2.34

2.68

2.84

2.30

2.22

2.66

2.49

2.54

Total

2.37

2.57

3.11

3.16

2.70

2.49

2.89

2.86

2.93

Type ofinstitution

Teaching Research
Paid
Research Retirement
Travelsupport support
Sabbaticalfunding arrangements
funds
staff
staff
leave

Other
fringebenefits

Intellectual Sense of
atmosphere community

Capital public

3.40

3.69

4.04

3.77

3.63

4.16

4.48

3.27

3.14

Non-capital public

2.56

2.73

2.53

3.06

2.55

2.63

3.29

2.66

2.36

Private

2.53

2.97

3.22

3.58

3.35

3.28

3.64

2.71

2.50

Total

3.02

3.37

3.65

3.65

3.45

3.75

4.11

3.03

2.85

Note: Scores are the average of the points scored by respondents for each question on a scaleof 1 to 5, where 1 is “excellent” and 5 is “poor”.

Table 13 explains how academic staff evaluated the different kinds offacilities, resources or personnel they needed to support their work, by type of
institution.
It was found that the highest ratings for all items occurred at public
institutions in non-capital cities, the second highest at private institutions, andthe lowest at public institutions in the capital city, except for “teaching support
staff” which was rated the highest at private institutions. Though the reason forthis result needs to be investigated further, one possible reason is that public

Yuto Kitamura & Naoki Umemiya

81

institutions in non-capital cities are relatively new, and thus facilities are in goodcondition. Second, some items such as “research funding”, “travel funds” and“other fringe benefits” were rated very low at public institutions in the capitalcity.

5. TeachingThis section discusses major findings from the analysis of responses withregard to teaching. Table 14 explains how the respondents rated the quality ofthe students currently enrolled in their department, by type of institution.
The average rating was between good and fair overall. No big difference
was found across the different types of institutions.
Table 14. Evaluation on quality of students
Type ofinstitution

Excellent
(1)

Good
(2)

Fair
(3)

Poor
(4)

Don’t
know

N.A.

Total

Mean

10

160

113

6

4

11

304

2.37

Capital public
Non-capital public

1

19

15

3

1

5

44

2.46

Private

23

82

53

12

3

10

183

2.28

Total

34

261

181

21

8

26

531

2.34

Note: Scores are the average of the points scored by respondents for the question on a scale of
1 to 4, where 1 is “excellent” and 4 is “poor”.

Table 15 summarizes the responses to the question: “Over the past five
years, to what extent has the quality of educational activities improved at youruniversity?”
Academic staff across the different types of institutions considered that thequality of educational activities had improved, overall. No big difference wasfound across the different types of institutions.
Table 15. Opinion on improvement of the quality of educational activities
Type ofinstitution

Deteriorated Deteriorated Deteriorated Improved tosignificantly
somewhat some extent
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Much
Improved
(5)

N.A.

Total

Mean

4.03

Capital public

2

2

25

213

44

18

304

Non-capital public

2

0

2

19

12

9

44

4.11

Private

5

2

13

81

57

25

183

4.16

Total

9

4

40

313

113

52

531

4.08

Note: Scores are the average of the points scored by respondents to the question on a scale of
1 to 5, where 1 was “deteriorated significantly” and 5 was “much improved”.

82

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

6. ResearchThis section discusses the major findings from the analysis of responses
with regard to research. Table 16 shows the number of different scholarly
contributions respondents had completed in the past three years, by type of
institution.
It was found that public institutions in the capital city were the mostproductive in five out of the ten items, i.e., books authored, books edited, articles,
research reports/monographs, and papers presented at conference, while private
institutions were the most productive in the other five items, i.e., professional
articles, patents, computer programs, artistic works, and video or films. Public
institutions in non-capital cities were less productive overall.
Table 16. Average number of scholarly contributions by type of institution
Scholarly Contributions

Capital public Non-capital public

PrivateTotal(1) Scholarly books you authored or co-authored

4.28

3.11

1.71

3.63

(2) Scholarly books you edited or co-edited

8.24

5.00

4.89

6.86

(3) Articles published in an academic book or journal

5.25

2.50

4.53

4.96

(4) Research report/monograph written for a funded project

3.69

2.00

2.72

3.43

(5) Paper presented at a scholarly conference

4.18

1.00

3.52

3.92

(6) Professional article written for a newspaper or magazine

1.96

3.50

4.59

3.23

(7) Patent secured on a process or invention

0.00

0.00

0.50

0.14

(8) Computer program written for public use

1.94

0.00

3.60

2.33

(9) Artistic work performed or exhibited

1.71

0.00

2.50

2.00

(10) Video or film produced

3.00

0.00

4.17

3.32

7. Internationalization
Though there was no section as such for “internationalization” in thequestionnaire, this section discusses the major findings from the questions
related to internationalization across different sections of the questionnaire, as it
is an important topic for universities today. We tried to ascertain whether there
were any differences across the different types of institutions in terms ofinternationalization, because in other countries, internationalization tends to bepromoted more at universities in capital cities than at those in non-capital areas.

Yuto Kitamura & Naoki Umemiya

83

Table 17 shows the frequency of foreign academics having taught courses
during the past three years.
Table 18 shows the frequency of international conferences and seminars
held during the past three years.
Table 19 shows the frequency of foreign students having been enrolledduring the past three years.
Table 20 shows the frequency of the institution’s students having studied
abroad during the past three years.
Table 21 shows the number and percentage of academic staff who havecollaborated with international colleagues during the past three years.
Table 17. Frequency of foreign academics having taught courses by type of
institution
Type ofinstitution

Frequently Occasionally Rarely
(1)
(2)
(3)

Never
(4)

Don't
know

N.A.

Total

Mean

Capital public

31

159

36

18

21

39

304

2.00

Non-capital public

8

9

4

2

4

17

44

1.70

Private

44

36

24

17

21

41

183

1.80

Total

83

204

64

37

46

97

531

1.91

Note: Scores are the average of the points scored by respondents for the question on a scale of
1 to 4, where 1 is “frequently” and 4 is “never”.

Table 18. Frequency of international conferences and seminars by type of
institution
Type ofinstitution

Frequently Occasionally Rarely
(1)
(2)
(3)

Never
(4)

Don't
know

N.A.

Total

Mean

Capital public

26

136

66

22

16

38

304

2.20

Non-capital public

8

16

4

2

0

14

44

2.00

Private

29

74

32

10

7

31

183

2.06

Total

63

226

102

34

23

83

531

2.14

Note: Scores are the average of the points scored by respondents for the question on a scale of
1 to 4, where 1 is “frequently” and 4 is “never”.

Table 19. Frequency of foreign students having been enrolled by type of
institution
Type ofinstitution

Frequently Occasionally Rarely
(1)
(2)
(3)

Never
(4)

Don't
know

N.A.

Total

Mean

Capital public

12

52

75

73

36

56

304

2.55

Non-capital public

0

2

9

7

4

22

44

2.68

Private

14

32

52

19

24

42

183

2.20

Total

26

86

136

99

64

120

531

2.44

Note: Scores are the average of the points scored by respondents for the question on a scale of
1 to 4, where 1 is “frequently” and 4 is “never”.

84

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

Table 20. Frequency of the institution’s students having studied abroad by typeof institution
Type ofinstitution

Frequently Occasionally Rarely
(1)
(2)
(3)

Never
(4)

Don't
know

N.A.

Total

Mean

Capital public

62

99

37

31

21

54

304

1.98

Non-capital public

2

9

4

2

4

23

44

1.90

Private

19

54

45

7

20

38

183

2.00

Total

83

162

86

40

45

115

531

1.98

Note: Scores are the average of the points scored by respondents for the question on a scale of
1 to 4, where 1 is “frequently” and 4 is “never”.

Table 21. Number and percentage of staff who have collaborated withinternational colleagues by type of institution
Type ofinstitution

Yes
numberNo%

numberN.A.
%

numberTotal%

number%Capital public

107

35.2

72

23.7

125

41.1

304

100.0

Non-capital public

7

15.9

6

13.6

31

70.5

44

100.0

Private

47

25.7

38

20.8

98

53.5

183

100.0

Total

161

30.3

116

21.8

254

42.9

531

100.0

Based on Tables 17 to 21, it was found that internationalization is advanced
not only at institutions in the capital city but also at the relatively new
institutions in non-capital cities, as no big differences were found in the meanfrequency of different activities across different types of institutions.
While the above tables are related to internationalization in terms of theactivities of academic staff, the two tables below are related tointernationalization in terms of research outputs. Table 22 shows the number
and percentage of academic staff who have published papers in a language
different from the language of instruction at their current institution. Table 23
shows the number and percentage of academic staff who have co-authored withcolleagues located in other/foreign countries.
From these two tables, it was found that, in terms of international research
outputs, public and private institutions in the capital city were superior to public
institutions in non-capital cities. The number and percentage of academic staff
who have published a paper in a different language or co-authored withinternational colleagues at those universities in non-capital cities was relatively
limited.

Yuto Kitamura & Naoki Umemiya

85

Table 22. Number and percentage of academic staff who have published papers
in a different language by type of institution
Type ofinstitution

Yes

No

number%numberCapital public

65

21.4

Non-capital public

4

9.1

Private

29

15.8

40

Total

98

18.5

117

N.A.
%

number

67

22.0

10

22.7

Total
%

number

%

172

56.6

304

100.0

30

68.2

44

100.0

21.9

114

62.3

183

100.0

22.0

316

59.5

531

100.0

Table 23. Number and percentage of academic staff who have co-authored withinternational colleagues by type of institution
Type ofinstitution

Yes

No

number%numberCapital public

48

15.8

Non-capital public2

4.5

Private

15

Total

65

N.A.
%

number

68

22.4

11

25.0

8.2

38

12.2

117

Total
%

number

%

188

61.8

304

100.0

31

70.5

44

100.0

20.8

130

71.0

183

100.0

22.0

349

65.8

531

100.0

8. Overall satisfaction
Table 24 shows the overall satisfaction rate of staff with their current job,by type of institution.
It was found that first, overall satisfaction was high on average (2.05 points).
Second, among the different types of institutions, academic staff at public
institutions were satisfied more than those at private institutions. Overall,academic staff at public institutions in non-capital cities were the most satisfied.
The mean rating by staff at non-capital city universities was 1.50 on a scale of 1
to 5.
Table 24. Overall satisfaction of staff with current job by type of institution
Type ofinstitution
Capital public

1(Very high)

2

3

4

5
(Very low)

N.A.

Total

Mean

101

110

67

14

3

9

304

2.01

Non-capital public

31

7

4

1

1

0

44

1.50

Private

54

56

46

14

8

5

183

2.25

Total

186

173

117

29

12

14

531

2.05

Note: Scores are the average of the points scored by respondents for the question on a scale of
1 to 5, where 1 is “very high” and 5 is “very low”.

86

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

Table 25 shows overall the satisfaction rate of staff with their current job,by age group. It was found that the younger the staff, the lower the satisfaction.
Table 25. Overall satisfaction of staff with current job by age group
Age

Number

Mean

4

1.25

51-60 yrs old

44

1.60

41-50 yrs old

115

2.00

31-40 yrs old

221

2.02

21-30 yrs old

131

2.32

Other or N.A

16

2.00

Total

531

2.05

Over 61 yrs old

Note: Scores are the average of the points scored by respondents for thequestion on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “very high” and 5 is “very low”.

Table 26. Result of regression analysis on overall satisfaction

DegreeAcademic
Discipline

Unstandardized
Coefficients

Standardized
Coefficientst

Master’s

-.123

-.060

-.677

Bachelor’s

-.153

-.063

-.658

Social Science

-.218

-.098

-.831

Natural Science

-.571

-.220

-2.080*Engineering

-.017

-.006

-.061

Agriculture

-.037

-.013

-.131

Health-1.739-.116-1.916

Fine Arts

-.674

-.232

-2.180*Teaching

.713

.148

1.925

Others

-.487

-.179

-1.737

Non-capital Public Institutions

-.586

-.168

-2.771**

Private Institutions

.006

.003

.037

Rating on the quality of students

.299

.215

3.557**

Gender

-.330

-.114

-1.916

Duration of current employment contract(permanent or fixed)

-.004

-.003

-.038

Hours per week when classes are in session(teaching)

.008

.086

1.384

Overall annual gross income in US dollars
from current higher education-2.28E-005-.090-1.374

Type of
Institution

R Square = 0.215, Adjusted R Square = 0.159, * P<0.05, ** P<0.01

Yuto Kitamura & Naoki Umemiya

87Then a regression analysis was conducted, with the overall satisfaction
rating as a dependent variable and several variables such as type of degree,
academic discipline, type of institution, rating on the quality of students, etc., asdependent variables. Table 26 is the result of the analysis.
It was found that first, if the rating on the quality of students is high, thesatisfaction level also tended to be high. Second, the satisfaction level ofacademic staff at public universities in non-capital cities tended to be high,compared to those at public and private institutions in the capital city. Third,
the satisfaction level tended to differ across different disciplines.

9. Conclusions
Findings from this survey discussed above can be summarized as follows:(1) Qualification of academic staff
First, a general tendency to pursue higher degrees at least master’s level
was found. Second, Japan was found to be a destination for seeking
degrees, especially among the younger generation.
(2) Geographic comparisonFirst, higher satisfaction was found among the academic staff of public
institutions in non-capital cities. We need to further investigate the reason
behind this tendency. Second, internationalization of research outputs wasobserved, mainly at capital public institutions, while internationalization
was being advanced not only at institutions in capital cities but also at therelatively new institutions in non-capital cities in terms of activities.
(3) Challenges for academic staff
First, academic staff are burdened with greater workloads in terms ofteaching and administration and do not have much time for research.
Second, academic staff, particularly those in their 30s, are spending longhours working part-time jobs. This is because the kind of work normallytaken care of by those in their 40s and 50s need to be shouldered by those in
their 30s, because of historical reasons particular to Cambodia.
(4) Items for further investigation
First, we need to understand the quality of teaching/learning and research,
and whether higher education institutions and their academic staff are reallyresponding to the needs and demands of Cambodian society today.
Second, we need to examine how to improve the working conditions at
different types of higher education institutions in Cambodia.

88

Survey on the Academic Profession in Cambodia

References
Ayers, D.M (2000). Anatomy of a crisis: Education, development, and the state in Cambodia,
1953-1998. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Chealy, C. (2009). Higher Education in Cambodia. In Y. Hirosato, & Y. Kitamura (Eds.), The
Political Economy of Educational Reforms and Capacity Development in Southeast Asia:
Cases of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Dordrecht: Springer.
Williams, J.H., & Kitamura, Y. (2011). Expansion of Higher Education in Cambodia:
Descriptive Analysis of 30 Years of University Data. Unpublished manuscript.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 201389

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic
Profession in Japan㸫based on the Japanese survey in 2011㸫

Tsukasa Daizen and Naomi Kimoto

Introduction
The main activities of the academic profession are educational and researchin nature. The principal purpose of this article is to clarify the present
conditions of the educational and research activities of Japanese university
professor based on the Academic Profession in Asia (APA) survey carried out inJapan in 2011.
Survey method
Faculties targeted by the questionnaire survey were chosen by a two-stage
sampling procedure. Initially, university institutions were sampled, and thentarget faculties were sampled from those institutions.
At first, from 726 universities which were established in Japan in 2005, wechose 23 universities (five research universities and eighteen non-research
universities) based upon university classification (research university or
non-research university)1, establisher (national, public or private institution) andthe number of students enrolled.
We randomly selected the faculty by the number shown in Table 1 from thefaculty list in the homepage of each 23 universities and sent the questionnaire in
Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, Japan, e-mail: tdaizen@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Lecturer, Prefectural University of Hiroshima, Japan, e-mail: kimoto@pu-hiroshima.ac.jp
1
The criteria used to identify research universities were taken from the typology developed by
Amano (1984).

90

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

the beginning of November, 2011 to 6,276 faculties and, in the beginning ofDecember, sent a postcard urging the surveyed faculty reply to the questionnaire,
responses to which were collected until the end of January, 2013. The numberof faculty members responding to the survey was 1,048 (514 from the research
universities and 534 from the non-research universities) and the response rate
was 16.7 percent.
Table 1. Response rate of each university
The number
The number
The numberof theofof all faculty questionnaire
respondents
distribution

Response
rate
(%)

No of
University

Institution type 1

Institution
type 2

Foundation

1

Research Univ.

I

National

1,457

583

109

18.7

2

Research Univ.

I

National

1,654

656

105

16.0

3

Research Univ.

I

National

2,572

875

194

22.2

4

Research Univ.

I

Private

629

252

36

14.3

5

Research Univ.

I

Private

1,811

589

70

11.9

6

Non-research univ.

I

National

519

207

43

20.8

7

Non-research univ.

II

National

424

168

35

20.8

8

Non-research univ.

I

National

334

135

26

19.3

9

Non-research univ.

II

Public

672

268

47

17.6

10

Non-research univ.

III

Private

847

339

52

15.3

11

Non-research univ.

III

Private

851

321

64

20.0

12

Non-research univ.

I

Public

129

57

9

15.8

13

Non-research univ.

II

Private

661

264

49

18.5

14

Non-research univ.

III

Private

65

65

6

9.2

15

Non-research univ.

IV

Private

256

256

53

20.7

16

Non-research univ.

IV

Private

167

167

28

16.8

17

Non-research univ.

IV

Private

141

141

14

9.9

18

Non-research univ.

III

Private

466

466

11

2.4

19

Non-research univ.

III

Public

119

119

19

16.0

20

Non-research univ.

III

Private

167

167

32

19.2

21

Non-research univ.

III

Private

59

59

16

27.1

22

Non-research univ.

IV

Private

74

74

18

24.3

23

Non-research univ.

V

Public

55

55

12

21.8

14,129

6,282

1,048

16.7

Total

Note: Type I: The institution which offer a doctorate degree by all specialized fields, Type
II: The institution which offer a doctorate degree by more than 50 percent ofspecialized fields, Type III: The institution which offer a master degree by all
specialized fields, Type IV: The institution which offer a master degree by more than
50 percent of specialized fields, Type V: The institution which offer only abaccalaureate degree.

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto

91

Profile of the respondents
Tables 2 & 3 present the nine attributions of the respondents to the APA
survey and the Japanese overall faculty of 2010 (MEXT, 2010).
Table 2. Response rate of each university㻭 㻼㻭 㻌 㼕 㼚㻌 㻶 㼍 㼜㼍 㼚㻔 㻞㻜㻝㻝㻕

㻿㼏㼔㼛㼛㼘 㻌 㼠㼑㼍 㼏㼔㼑㼞㼟 㼠㼍 㼠㼕 㼟 㼠㼕 㼏㼍 㼘 㻌 㼟 㼡㼞㼢 㼑㼥㻔 㻞㻜㻝㻜㻕㻭 㼠㼠㼞㼕 㼎㼡㼠㼑㻯 㼍 㼠㼑㼓 㼛㼞㼕 㼑㼟㻱㼟㼠㼍㼎㼘㼕㼟㼔㼑㼞㻺㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼍㼘
㻼㼡㼎㼘㼕㼏
㻼㼞㼕㼢㼍㼠㼑

㻠㻥㻚㻜
㻤㻚㻟
㻠㻞㻚㻣

㻔㻡㻝㻟㻕
㻔㻤㻣㻕
㻔㻠㻠㻤㻕

㻟㻡㻚㻤
㻣㻚㻠
㻡㻢㻚㻤

㻔㻢㻝㻟㻝㻣㻕
㻔㻝㻞㻢㻝㻥㻕
㻔㻥㻣㻟㻜㻜㻕

㼀㼛㼠㼍㼘
㻹㼍㼘㼑

㻤㻠㻚㻤

㻔㻝㻜㻠㻤㻕㻔㻤㻤㻞㻕㻣㻥㻚㻣㻔㻝㻣㻝㻞㻟㻢㻕
㻔㻝㻟㻢㻡㻠㻝㻕

㻲㼑㼙㼍㼘㼑

㻳㼑㼚㼐㼑㼞

㻭㼓㼑㻭㼏㼍㼐㼑㼙㼕㼏㻌㼞㼍㼚㼗㻭㼏㼍㼐㼑㼙㼕㼏㻌㼐㼕㼟㼏㼕㼜㼘㼕㼚㼑

㻝㻡㻚㻞

㻔㻝㻡㻥㻕

㻞㻜㻚㻟

㻔㻟㻠㻢㻥㻡㻕

㼀㼛㼠㼍㼘㻟㻥㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼡㼚㼐㼑㼞
㻠㻜䡚㻠㻥
㻡㻜䡚㻡㻥

㻞㻡㻚㻜
㻞㻥㻚㻟
㻞㻡㻚㻞

㻔㻝㻜㻠㻝㻕
㻔㻞㻡㻢㻕
㻔㻞㻥㻥㻕
㻔㻞㻡㻤㻕

㻞㻢㻚㻟
㻞㻤㻚㻥
㻞㻡㻚㻤

㻔㻝㻣㻝㻞㻟㻢㻕
㻔㻠㻡㻜㻥㻥㻕
㻔㻠㻥㻠㻞㻥㻕
㻔㻠㻠㻝㻡㻤㻕

㻔㻞㻝㻜㻕

㻝㻥㻚㻜

㻔㻟㻞㻡㻡㻜㻕

㻢㻜㻌㼍㼚㼐㻌㼛㼢㼑㼞㻞㻜㻚㻡㻭㼢㼑㼞㼍㼓㼑㻌㼍㼓㼑
㼀㼛㼠㼍㼘

㻠㻤㻚㻟

㻼㼞㼛㼒㼑㼟㼟㼛㼞㻭㼟㼟㼛㼏㼕㼍㼠㼑㻌㼜㼞㼛㼒㼑㼟㼟㼛㼞㻸㼑㼏㼠㼡㼞㼑㼞

㻠㻞㻚㻥
㻞㻢㻚㻡
㻣㻚㻟

㻔㻠㻠㻥㻕
㻔㻞㻣㻤㻕
㻔㻣㻢㻕

㻠㻜㻚㻡
㻞㻠㻚㻝
㻝㻝㻚㻟

㻔㻢㻥㻘㻞㻣㻜㻕
㻔㻠㻝㻘㻞㻥㻠㻕
㻔㻝㻥㻘㻟㻡㻟㻕

㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞㼟
㼀㼛㼠㼍㼘

㻞㻟㻚㻟

㻔㻞㻠㻠㻕
㻔㻝㻜㻠㻣㻕

㻞㻠㻚㻝㻔㻠㻝㻘㻟㻝㻥㻕
㻔㻝㻣㻝㻞㻟㻢㻕

㻴㼡㼙㼍㼚㼕㼠㼕㼑㼟㻿㼛㼏㼕㼍㼘㻌㼟㼏㼕㼑㼚㼏㼑㼟㻺㼍㼠㼡㼞㼍㼘㻌㼟㼏㼕㼑㼚㼏㼑㼟

㻝㻜㻚㻣
㻝㻞㻚㻡
㻝㻥㻚㻤

㻔㻝㻝㻝㻕
㻔㻝㻟㻜㻕
㻔㻞㻜㻢㻕

㻝㻟㻚㻠
㻝㻟㻚㻤
㻤㻚㻣

㻔㻞㻟㻘㻝㻠㻠㻕
㻔㻞㻟㻘㻣㻢㻤㻕
㻔㻝㻠㻘㻥㻢㻡㻕

㻱㼚㼓㼕㼚㼑㼑㼞㼕㼚㼓㻭㼓㼞㼕㼏㼡㼘㼠㼡㼞㼑

㻞㻣㻚㻡
㻡㻚㻤

㻔㻞㻤㻢㻕
㻔㻢㻜㻕

㻝㻡㻚㻝
㻟㻚㻤

㻔㻞㻢㻘㻜㻡㻢㻕
㻔㻢㻘㻡㻤㻝㻕

㻴㼑㼍㼘㼠㼔㻛㼙㼑㼐㼕㼏㼍㼘㻌㼟㼏㼕㼑㼚㼏㼑㼟

㻝㻤㻚㻤

㻔㻝㻥㻡㻕

㻟㻟㻚㻜

㻔㻡㻣㻘㻜㻠㻥㻕

㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞㼟
㼀㼛㼠㼍㼘

㻠㻚㻥

㻔㻡㻟㻕
㻔㻝㻜㻟㻥㻕

㻝㻞㻚㻟㻔㻞㻝㻘㻝㻢㻡㻕
㻔㻝㻣㻞㻘㻣㻞㻤㻕

㻖㻖㻖

㼚㻚㼟㻚

㻠㻤㻚㻡
㻔㻝㻜㻞㻟㻕

Note: The values in the table are ratio. The values in (*** p<0.001, n.s.: no significant㻖㻖㻖㻔㻝㻣㻝㻞㻟㻢㻕

) are frequency.

Establisher
There are three establishers of post-secondary educational institutions inJapan: national, public and private. Of the 1,048 respondents, 513 (49.0%)
from the national university, 87 (8.3%) from the public university and 448

㻖㻖㻖

㻖㻖㻖

92

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−(42.7%) from the private university.
Looking at the establisher of institution which all the 171,236 Japanese
university professors belong to, 35.8 percent from the national university, 7.4
percent belong to the public university and 56.8 percent belong to the private
university.
There are significant differences in the proportions of the three establishers
between the APA survey and the School Teacher Statistical Survey 2010. The
percentage of teachers who belong to the national university in the APA survey
was significantly higher than in the School Teacher Statistical Survey 2010.
GenderThe composition ratio of respondents by gender was 84.8 percent men and15.2 percent women.
The male professors of the APA survey wasapproximately 5 percent higher than the male professors of the School Teacher
Statistical Survey 2010.
Age
The composition ratio of respondents by age was 39 under (25.0%), 40-49(29.3%), 50-59 (25.2%), and 60 and over (20.5%). Compared to thecomposition ratio by age of APA survey 2011 was not different from thecomposition ratio by age of School Teacher Statistical Survey 2010.
Academic rank
The composition ratio of respondents by academic rank was professor 42.9
percent, associate professor 26.5 percent, lecturer 7.3 percent and others 23.3
percent. Compared to the composition ratio by the academic rank of APA
survey 2011 was significantly different from the composition ratio by theacademic rank of School Teacher Statistical Survey 2010. The ratio ofprofessor or associate professor of the APA survey 2011 was significantly higher
than the ratio of professor or associate professor of School Teacher Statistical
Survey 2010.
Academic discipline
The composition ratios of respondents by academic disciplines were:
Humanities 10.7 percent, Social sciences 12.5 percent, Natural sciences 19.8
percent, Engineering 27.5 percent, Agriculture 5.8 percent, Health/medical
sciences 18.8 percent, and Others 4.9 percent. Compared to the School Teacher
Statistical Survey 2010, there were more respondents in the fields of Natural

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto

93

science and Engineering and there were fewer respondents in the fields ofHealth/medical sciences.
Academic credentials
The composition ratio by academic credentials was doctorates 81.6 percent,master’s degrees 14.8 percent and bachelor’s degree 3.7 percent (Table 3).
Employment situation
The composition ratio by type of employment was: permanently
employment 66.5 percent, fixed-term employment 31.2 percent and others 2.3
percent.
Years of working in affiliated university
Respondents have been working in the affiliated university for an average
10.7 years.
Years of working in higher education institutions
Respondents have been working in higher education institutions for an
average 15.3 years.

Table 3. The attribute distribution of the respondents and all faculty in Japan㻭 㻼㻭 㻌 㼕 㼚㻌 㻶 㼍 㼜㼍㼚㻔 㻞㻜㻝㻝㻕㻭 㼠㼠㼞㼕 㼎㼡㼠㼑㻯㼍㼠㼑㼓 㼛㼞㼕 㼑㼟㻭㼏㼍㼐㼑㼙㼕㼏㻌㼏㼞㼑㼐㼑㼚㼠㼕㼍㼘㼟㻰㼛㼏㼠㼛㼞㼍㼠㼑㼟㻹㼍㼟㼠㼑㼞㻓㼟㻌㼐㼑㼓㼞㼑㼑㼟㻮㼍㼏㼔㼑㼘㼛㼞㻓㼟㻌㼐㼑㼓㼞㼑㼑㼟
㼀㼛㼠㼍㼘

㻤㻝㻚㻢
㻝㻠㻚㻤
㻟㻚㻣

㻔㻤㻠㻡㻕
㻔㻝㻡㻟㻕
㻔㻟㻤㻕
㻔㻝㻜㻟㻟㻕

㻼㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㼘㼥㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼑㼐㻲㼕㼤㼑㼐㻙㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚

㻢㻢㻚㻡
㻟㻝㻚㻞

㻔㻢㻥㻝㻕
㻔㻟㻞㻠㻕

㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞

㻞㻚㻟

㻱㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼟㼕㼠㼡㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼀㼛㼠㼍㼘㼅㼑㼍㼞㼟㻌㼛㼒㻌㼣㼛㼞㼗㼕㼚㼓䠄㼕㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㻭㼒㼒㼕㼘㼕㼍㼠㼑㼐㼡㼚㼕㼢㼑㼞㼟㼕㼠㼥㻕㼅㼑㼍㼞㼟㻌㼛㼒㻌㼣㼛㼞㼗㼕㼚㼓䠄㼕㼚㻌㼠㼔㼑㻌㻴㼕㼓㼔㼑㼞㻱㼐㼡㼏㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㻵㼚㼟㼠㼕㼠㼡㼠㼕㼛㼚㼟㻕㻔㻞㻠㻕㻔㻝㻜㻟㻢㻕

㻭㼢㼑㼞㼍㼓㼑㻌㼥㼑㼍㼞㼟

㻝㻜㻚㻣

㻔㻤㻡㻟㻕

㻭㼢㼑㼞㼍㼓㼑㻌㼥㼑㼍㼞㼟

㻝㻡㻚㻟

㻔㻥㻡㻤㻕

94

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Education activities
Figure 1 shows that in contrast with the decreasing population of 18
year-olds3 in Japan, the rate of advancement to higher education is more than 50
percent, placing Japan in the universal access stage of education (Table 4).

Source: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology “School Basic
Survey”

Figure 1. 18 year-old population and Advancement Rate to Higher
Education (1960–2010)
Table 4. Percentage of advancement to higher education institutions (2011)
Institution
University

Total

Male

Female

51.0

56.0

45.8

University & Junior College

56.7

57.2

56.1

Higher Education

79.5

77.8

81.4

Figure 2 depicts a breakdown of the types of classes that faculty members
teach. On average, 75 percent of the classes taught by faculty members are at
the undergraduate level and 25 percent are post-graduate level. In other words,
3

This is the age at which students graduate from high school.

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto95

faculty members are responsible for teaching a broad range of class levels, fromliberal arts education to specialized graduate school courses.

Figure 2. Breakdown of faculty members’ teaching responsibilities

However, the numerical standards of university education in Japan are notstrictly defined. Figure 3 presents the percentages of faculty members whoreported that their university has standards for the five given items. (Q: Does
your institution set quantitative load targets or regulatory expectations forindividual faculty?) The totals show that 60.4 percent of universities stipulate
the number of instructional hours; however, standards for quantitative targets,
such as the percentage of students who pass exams and the number of students ina class, are not considered important.
Based on the current situation described above, by comparing institution
type and the institution’s Academic discipline,4 we clarified certain
characteristics pertaining to university education in Japan. However, owing to
the small sample of universities in the category “Institutions that only award abaccalaureate degree” and faculty type “Others,” they have been omitted fromthe analysis.

4࣭Humanities & Social Sciences
࣭Natural Sciences & Agriculture
࣭Engineering࣭Health/Medical Science࣭Others

96

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Note: Numerical values represent the proportion of “yes” responses.

Figure 3. Percentage of universities with numerical standards

Quality of students
Amid the advancement of student diversity, how do faculty members
evaluate the quality5 of students? Figure 4 presents the results of aquestionnaire where faculty members were asked to compare their current
students with students from five years ago. Overall, 40.3 percent of the faculty
members evaluated the quality of the current student population as “Poor”.
Although not shown in the figure, the percentages of faculty members who
selected other evaluations are as follows: “Excellent” (1.6%); “Good” (7.8%);“Fair” (40.5%); and “Don’t know” (9.8%).
A few faculty members thought that the quality of students was improving,although the proportion of faculty members who rated the current student quality
as “Fair” was almost the same as those who responded with “Poor”. However,
the rate of “Poor” responses varied with university institution (p<0.01) andfaculty type (p<0.01). In particular, many faculty members at the so-called
Type IV institutions (56.8%) and from faculties of Engineering and Natural
Sciences & Agriculture (Engineering, 47.0%; Natural Sciences & Agriculture,
43.1%) responded with “Poor”.
5

It is unclear whether the “quality” mentioned here refers to “academic ability” or to“communication ability”, etc.

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto

97

Note: Numerical values represent the rate of “Poor” responses from the choices of“Excellent”, “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor”, and “Don’t know”.

Figure 4. How would you rate the quality of students currently enrolled inyour faculty? (Compared with five years ago)

Educational goals
What kinds of goals form the educational base of faculties and universities?
(Q: How much does each of the following goals have to do with the objectives of
education in your institution?)
Figures 5 & 6 present the results of the faculty members’ choices regarding
four educational goals.6 The numerical values represent the rate of “Strongly
related” responses.
Overall, “To have students acquire the knowledge and qualifications
necessary for them to become professionals” was the most highly represented
educational goals, accounting for 56.6 percent of the responses. A significant
difference was confirmed between university institutions (p<0.01) and faculty
types (p<0.01). In the Humanities & Social Sciences category, highly
represented educational goals were “To have students acquire a broad range ofacademic interests and knowledge” (57.8%) and “To have students acquire
knowledge and qualifications necessary for a member of society” (53.2%)
6

࣭To have students acquire knowledge and qualifications necessary for a member of society
࣭To have students acquire a broad range of academic interests and knowledge
࣭To have students acquire knowledge and qualifications necessary as a professional࣭To have students acquire knowledge and qualifications necessary as an academic researcher

98

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−(Figure 5). In contrast, in Health/Medical Science (73.7%), Engineering(63.4%), and Natural Sciences & Agriculture (59.7%), the goal “To havestudents acquire knowledge and qualifications necessary as a professional” washighly represented (Figure 6). Furthermore, a large number of faculty members
responded with “To have students acquire the knowledge and qualifications
necessary for them to become academic researchers” in Type I (43.4%), Natural
Sciences & Agriculture (49.3%), and Health/Medical Science (47.5%).

Note: Numerical values represent the rate of “Strongly related” responses.

Figure 5. Educational goals 1

Note: Numerical values represent the rate of “Strongly related” responses.

Figure 6. Educational goals 2

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto

Table 5. Average time spent on educational activities per week
(When classes are in session/When classes are not in session)

99

(h)

Time spent on educational activities
How much time do faculty members spend on educational activities(preparation of instructional materials and lesson plans, classroom instruction,
advising students, reading, and evaluating student work)? Faculty members
were asked how much time they spent on educational activities as an average per
week. The results are shown in Table 5. The fact that time spent on
educational activities when classes were not in session is significantly less thanwhen classes were in session can be attributed to the amount of number of hours
in the classroom. The total average time spent on educational activities whenclasses were in session was 17.9 hr. and 7.1 hr. when classes were not in session.
However, the time spent on activities varied according to the university
institution and faculty type. The time spent on activities for Type I institutions(in session, 15.5 hr.; not in session, 6.2 hr.) was low both in session and not insession; in contrast, the time spent on activities for Type IV (in session, 22.4 hr.;
not in session, 9.5 hr.) was high in both. In comparing academic discipline, thecategory with the most time spent on teaching activities when classes were insession was Humanities & Social Sciences (in session, 20.6 hr.).

100 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Figure 7. Proportion of time spent on educational activities per week
(When classes are in session/When classes are not in session)

Next, Figure 7 shows the amount of time faculty members spent on
educational activities as a proportion of the total amount of time spent on
activities when classes were in session and not in session. Overall, theeducational activities rate was 34.9 percent when classes were in session and15.9 percent when classes were not in session. This activities rate also varied
according to the institution type and faculty type. As seen in Figure 7 theactivity rate for Type I institutions when classes were both in session and not insession was low; in contrast, the educational activities rate for Type IV (insession, 46.4%; not in session, 19.9%) was high. For Type IV, teachingaccounted for approximately half of the time spent on activities when classes
were in session. The rate for the Humanities & Social Sciences faculty washigh (42.6%), 16.4 percent higher than for Health/Medical Sciences faculties,
which had the lowest rate (26.2%).
Details of teaching activities
What kind of teaching activities do university faculty members perform?
Figure 8 depicts the results for 10 teaching activities. In Japan, teaching
methods have become primarily classroom instruction or lecture. The
implementation rates for “Classroom instruction/lecturing” (91.9%) and“Practice instruction/ laboratory work” (59.4%) are high; however, “Learning inTsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 101

projects/project groups” (24.8%) is not applied as frequently. Furthermore,“Face-to-face interaction with students outside of class” (58.7%) and “Electronic
communications (e-mail) with students” (57.0%) are proactively implemented,
whereas “Development of course material” (27.3%) and “Curriculum/program
development” (22.8%) are conducted passively. The implementation rate of“Distance education” (5.8%) is also low.

Figure 8. Details of teaching activity

Educational environment
The quality of the educational environment influences the effectiveness ofteaching. Faculty members were asked to evaluate nine items. Table 6
presents the rate of “Excellent” or “Very good” responses.
An examination of the totals reveals that only “Telecommunications” has arate above 50 percent (51.8%). In particular, the rates for institution types,
excluding Type I, and for Humanities & Social Sciences are below 50 percent.
Thus, the quality of the teaching environment at universities in Japan is below“good”. Furthermore, the rate for “Teaching support staff” had the lowest total(19.1%). Upon examination of the correlations between these nine items andtime spent on educational activity when classes are in session, correlations with
“Library facilities and services”, “Office space”, “Laboratories”,“Telecommunications”, and “Computer facilities” were high (p<0.01). This
indicates that it is not personal assistance (e.g., staff support) that influences
educational activity but rather physical elements (e.g., facilities and equipment).

102 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Table 6. Educational environment

Note: Numerical values represent the rate of “Excellent” and “Very good” responses on a
five-tier rating system from “Excellent” to “Poor”.

Quality of education
Now that Japan has entered the universal access stage of higher education,
has the quality of university instruction improved over the past five years?
Figure 9 shows the results of faculty members’ responses related to thesequestions. The numerical figures represent the proportion of faculty members
who responded “Much Improved” or “Improved to some extent”.
Less than half (41.6%) of the respondents acknowledged an improvement in
the quality of university education in Japan. In terms of university institution
types, faculty members of Type III (44.5%) and Type I (44.2%) institutions
considered that their university educational activities had been improved
compared with those of Type II (37.3%) and Type IV (31.8%). More faculty
members from the faculties of Natural Sciences & Agriculture (44.0%) andEngineering (43.9%) recognized improvements of their university educational
activities than did those from Humanities & Social Sciences (37.9%) and
Health/Medical Science (33.7%), (p<0.05).

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 103

Note: Numerical values represent the proportion of faculty members who responded “MuchImproved” or “Improved to some extent”.

Figure 9. Has the quality of university education been improved? (Comparedwith five years ago)

Methods to improve teaching
In what ways are faculty members improving the quality of education?
Figure 10 gives the results of two items.
Faculty members who responded “Strongly agree” to the statement “Youspend more time than you would like teaching basic skills owing to student
deficiencies”; that is, faculty members engaged in improving education on an
individual level, totaled 27.5 percent. In the analysis of institution type andfaculty types, “Strongly agree” responses accounted for 20-30 percent. In
particular, the rate was higher for faculty members at Type IV (34.5%) and TypeIII (32.3%) institutions compared with those at Type II (28.7%) and Type I(23.9%) institutions. Among the various faculties, the Humanities & Social
Sciences faculty had the highest rate (31.9%), (p<0.001). Thus, what can besaid for initiatives at the institutional level? Faculty members who responded“Strongly agree” to the statement “At your institution there are adequate training
courses for enhancing educational quality”; that is, the total rate of university
institutions providing training at the institutional level, accounted for only 7.2
percent. This indicates that teaching improvements in Japan are not being
actively carried out at the individual level, and that teaching improvements at theinstitutional level are falling even further behind.

104 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Note: Numerical values represent the proportion of “Strongly agree” responses.

Figure 10. Working to improve education (faculty members)

Evaluation of educational activities
While emphasis is placed on faculty members’ research activities duringpromotion reviews, their educational activities are not strongly assessed. Amid
demands for a quality assurance and improvements in education, how do faculty
members feel about the evaluation of their educational activities? Figure 11
shows the proportion of faculty members who responded “Strongly emphasized”
when asked “How much do you expect that teaching activities will beemphasized when faculty are promoted at your institution?” or “How much do
you think that teaching activities are actually emphasized when faculty arepromoted at your institution?” In total, 39.2 percent of faculty members heldstrong expectations for the evaluation of educational activities. However, therate for the actual emphasis on teaching activities was 16.7 percent. Responses
also varied according to institution type and faculty type (p<0.001).
That is to say, faculty members in the Humanities & Social Sciences(49.2%) and those at Type III (44.8%) and Type IV (44.5%) institutions had highexpectations for the evaluation of teaching. However, where expectation rates
were high, the actual emphasis was low (Humanities & Social Sciences faculties,

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 105

actual emphasis: 19.8%; Type IV, actual emphasis: 26.9%; and Type III, actual
emphasis: 21.7%), and although there was a slight tendency for the emphasis tobe placed on educational activities at the time of promotion reviews, nosignificant difference was found.

Note: Numerical values represent the proportion of “Strongly emphasized” responses.

Figure 11. Evaluation of educational activities

Summary
Findings of the study “The Changing Academic Profession in Asia 2011 –An Investigation in Japan” are as follows:
1. Faculty members evaluation of the quality of students as compared withfive years ago varied according to the university institution and faculty type.
That is to say, there were a high number of “Poor” responses from faculty
members at Type IV institutions and from faculties in the natural sciences.
2. Educational goals varied according to the institution and faculty type.
3. Average time spent on educational activities per week was high for faculty
members at Type IV institutions and in Humanities & Social Sciences
faculties.
4. Faculty members were proactive with regards to teaching based on
face-to-face interaction with students but passive with regards to thedevelopment of course material and the curriculum/program.

106 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

5. At present, faculty members are conducting educational activities in apoor-quality educational environment.
6. Less than half of the faculty members surveyed thought that the quality ofeducation had improved compared with five years ago. Among them,
many faculty members from Type IV and faculties of Humanities & Social
Sciences and Health/Medical Science responded negatively.
7. In terms of improving education at universities in Japan, both the initiativesof individual faculty members and institutions are falling behind acceptable
standards.
8. There were many faculty members in the Humanities & Social Sciences
faculties and at Type IV who had high expectations for the evaluation of
educational activities.
However, the reality failed to meet these
expectations.
Thus, it is apparent that the burden of educational activities experienced byfaculty members varies among universities and faculties. University entrance
rates are currently exceeding 50 percent, placing Japan in the universal accessstage of education. In addition, those students entering university are becoming
more diverse. Many faculty members at Type IV and in Engineering andNatural Sciences & Agriculture faculties strongly believe there has been adecrease in the quality of students. In addition, faculty members are teaching inpoor educational environments. Furthermore, the proportion of time spent on
educational activities at Type IV and among the Humanities & Social Sciences
faculties exceeds 40 percent.
This study leads one to conclude that in addition to higher education policy
to promote educational activities by competitive funding, higher education
policy to subsidize the education expenses based on external evaluation of
educational results is also a necessity.

Research activity
In academic circles, research activities have, for the most part, been
identified as the prime academic pursuit for faculty. It is then useful to know
the extent to which faculty are involved in research and to what extent they makescholarly contributions through their research activities.
How much do Japanese faculty members contribute through their research?
On average, in 2011, a Japanese faculty member writes 1.8 academic books,
edits 0.6 books, publishes 9.5 papers in academic journals, publishes 1.3
monographs, and presents papers 8.7 times at academic conferences (Table 7).

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 107

Table 7. Research productivity in the previous three years
Minimum

Maximum

AverageStandard
deviation

WeightAuthored Scholarly books you
authored or co-authored

0

40

1.8

3.07

10

Edited Scholarly books you edited orco-edited

0

10

0.6

1.23

5

Academic articles published in an
academic book or journal

0

150

9.5

12.97

3

Research report/monograph written
for a funded project

0

30

1.3

2.32

3

Paper presented at a scholarly
conference

0

200

8.7

17.40

2

Professional article written for anewspaper or magazine

0

50

1.5

4.44

1

Patent secured on a process orinvention

0

20

0.5

1.56

3

Computer program written for public
use

0

30

0.2

1.72

1

Artistic work performed or exhibited

0

50

1.0

3.59

3

Video or film produced

0

5

0.1

0.38

1

Research output score

0

1,008

64.0

79.27

We calculated the research productivity score by fitting 10 points to one of
the “Authored Scholarly books”, 5 points to one of the “Edited scholarly books”,
1 point to one of the “Academic articles”, 3 points to one of the “Research
report/monograph”, 2 point to one of the “Paper presented at a scholarly
conference”, 1 point to the “Professional article written for a newspaper ormagazine”, 3 point to one of the “Patent”, 1 point to one of the “Computer
program”, 3 point to one of the “Artistic work” and 1 point to one of the “Videoor film produced”.
Distribution of the research productivity score resembles log-normal
distribution as shown in Figure 12. Log-normal distribution has the character
in which corresponding distribution turns into a normal distribution, when thelogarithm of the random variable according to Log-normal distribution is
calculated. So, in the following analysis, the logarithm of research productivity
score is used.

108 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

140

Average=64.0
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Figure 12. Distribution of the research productivity score

250

215

200

175

Average=3.7

165

150

129
90

100
56
50

11

28

33

55
31

0
less more more more more more more more more more morethan than than than than than than than than than than
1.0 1.0 and 1.5 and 2.0 and 2.5 and 3.0 and 3.5 and 4.0 and 4.5 and 5.0 and 5.5
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
than than than than than than than than than
4.5
5.0
5.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
1.5
2.0
2.5

Figure 13. Distribution of LRPS

In addition, below, the logarithm of research productivity score is written as
LRPS. Figure 13 is the distribution of LRPS. The minimum, maximum,
average and standardized deviation of research productivity score was 0, 6.9, 3.7
and 1.06 respectively.
Figure 13 is the distribution of LRPS. How can we explain thesedifferences in the LRPS?

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 109

Data and conceptual model of the determinants of research activities
It is faculty members and their associates such as colleagues and graduate
students who perform research projects. Therefore, the results of a research
project are dependent on the personal ability and effort of these people (Daizen,
2008). However, the success of their work is influenced by their attributes andthe environment of their research activity. This is documented by extensive
studies of research productivity (Bellas & Toutkoushian, 1999; Bland, Center,
Finstad, Risbey & Staples, 2006; Bonzi & Day, 1991; Daizen, 1996a, 1996b,
2008; Kotrlik, Bartlett, Higgins & Williams, 2002; Stack, 2004).
A model to examine the factors influencing research productivity ispresented schematically in Figure 14 and is discussed below.
The variables used in this paper are as shown in Table 8.
In the following, in developing and application of the model, the initial stepis to clarify the relationship between each independent variable and thedependent variable research productivity.

ճ Academic discipline

ղ Age

ձ Genderմ Obtained highest
degreeյ Academic rank
ն The number of timesof transferring aworkplace

Logarithm of research
productivity score (LRPS)

շ Institutional typeո Management styleչ Research evaluation

պ Research fundingջ Hours per week
spend on research
activities

Figure 14. Conceptual model of determinants for LRPS

110

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Table 8. The variables used in this paper
Variables

Category

Dependent variables
LRPS
Independent variables

the logarithm of research productivity score

ձGenderMale=1, Female=0ղAgethe actual number

ճAcademic discipline
Humanities
Social sciences
Natural sciences
Engineering
Agriculture
Health/Medical sciences
մObtained highest degree

Discipline which faculty has acquired the highest degree is
Humanities=1, Others=0
Discipline which faculty has acquired the highest degree isSocial sciences=1, Others=0
Discipline which faculty has acquired the highest degree is
Natural sciences=1, Others=0
Discipline which faculty has acquired the highest degree isEngineering=1, Others=0
Discipline which faculty has acquired the highest degree isAgriculture=1, Others=0
Discipline which faculty has acquired the highest degree is
Health/Medical sciences=1, Others=0
Doctor=1, Others=0

յAcademic rank
Professor
Associate
Assistant professor
նThe number of times of transferring aworkplace

Professor=1, Others=0
Associate professor=1, Others=0
Assistant professor=1, Others=0
the actual number

շInstitutional typeType I
Type II
Type III
Type IV

The institution which offer a doctorate degree by all specialized
fields=1, Others=0
The institution which offer a doctorate degree by more than
50% of specialized fields=1, Others=0
The institution which offer a master degree by all specialized
fields=1, Others=0
The institution which offer a master degree by more than
50% of specialized fields=1, Others=0

ոManagement style
Collegial management
Supportive management
Top-down management
Performance oriented management
չResearch evaluation
պResearch fundingջHours per week spend on research activities

factor scores
factor scores
factor scores
factor scores
Someone at or outside your institution evaluate your research
activities=1, No one evaluate your research activities=0
the actual number in the previous three years
the actual number (The average of hours when classes are insession and classes are not in session)

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto111

ձ GenderThe extent to which Japanese higher education remained a male-dominatedprofession in the last decade of the twentieth century can be seen in Figure 15.
As of 2011, 84.6 percent of all faculty was male and 15.40 percent were female.
In Japan, representation of women has changed very slowly since 1955 when
they constituted only 5.0 percent.
Figure 16 showed the relationship between Gender and research
productivity. Male professor’s LRPS is higher than female professor’s LRPS.
(0.1% of levels of significance)
900

833 (84.6%)

800
700
600
500
400
300
152(15.4%)

200
100
0
Male

FemaleFigure 15. Gender distribution of university faculty (Frequency (%))
4.0
3.8

***

3.8

3.6
3.4

3.2
3.2
3.0
Male

FemaleNote: *** p<0.001

Figure 16. LRPS by Genderղ Age
Concerning age of the university professor, the youngest age is 24 years old,the most senior age is 75 years old and the average age is 48.3 years old.

112

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Figure 17 presents the relationship of age and LRPS which increased withage. (5% of levels of significance)8
y = 0.0058x + 3.3911
R² = 0.0035

7
6

LRPS

5
4
3
2
1
0
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Age

Figure 17. Relationship LRPS and the age

ճ Academic discipline
In Figure 18 the distribution of the specialized field where a respondentacquired the best degree is presented.
As having been shown in Table 8, compared to the national data, there weremore respondents in the fields of Natural science and Engineering and there
were less respondents in the fields of Health/medical sciences.
Figure 19 shows the relationship between the LRPS and academic
discipline. The university professor who specialized in engineering raised thebiggest research productivity. And, the faculty who specialized in humanities
raised the smallest research productivity.
(Frequency (%))
300

273(27.8%)250
196(19.9%)200
150
105(10.7%)

187(19.0%)

122(12.4%)

100
58( 5.9%)5042( 4.3%)0Humanities

Social sciences

Naturalsciences

Engineering

Agriculture Health/Medical
sciences

Other

Figure 18. Distribution of university faculty by Academic discipline

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto
4.50

4.07

4.00
3.50

3.36

3.17

113

***

3.91

3.71

3.57

Health/Medical
sciences

Other

3.55

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Humanities

Social sciences

Naturalsciences

Engineering

Agriculture

Figure 19. LRPS by the Academic disciplineմ Obtained highest degree
In Japan, the proportion of faculty with doctorates increased substantiallyovertime: from 10 percent in 1967, to 40 percent in 1983, and to 78 percent in2007.
A doctoral degree is now a prerequisite for employment of faculty in mostfour-year universities and colleges. Correspondingly, the proportion of thosewith a bachelor’s degree as their highest earned degree has tended to zero. By
the time of the APA survey, most faculty (95.8%) had received doctoral degreefrom a Japanese institution – 2.3 percent received degrees in the United States,
and the rest in other countries.
Figure 21 showed the relationship between research funding and academic
credentials. The university faculty who have a doctorate degree has a higher
research productivity than the university faculty who have a master or bachelor
degree. (0.1% of levels of significance)
900
800

795 (83.4%)

700
600
500
400
300
200

128(13.4%)

10030( 3.1%)

0DoctorMasterBachelor

Figure 20. Academic credentials of university faculty

114

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−***

Figure 21. LRPS by the academic credentials

յ Academic rank
Academic professionals in Japanese institutions holds one of four academic
ranks: jokyo (assistant professor), koshi (lecturer), jyunkyoju (associate
professor), and kyoju (full professor).
The proportion of full professors increased from 31.0 to 40.1 percent from1970 to 2009. The composition of the samples in both the APA survey haveremained effectively unchanged in terms of the ratios of full professors over theperiod 1992 to 2007. (Figure 22)
Figure 23 showed the relationship between LRPS and the academic rank.
Full and associate professors have a higher research productivity than assistantprofessors.

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

420 (42.6%)

264(26.7%)

233(23.6%)70( 7.1%)

Professor

Associate
professor

Lecturer

Figure 22. Distribution of academic rank

Assistantprofessor,
Research
AssociateTsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto

115

4.00

3.81

***

3.74

3.80

3.52

3.60

3.39

3.40
3.20
3.00
Professor

Associate
professor

Lecturer

Assistantprofessor,
Research
Associate

Figure 23. LRPS by the academic rank

8

**

7

y = 0.0786x + 3.5741
R² = 0.008

6

LRPS

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

2

4

6

8

10

The number of times that moved a workplace

Note: ** p<0.01

Figure 24. Relationship LRPS and the number of times of transferring aworkplaceն The number of times transferring workplace
Concerning the number of times university professors changed workplaces,
the smallest number is 0, the maximum number 8 and the average age is 1.8.
Figure 24 shows the relationship research productivity and the number oftimes that moved a workplace. There is no significant relationship between
research productivity and the number of times that workplace is changed.
շ Institutional typeIn this study, with reference to the Carnegie classification, we classify
higher education institutions into 5 types: Type I, the institution which offer a

116

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

doctorate degree by all specialized fields; Type II, institution which offer adoctorate degree by more than 50 percent of specialized fields; Type III, theinstitution which offer a master degree by all specialized fields; Type IV, theinstitution which offer a master degree by more than 50 percent of specialized
fields; and Type V, the institution which offer only a baccalaureate degrees.
The breakdown of the 23 universities targeted in the Japanese study is: eight
Type I institutions, three Type II institutions, seven Type III institutions, four
Type IV institutions, and one Type V institutions.

700
600

592 (56.5%)

500
400
300
200(19.1%)
200

131(12.5%)

113(10.8%)100
12( 1.1%)0Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

Type V

Figure 25. Distribution of the type of university

4.00

3.81

***

3.83

3.80
3.60

3.39

3.40

3.27

3.20
3.00
Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

Figure 26. Research productivity by the type of university

ո Management style
Factor analysis of the fourteen management style issues resulted in afour-factor solution. The four factors were labelled: Collegial management,

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto117

Supportive management, Top-down management, and Performance oriented
management. The factors and their item loadings are displayed in Table 9.
Table 9. Four Management Style Factors
Factor 1
Collegial
management

Factor 2

Factor 3

SupportiveTop-down
management management

Factor 4
Performance
Communality
oriented
management

Good communication between management
and academics

0.69

0.19

-0.21

-0.10

0.57

I am kept informed about what is going on at
this institution

0.55

0.17

-0.17

0.00

0.36

A strong emphasis on the institution’s mission

0.54

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.31

Top-level administrators are providing
competent leadership

0.54

0.07

0.28

-0.03

0.38

The administration supports academic
freedom

0.52

0.22

-0.34

0.11

0.44

Collegiality in decision-making processes

0.43

0.11

-0.09

0.10

0.21

Professional development foradministrative/management duties forindividual faculty

0.33

0.17

0.01

-0.05

0.14

A supportive attitude of administrative staff
towards research activities

0.26

0.90

0.00

0.05

0.88

A supportive attitude of administrative staff
towards teaching activities

0.28

0.75

0.01

-0.05

0.65

A top-down management style

-0.05

-0.09

0.61

0.10

0.40

Lack of faculty involvement is a real problem

-0.40

-0.12

0.50

0.06

0.43

Students should have a stronger voice indetermining policy that affects them

0.03

0.06

0.19

0.05

0.04

A strong performance orientation

0.14

0.10

0.10

0.49

0.28

A cumbersome administrative process

-0.13

-0.21

0.12

0.35

0.20

Factor contribution

2.26

1.63

0.97

0.43

5.29

Cumulative factor contribution rate

16.15

27.77

34.72

37.77

Factor extraction methods: Principal factor method
Rotation method: Varimax
Note: The numerical value in the table shows a Varimax factor loadings.

118

Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Each factor score of these four factors were used as four variables in thethird category, the management style, which was shown in the analyticalframework.
Figures 27, 28, 29 & 30 show the relationship research productivity and thefactor score of each four management style.
When the correlation coefficient of LRPS and the four factors ofmanagement style are calculated, the university professor at institutions with
Collegial management, Factor 1, or Performance-oriented management, Factor 4,
raise LRPS (correlation coefficient = 0.087 and 0.081, P <0.01 and p<0.05).
Those at institutions with supportive management, Factor 2 or top-down
management, Factor 3, decrease LRPS (correlation coefficient = -0.044 and-0.062, n.s. and p<0.05).
8
y = 0.091x + 3.6911
R² = 0.0076

7
6

**

LRPS

5
4
3
2
1
0
-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Factor score of Collegial management

Figure 27. LRPS by Factor score of the collegial management8
y = 0.0106x + 3.6905
R² = 0.0001

7
6
LRPS

5
4
3
2
1
0
-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Factor score of Supportive management

Figure 28. LRPS by Factor score of the supportive management

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto

1198
y = -0.0694x + 3.6908
R² = 0.0045

7
6

*

LRPS

5
4
3
2
1
0
-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Factor score of Top down management

Note: * p<0.05

Figure 29. LRPS by Factor score of the top down management

8

LRPS

7
6

y = 0.0851x + 3.6899
R² = 0.0066

5

*

4
3
2
1
0

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Factor score of Performance oriented management

Figure 30. LRPS by Factor score of the perfomance oriented management

չ Research evaluation
Formal schemes of academic staff evaluation have been introduced fairly
recently into universities. In 2011, 85.1 percent of faculty reported that theirresearch activities were evaluated, almost double the proportion in 1992 (Figure
31).
Figure 32 shows the relationship between LRPS and the situation ofresearch evaluation. The faculty that their research activities are evaluatedregularly has higher LRPS than the faculty who is not so.

120 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−
800
690 (85.1%)

700
600
500
400
300
200

121(14.9%)

100
0
Yes

No

Figure 31. Faculty reporting that their research activities are regularly assessed

4.00
3.80

***

3.77

3.60

3.41
3.40
3.20
3.00
Yes

No

Figure 32. LRPS according to the situation of research evaluation

պ Research funding in the previous three years
Research grants and funding resources are allocated to faculty fromgovernment agencies and to individual institutions. The national universities
derive a large part of their institutional funds from government sources.
Responses to the APA survey indicate that almost all faculties, 98.9 percent, havereceived grants for individual or collaborative research projects in the previous
three years. About 21.4 percent of the respondents have had grants totaling lessthan $24,999, while about 33.3 percent have received $100,000 or more in 2007
(Figure 33).

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 121
250

228(24.2%)
202 (21.4%)

200

199(21.4%)
159(16.8%)

156(16.5%)$100,000 to$249,999$250,000 or
more

150
100
50
0
Less than$24,999$25,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$99,999

Figure 33. Research funding

5.00

4.55

4.50

***

4.00
3.50

3.03

3.73

4.09

3.34

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
$0 to $24,999$25,000 to$49,999$50,000 to$99,999$100,000 to$249,999$250,000 or
more

LRPS

Figure 34. LRPS according to the Research funding
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

***
R² = 0.151$0.0$100,000.0 $200,000.0 $300,000.0 $400,000.0 $500,000.0
Research funding

Figure 35. LRPS according to the Research funding122 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Figures 34 & 35 show a significant relationship between research fundingand LRPS. When research funding increases, the LRPS increases.
ջ Hours per week spend on research activities
Concerning the hours per week spend on research when university
professors classes are in session, the smallest number is 0, the maximum number
is 100 and the average age is 20.3.
Figure 36 shows LRPS and the hours per week spend on research whenclasses are in session. There is a significant relationship between LRPS and thehours per week spend on research.

8

***

7

y = 0.0068x + 3.549
R² = 0.0089

6
LRPS

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Hours per week spend on reserch

Figure 36. LRPS and the hours per week spend on research

The determinants of research productivity score
To clarify which of the explanatory variables presented in Table 8
significantly determine the LRPS, a multi-regression analysis was performed.
The results are displayed in Table 10.
The statistically significant variables are Research funding, Assistantprofessor, Hours spent per week on research activities, Age and Obtained highest
degree on the research productivity score.
Judging from the standardized regression coefficient, Assistant professor
and younger faculty have lower research productivity scores and the Researchfunding, Hours spent per week on research activities and Obtained highest
degree becomes higher so that research productivity score became higher.

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 123

Table 10. The determinants of LRPS
ձ Genderղ Ageճ Academic discipline
Humanities
Social sciences
Natural sciences
Engineering
Agriculture
Health/Medical sciencesմ Obtained highest degree
յ Academic rank
Professor
Lecturer
Assistant professor
ն The number of times of transferring a workplaceշ Institutional typeType I
Type II
Type III
Type IV
ո Management style
Collegial management
Supportive management
Top-down management
Performance oriented management
չ Research evaluation
պ Research fundingջ Hours spent per week on research activities
R2

Research
productivity score
0.069
n.s.
-0.140*-0.058-0.049-0.148
0.093
0.056
0.056
0.123

n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
*

0.098
-0.008-0.204
0.084

n.s.
n.s.
***
n.s.

-0.082-0.035-0.145-0.162

n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.

0.043
0.077
-0.017
0.024
0.055
0.277
0.118
0.312

n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
***
**

Note: *** p<0.001, **p<0.01, * p<0.05, + P<0.10

Next calculated were the determinants of Research funding and Hours spent
per week on research activity that was the determinants of research productivity
score. Table 11 presents the results.
First, the determinants of the hours spent per week on research activity are
Type III and Research evaluation.
Hours spent per week on research activity for professors who belong toType III university is significantly fewer than Hours spent per week on research
activity for those who does not belong to Type III university. And, Hours spent
per week on research activity of the faculty who replies that their own research
activities are evaluated inside and outside the their university became longer.

124 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

Table 11. The determinants of the hours spent per week on research
activities and the research fundingջHours spent
per week on
research activities
ձGenderղAgeճAcademic discipline
Humanities
Social sciences
Natural sciences
Engineering
Agriculture
Health/Medical sciences
մObtained highest degree
յAcademic rank
Professor
Lecturer
Assistant professor
նThe number of times of transferring a workplace
շInstitutional typeType I
Type II
Type III
Type IVոManagement style
Collegial management
Supportive management
Top-down management
Performance oriented management
չResearch evaluation
պResearch fundingջHours spent per week on research activities
R2

պResearchfunding

0.047-0.024

n.s.
n.s.

0.003
-0.14

n.s.
*

-0.0150.060
0.067-0.118-0.080-0.137
0.071

n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.

0.048
0.080
0.241
0.332
0.224
0.169
0.023

n.s.
n.s.
*
**
*
*
n.s.

-0.0880.023
0.050-0.048

n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.

0.277
-0.019-0.146-0.002

***
n.s.
**
n.s.

-0.449-0.375-0.498-0.325

n.s.
n.s.
*
n.s.

0.083
-0.0120.054-0.079

n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.

0.033
-0.019-0.019-0.026
0.113
0.045
㸫
0.116

n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
*
n.s.

0.078
0.012
0.043
0.095
0.057
㸫
㸫
0.160

n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
*
n.s.

Note: *** p<0.001, **p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.05

Furthermore, the determinants of Research funding are Age, Naturalsciences, Engineering, Agriculture, Health/Medical sciences, Professor, Assistantprofessor and Performance oriented management.
Older faculty came to have fewer amounts of acquisition research funds
than younger faculty. Assistant professor came to have fewer acquisition
research funds than faculty of other academic rank. The faculty who
specialized in Natural sciences, Engineering, Agriculture and Health/Medical
sciences have more acquisition research funds than faculty of other specialized

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 125

fields. Professor came to have fewer acquisition research funds than faculty ofother academic rank. The faculty who belonged to the university which
intended Performance oriented management got research funds more than those
who belonged to the university of other management styles.
Summary
Both correlation analysis and analysis of variance indicate that thedeterminants of research productivity score in Japan are as follows:1㸬 Male faculty research productivity score are higher than female faculty.
(0.1% of levels of significance)
2㸬 The faculty specialized in engineering have higher research productivity
score than the faculty specialized in humanities. (0.1% of levels ofsignificance)
3㸬 The faculty who acquired a doctorate as the highest obtained degree havehigher research productivity score than the faculty who acquired master’s
degree. (0.1% of levels of significance)
4㸬 Professors have higher research productivity scores than Assistantprofessor. (0.1% of levels of significance)
5㸬 The faculty who belonged to the university which provided doctoral
degrees in all fields, have higher research productivity scores than thefaculty who belonged to the university which provided mainly master’s
degree. (1% of levels of significance)
6㸬 The faculty who belong to a university where management style had acharacteristic of Collegial management or Performance oriented
management have higher research productivity scores than the faculty who
do not belong to such a university. (0.1% of levels of significance and 1%of levels of significance)
7㸬 The faculty who replied that their own research activities are evaluated byoutside person, have higher research productivity scores than the faculty
who are not so. (1% of levels of significance)
8㸬 The faculty who receive more research funds have higher research
productivity score than the faculty who do not. (0.1% of levels ofsignificance)
9㸬 The faculty who take a lot of time for their research activities have higher
research productivity score than the faculty who do not. (1% of levels ofsignificance)

126 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−10㸬Performance of multiple regression analysis using all explanation
variables revealed that research productivity score was directly determinedby the amount of research funding and the number of research
productivities’ hours.
Other variables mentioned above indirectly
determined the research productivity score as a parameter with the amountof research funding or the number of research productivities’ hours.
The aforementioned results suggest that the causal relation of determinantsof the logarithm of research productivity score is as represented in Figure 37.

Figure 37. Relations of the determinants of research productivity score

Conclusion
In the knowledge-based society, it is important to accumulate a diversity of
new knowledge and to use them in the society efficiently. A university is theimportant point of the knowledge based society. That is, in order to maintainand develop the knowledge-based society, it is necessary to produce knowledge
through fundamental research activities and to reproduce future knowledge user
and producer through applied research activities or an educational activity in theuniversity. In the university, the university professor is expected to play main
roles of educational and research activities with sufficient balance.
How does the university professor recognize about the situation which
research activities and an educational activity make compatible? What kind of

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 127

relationships between the situation which research activities and an educational
activity are compatible with each other and a university professor’s own research
productivity scale are there?
We calculated the average value of LRPS according to the reply to thequestion how are teaching and research hardly compatible with each other. The
LRPS of the university professor who answered “Strongly agree” was the lowest(3.43), and LRPS of the university teacher who answered “Disagree” was thehighest (3.78). That is, a university professor who has answered that research
activities and educational activities are compatible with each other, wasperforming high average of LRPS. (Figure 38)
Amid global economic depression, it has been difficult for a college student
to be employed. While a college student’s quality is diversified, the university
professors have been expected to not only open a course of many lessons, but inorder to improve the quality of educational activities, be engaged inself-inspection activity or Faculty Development (FD) activities. To be sure, forthese 20 years, the educational reform has been the center of the university
reform in Japan. But, from the results of Figure 38, in order to get university
professors to raise the quality of their own educational activities positively, it isnecessary to implement the measures that a university professor can get theresult of research activities.
That is, when reforming the higher education system from now on, it isimportant to advance reform of educational activities and research activities with
sufficient balance.

3.90

*

3.78

3.80

3.73

3.70

3.62

3.60
3.50

3.43

3.40
3.30
3.20
Strongly Agree

Agree

Fair

DisagreeFigure 38. LRPS and the response to “Teaching and research are hardly
compatible with each other”

128 Educational and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan −based on the Japanese survey in 2011−

References
Amano, I. (1984). Daigaku Bunrui no Houhou [Method for the Types of Universities andColleges]. In K. Tominaga (Ed.), Daigaku Hyouka no Kenkyu [Study of University
Evaluation], Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai. (in Japanese)
Arimoto, A., & Ehara, T. (Eds.) (1996). Daigaku kyoujyusyoku no kokusai hikaku[International Comparison of Academic Professions]. Tamagawa University Press. (inJapanese)
Arimoto, A. (Eds.) (2008). Henbou suru Nihon no daigaku kyoujusyoku [The Changing
Academic Profession in Japan]. Tamagawa University Press. (in Japanese)
Arimoto, A. (Eds.) (2011). Henbou suru Sekai no daigaku kyoujusyoku [The Changing
Academic Profession in the World]. Tamagawa University Press (in Japanese).
Bellas, M.L., & Toutkoushian, R.K. (1999). Faculty Time Allocations and Research
Productivity: Gender, Race, and Family Effects. The Review of Higher Education, 22 (4),367-390.
Bland, C.J., Center, B.A., Finstad, D.A., Risbey, K.R., & Staples, J. (2006). The Impact of
Appointment Type on the Productivity and Commitment of Full-Time Faculty in
Research and Doctoral Institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77 (1), 89-123.
Bonzi, S., & Day, D.L. (1991). Faculty Productivity as a Function of Cohort Group, Discipline,
and Academic Age. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 28, 267-275.
Daizen, T. (1996a). A Comparative Study on the Determinants of Academic Achievements
between USA and Japan-on the field of physics. Human Sciences, 207-237.
Daizen, T. (1996b). The International Comparison of Research Productivity. In A. Arimoto andT. Ehara, (Eds.), The International Comparison of the Academic Profession (pp.166-183).
Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Daizen, T. (2008). Research Productivity. In A. Arimoto (Ed.), The Changing Academic
Profession in Japan (pp.245-262). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Daizen, T. (2011). International comparison of research achievements. In A. Arimoto (eds.).
The Changing Academic Profession in the World, Tamagawa University Press. 222-238.
Fukudome, H., & Daizen, T. (2009). Education and Research, RIHE International Seminar
Report, 13, 165-192.
Kotrlik, J.W., Bartlett, J.E., Higgins, C.C., & Williams, H.A. (2002). Factors Associated with
Research Productivity of Agricultural Education Faculty. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 43 (3), 1-10.
Kuzuki, K. (2011). Educational Activities. In A. Arimoto (Eds.), The Changing Academic
Profession in the World (pp.239-253). Tamagawa University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciences and Technology (MEXT). (1950-2007).
School Basic Survey. Tokyo : Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance.

Tsukasa Daizen & Naomi Kimoto 129
MEXT. (2010). School Teacher Statistical Survey. Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of
Finance.
Stack, S. (2004). Gender, Children and Research Productivity. Research in Higher Education,
45 (8), 891-920.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 2013 131

Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics
in Malaysian Public Universities

Aida Suraya Md.Yunus and Vincent Pang

Introduction
It is generally believed that the passion for teaching and research has
out-weighted the ‘attraction’ of remuneration for scholars to join academia.
The work conditions may also be less conducive and attractive as compared toother professions. In Malaysia, factors affecting the academic profession werecomplicated by the introduction of a multitude of initiatives which were related
to the goal of making Malaysia a regional centre for excellence in education.

The statement of problem
It has been observed that criteria for promotion that emphasize greatly
research performance especially in research universities have resulted in lessconcentration on teaching as compared to research, publication and consultancy
works. The multiple efforts that Malaysian universities are undertaking to be
included in the world ranking of universities, and incentives given for
publications, consultancy work and patents have also added to enhance inconcentration on research. Each university sets a key performance indicator(KPI) for the academics, for example, three publications in Institute for
Scientific Information (ISI) journals per year for professors, two for associate
Research Fellow, National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN), Penang, Malaysia /Professor & Director, Centre for Academic Development & Faculty of Educational Studies,
Universiti Putra Malaysia, e-mail: aida@upm.edu.my
Research Fellow, IPPTN, Penang, Malaysia / Professor & Dean, Centre for the Promotion of
Knowledge and Language Learning, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, e-mail:pvincent@umtp.ums.edu.my132 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities

professors and one for junior academics. How have these performance criteria
affected the goal of ensuring excellence in teaching and research?
In 2007, Malaysia collaborated in the Changing Academic Profession(CAP) project, which was conducted by the National Higher Education ResearchInstitute. This Academic Profession in Asia (APA) study is a continuation of
the CAP project (2007); however, some improvements were made in the
instrument to reflect more on what Asian universities are facing. In Malaysian
higher education, 2007 is a very memorable year. It is only one year after four
universities were designated as research universities in October 2006. Apartfrom that, the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (MOHE) launched the
National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP) for 2007-2011, referred to as
the ‘Laying the Foundation’ Phase. The NHESP has now entered the‘Strengthening and Enhancement’ phase in 2011-2015.
2007 is also the year that the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) wasestablished, thus the Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF) was
determined, standards that must be adhered to were set, codes of practices were
formulated and many more. It was also the year when top down directive wasgiven for Malaysian higher education institutions to adopt the outcome-based
education. Many events were charted in the Malaysian Higher Education
calendar.
Considering the overwhelming initiatives introduced in 2007, it is worth
noting how the academic profession has changed since then. This paper will
analyze the impact of these initiatives for academics in the three classificationsof public universities in Malaysia: research, comprehensive, and focused. It
has a specific focus on their research and teaching concentration.

Classification of public universities
Vision and mission are the pillars of the higher education institutions.
They are directions and guidance to achieving success in the academic realms.
All of the public higher education institutions (HEIs) possess different vision andmission statements, which are created according to the current and national
needs. As stated previously public HEIs in Malaysia are grouped into three
categories.
Research universities place more emphasis on research compared to otherfunctions of universities. It is provided with higher financial allocations andthus is expected to produce more outcomes and outputs in publications, patents
and commercialization. A comprehensive university offers a wide range ofAida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 133

academic programmes. It places equal emphasis on teaching and research. A
focused university places emphasis on a specific discipline. For example,
Universiti Utara Malaysia is a management university, Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan Idris is an education university, while Universiti Teknikal Melaka is anengineering university. Of the twenty public universities in Malaysia, five areclassified as research universities, four are comprehensive and twelve arefocused universities. The twelve focused universities include a network of four
technical universities which call themselves the Malaysian Technical University
Network (MTUN) (MOHE, 2013a). The technical universities are upgrades offormer technical university colleges that share similar history and contexts.
They are categorized as focused universities because the study programmes thatare offered are limited, thus focused. Most of the technical universities onlyoffer engineering programmes or engineering related programmes such asengineering education.
With the differentiation of mission in the university categories, it isexpected that academics working in different types of universities performdifferent processes and attain outcomes with some degrees of difference.

The National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP)
To systematically achieve the vision of making Malaysia a regional centre
of educational excellence, the MOHE was established, and after extensive
discussions, and consultations with all stakeholders, the NHESP was instituted in2007. This document articulates the ministry’s vision for the transformation ofhigher education to 2020 and beyond. Seven strategic thrusts were outlined in
the plan:
1. Widening access and enhancing equity
2. Improving the quality of teaching and learning
3. Enhancing research and innovation
4. Strengthening institutions of higher education
5. Intensifying internationalisation
6. Inculcating lifelong learning
7. Reinforcing the delivery system of MOHE (MOHE, 2007a).
To facilitate effective implementation of the strategic plan, the National
Higher Education Action Plans were initiated. The Action Plans provided key
implementation mechanisms and schedules and specify outcomes of the duration

134 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities

covered. The first Action Plan has been implemented during 2007-2010 period.
Its focus was on setting the foundation for the long term strategic plan. Various
systems and Critical Agenda Projects were established to jumpstart the strategicplan (MOHE, 2007b).
The second plan was launched in 2011 with the focus on enhancement andexpansion of higher education of Malaysia (MOHE, 2011a). Basically thisphase focuses on the execution of all the Critical Agenda (CA) projects that were
established in the first phase. The second phase also incorporates Malaysia’s
global outreach programmes (MOHE, 2011b). Its special agenda is to widen
Malaysia’s global engagement through soft power. The strategies and actions
to be implemented include (1) enhancing global outreach through sharing of
knowledge, (2) establishing a hub for knowledge and skills via
internationalization, (3) widening international networks via student alumni, and(4) increasing the visibility of Malaysia through contributions and reputation.
Introduction of the strategic plan and the actions plans have challenged theacademics in that their job scope was expanded to include many tasks which had
not been previously included. Most of these include planning, implementing,measuring, reporting and documenting processes and performance outcomes.

Critical Agenda (CA) projects
The CA projects serve as pillars for the NHESP. CA projects are catalysts
for the transformation of Malaysian higher education institutions. Some of theimportant CA projects and their respective missions are shown in Table 1.
These resulted in the creation of many related agenda which will be described in
the following sections. They therefore affected many aspects of the academic
profession, the details of which will be presented in the sections to follow.
Table 1. CA Projects and their functions
No

CA project

1

APEX

2

Governance3

Leadership

Function
Creating a world class university and instating a model to befollowed by other university in achieving excellence in higher
education.
Creating a world class higher learning administration, strengthenwith integrity and encouraged by autonomy in creating a quality
higher learning environment.
Strengthening leadership in HEIs to be the main pillars intransforming the HEIs into world class institutions. This CA project ischaired by The Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKePT).

Aida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 135
No

CA project4

Academia

5

Teaching & Learning

6

Research &Development

7

Internationalisation

8

MyBrain 15

9

Graduate
Employability

10 Lifelong Learning

11

Quality Assurance

12 Students Holistic
Development

13 Industry-Academia

14 E-Learning

15 Top Business School

Function
Increasing excellence in creating quality students and institutions,conducive learning environment for students and academicians,
and collaboration with local industries and abroad. This can be doneby increasing professional quality, giving professional training andincrease in recognition of professionals.
Improving curricula to be more innovative, dynamic, up-to-date, andrelevant with the current demands. Infrastructure and quality
lecturers and method of delivery are also to be improved for more
effective learning.
Producing innovation and intellectual property as a way to expand
knowledge and ultimately new discoveries to contribute to thenation’s development.
Ensuring the quality excellence of local HEIs to thrive in theinternational stage through implementing significant transformations
and also continuous monitoring performance in relation to world
standards.
Ensuring the production of number of quality doctoral to increase
innovation that will steer the nation’s economy and competitiveness.
The core function of MyBrain15 is to be a platform for the formationof innovative and critical graduate that can perform in international
stages.
Steps implemented by the MOHE to increase graduate
employability inclusive of Industrial Training, Apprenticeship,
Finishing School and Entrepreneurship Training. These programs
will ensure the marketability and increase competitiveness among
fresh graduates internationally, and reduce unemployment.
Recognition of the importance and awareness of lifelong learningand the implementation of programs, which encourage the learningfor experienced workers. This CA project also focuses on theacculturation and the strengthening of lifelong learning, as well as
recognition of such qualifications and also improvement of
infrastructure to encourage such programs.
Ensuring quality programs in HEIs through the monitoring andawarding body such as the MQA. The two core objectives of this CA
project are to improve quality of studies programs of HEIs, as wellas increasing international recognition.
This CA project focuses on building balanced students characters interms of personality, patriotism, discipline and also human values.
The implementation is included in co-curricular activities, whichbuild a balanced all-round character of the students.
Producing graduates that can become a quality workforce for local
or international market. The CA project also focuses on bridging the
gap between industry and the academia to create innovative
product, to thrive the nation’s economy.
Creating a repository of digital learning materials that promotes
sharing with all HEIs. On the other hand, the e-learning CA projectencourage the acculturation of an e-learning community, as well as
preparing infrastructure and the material contents that are vital tothe e-learning delivery.
Transforming current business schools to be top business schoolsthat can compete with business schools around the world.

136 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities
No

CA project

16 Centre of Excellence

17 Entrepreneurship

18 Knowledge Transfer
Program

FunctionTransforming pioneer Higher Institution Centre of Excellence(HICoE) into developing respective expertise and achieving
excellence in the world stage in line with the aims of NHESP to own
20 HICoE by 2020.
Creating students who are creative and innovative, and ensuring
the graduates are marketable and increase the economy of thenation. In the social aspect, entrepreneurship can increase theability of the large community to narrow the gap between the urban
and interior parts of the nation.
Encourage and recognize the involvement of academician increating a knowledgeable and high income society. This can bedone through interaction between stakeholders and HEIs tocollaborate in order to be productive and relevant. This will
ultimately prepare a platform for expertise to be involved in trainings
in HEIs and problem solving in the community.

Academic qualifications framework
Following approval of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency Act by the
Parliament in 2007, the MQA was established and the MQF was documented
and disseminated. The agency and framework are to assure the quality ofhigher education and the achievement of the vision and mission of higher
learning institutions in the country. The framework specifies nine academic
programme areas that are to be given emphasis in planning, implementation andevaluation:
The MQF prescribes eight domains of learning outcomes, which state thecontent and knowledge or skills that students should know and acquire uponcompletion of their academic programmes: (1) Knowledge, (2) Practical skills,(3) Social skills and responsibilities, (4) Values, attitudes and professionalism,(5) Communication, leadership and team skills, (6) Problem solving andscientific skills, (7) Information management and lifelong learning skills, and (8)Managerial and entrepreneur skills (MQA, 2008).
The framework
subsequently evolved into the Code of Practice for Institutional Audit (COPIA)
which outlines the detail for quality standards for higher education institutions,and the Code of Practice for Programme Accreditation (COPPA) which details
the standards for academic programmes. The quality standards are specified innine areas: (1) Institutional Vision, Mission and Educational Goals, (2)Curriculum Design and Delivery, (3) Assessment of Students, (4) Student
Selection and Support Services, (5) Academic Staff, (6) Educational Resources,(7) Programme Monitoring and Review, (8) Leadership, Governance andAida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 137

Administration, and (9) Continual Quality Improvement (MQA, 2008).
These changes which are associated with the enactment of the qualification
act have directly underlined the importance of documentation work pertaining toacademic quality assurance. They led to a sudden increase of workload interms of documenting, maintaining and revising quality documents especiallyself-review reports for institutions and all their programmes. It raised the issueof efficiency and effectiveness of the use of time for documentation purposes
rather than for the core activities of academics – teaching, research, consultationand services.

Research funds
Several grant schemes are allocated for research by the MOHE. Amongthem is the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS). FRGS promotes
new ideas concepts and theories that will lead to new discoveries and the
expansion of knowledge. They are also the catalyst for contributions ofintellectual enhancement, emergence of new technologies, and enlightenment of
culture for a better nation.
Three types of research funding are awarded under the FRGS: (i) researchfunding for projects applied by the researcher through the research management
at his/her respective public of higher education institutions, (ii) research funding
for projects identified by the fundamental research grant committee in a top
down process, (iii) incentive funding for selected public of higher education
institutions
These grants are managed through various schemes. Among the schemesare:(i) Long-term Research Grant Scheme (LRGS)LRGS is a grant for research of a more extensive manner requiring a highdegree of commitment. It places emphasis upon research in generating
new theories, as well as the expansion of knowledge.
(ii) Exploratory Research Grant Scheme (ERGS)
Grants allocated for this type research are in new and unexplored areas orin local context. They are pioneering researches in uncharted territoriesof specific knowledge. The aim is to eventually lead to creation of a new
discipline or to inquire into problems. This grant is awarded toresearchers who explore new concepts, and to innovators who catalyse
new discoveries in their respective fields, and ultimately, the widespreadof specific knowledge.

138 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities(iii) Prototype Research Grant Scheme (PRGS)PRGS is to encourage prototype development. The research projects areto bridge the gap between laboratory or research findings and actual
marketable products. Its emphasis is upon proving a workable concept,
evaluation, up-scaling, pre-clinical testing, as well as field testing. The
purpose of this grant is mainly to encourage the design and creation of
new technology in higher learning institutions to fulfill the needs of aknowledge-based economy and the implementation of New Economic
Model for Malaysia.1(iv) Research Acculturation Grant Scheme (RAGS)RAGS are grants given to young researchers in non-research public HEIs
to encourage research acculturation to prepare themselves and theuniversity in building research performances and to enable them tocompete for research at national level and international level. A lumpsum is allocated to HEIs, and the HEIs are given the autonomy to award,
manage, and evaluate the funds (MOHE, 2013b).
Apart from grants from MOHE, which is the main source of research funds,
some academics also seek funds from other ministries such as the e-Science fundfrom the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) andAgriculture R&D Fund from the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-baseIndustries. There are also academics who obtain grants from non-governmental
sources such as United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the industries.
With the rapid growth of the number of HEI and hence the number of
researchers in recent years, the share of funds for each academic is diminishing.
This poses challenges and difficulties for academics since it has direct bearing on
academic productivity in terms of publications, patents and commercialization.

Research assessment
In the quest for excellence in research-related initiatives, the Malaysian
Research Assessment system (MyRA) has been developed by MOHE to assess
the processes and outcomes of research, development and commercialisation.
MyRA also functions as a pathway and gatekeeper for the application of research
university status. Performance of research universities are evaluated through1

http://www.epu.gov.my/en/new-economic-modelAida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 139

this tool.
MyRA covers eight criteria in its evaluation. The criteria and respective
weights are: Quantity and Quality of Researches (25), Quantity and Quality of
Research (30), Quantity of Postgraduates (10), Quality of Postgraduates (5),Innovation (10), Professional Services and Gifts (7), Networking and Linkages(8), and Networking and Linkages (MOHE, 2013c).
Measuring research performance of institutions affects the academic
profession because their work is the delivery system. It reminds academics that
their research work and outputs are under scrutiny by university administratorsand their performance is being monitored constantly. This could result inincreased stress and might affect the well-being of academics.

Rating of teaching and learning system
The teaching and learning system in Malaysian HEIs is rated using
SETARA2, which was developed and measured by MOHE. The function of
SETARA is to assess the quality teaching and learning at the undergraduate levelof HEIs according of the MQF. Criteria of SETARA are clustered into (1)governance, (2) physical and financial resources, (3) talent, (4) process, and (5)quality of graduate and graduate satisfaction.
The measurement of governance considers governing body, academic
governance, management and staff, strategic planning, academic autonomy, linesof responsibility and decision-making, student representation, and organisational
climate. Physical and financial resources take into account infrastructure,
finance and support services. Talent takes into account quality, experience, anddiversity of academic staff and the diversity of the students. The curriculum
process includes the design of curriculum, quality delivery and pedagogy, quality
assessment, monitoring, and ancillary activities. Measurement of the quality ofgraduate and graduate satisfaction considers graduate marketability, graduate
satisfaction, employers’ satisfaction, and generic student attributes.
A number of academic programmes which are linked to professional bodies
are also rated through d-SETARA, which is a discipline-based rating systemusing the same criteria. SETARA and d-SETARA3 place greater emphasis on
benchmarking between HEIs and disciplines rather than creating competition(MQA, 2013b).
2
3

Rating System for Higher Education Institutions
Discipline-based Rating System for Higher Education Institutions

140 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities

Similar to the implication of MyRA for the academic profession, the ratingof teaching and learning has resulted in complaints and dissatisfaction among themembers of academic professions in that their workload is increased and theirresources are diluted.

Objectives of study
The aim of this collaborative study is to describe and compare the academic
profession (full-time employed faculty in four-year higher education institutions)of Asian societies with special attention to the role of academies in their diverseand dynamic background in teaching, research and services.
This paper only addresses two aspects of the changing roles of academic
profession; teaching and research. In relation to the APA study, this paper
addresses only the following research questions: Does the Asian academic
profession find that different aspects of their work reinforce each other or dothey experience significant role strain? Specifically, this paper discusses
academics’ inclination towards teaching and research, their involvement inspecific teaching and research activities, the extent of collaboration in research
activities, and the source of funding for their research.

Research methodology
The APA study, initiated by the Research Institute for Higher Education(RIHE), Hiroshima University, is the Asian version of the CAP project (2007).
It began with the Hiroshima International Workshop, which was held July 17-18,
2011, to establish the methodology and survey. It was attended by members
representing 10 Asian countries. The survey was further refined throughdiscussions via e-mail. To allow comparisons with CAP project (2007), theformat of the APA survey does not differ much from the CAP survey.
Each country was given the freedom to make minor changes to the survey
so that the items are relevant in the context of higher education in their countries.
However, to allow across country comparisons, the format of the originalquestionnaire was maintained. It was agreed by all members that in order tominimize measurement bias across countries, country teams were to maintain ahigh level of standardization in terms of question order, question wording,response options, reference periods, and layout and formal design. It was also
reinforced that cultural patterns and language specifics might require functionalrather than formal equivalents and country teams may design national extensions

Aida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 141

to the questionnaire.
The target was to have at least 800 respondents from each participating
countries. In Malaysia, the questionnaire was sent to all 20 public institutions
and extra care was undertaken to ensure a fair representation of respondents
across academic ranks and disciplines. Responses were received from 18
universities (90%). From the earlier studies involving academics, it was
anticipated that the response rate would be very low, thus 3,000 questionnaires
were hand delivered or posted to enumerators appointed in each institution.
They were briefed by personal interaction or phone call on methods in selecting
samples to ensure a true reflection of the changing academic profession in
Malaysia. Several reminders were made before the team decided to end thedata collection as the number of respondents met the target of 800. However,after the data cleaning process, a few responses had to be excluded.

Findings and discussions
Background
The majority who responded were males (60.7%) and married (86.8%).
The team managed to get an ample response across the three academic ranks:
professors (14%), associate professor (21.8%) and lecturers (64.2%), although
this may not reflect the proportion in Malaysian higher education. According
to the Malaysian Higher Education Statistics 2011 (MOHE, 2012), 29,198
academics served in universities with a composition of 6.86 percent professors
and 16.48 percent associate professors. There is also a fair distribution acrosstypes of universities (Table 2).
Table 2. Distribution of respondents
Background Information
GenderMarital status
Academic rank

Types of institutions

Categories

Frequency%

Male
FemaleMarried/Partner
SingleProfessor
Associate professor
Lecturer/ Assistant professor
Research
Comprehensive
Technical

476
308
676
103
106
165
487
320
278
202

60.7
39.3
86.8
13.2
14.0
21.8
64.2
40.0
34.8
25.2

142 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities

Activities emphasized
Respondents were asked to indicate which of the four academic roles weremore emphasized. As shown in Table 3, research is the most emphasized,
followed by teaching, administrative and management work and social services.
This matches the weightings given for these components in yearly appraisals andpromotions to positions of associate professor or professor.
Based on the data, the percentage who agreed on 4 (Emphasized) and 5(Strongly emphasized) are almost equal between research and teaching.
Although teaching is given less weighting in promotion criteria, academics seemto be conscious that their role as a teacher must balance their role as a researcher.
Table 3. Roles emphasized in academia
Item
1 Not emphasized
23
45 Strongly emphasized

Admin. and Mgmt. Social Services

Research

Teaching

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

9
45
126
226
383

1.1
5.6
15.8
28.2
47.9

7
24
168
301
290

0.9
3.0
21.0
37.6
36.2

17
70
327
261
112

2.1
8.8
40.9
32.6
14.0

18
96
302
265
106

2.2
12.0
37.8
33.1
13.2

Due to the under emphasis of social services and community engagement
work, the MOHE had started to provide a special grant, Knowledge Transfer
Programme (KTP) in 2011, to enable the development and improvement of thequality of products, services and policies to be shared for mutual benefits
between the stakeholders i.e. academia, industry, community and thegraduate/postgraduate intern. Guidelines, which were piloted on the Malaysian
Apex University, Universiti Sains Malaysia, are being finalized to assess thecommunity engagement work conducted by each university. As can be seen,
only 13.2 percent agreed that there was a strong emphasis on social services.
Inclination towards teaching and research
The respondents were asked to indicate whether their inclination was
primarily in teaching, research or both. A majority of academics in all types ofuniversities (research, comprehensive and technical) preferred both. Those
who were inclined towards research alone were very small while the percentagethat was interested primarily in teaching ranges from 8.5% to 14.5% (Table 4).

Aida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 143

These results are very encouraging because it provided evidence that the drivefor research as the main agenda in Malaysian universities had not deterred
academics’ passion for teaching.
Table 4. Inclination towards teaching and research by university types
Item

Research

Comprehensive

Technical

n

%

n

%

n

%

Primarily in teaching

27

8.5

40

14.5

20

10.2

In both, but leaning towards
teaching

142

44.5

102

37.1

84

42.85

In both, but leaning towards
research

145

45.4

124

45.1

84

42.85

5

1.6

9

3.3

8

4.1

Primarily in research
Total

319

275

196

To gain a better picture of the changing academic profession, the existingdata were compared to findings in the CAP project (2007) as discussed in Azman,
Pang, Sirat & Yunus (2014, forthcoming). Data from Malaysian CAP project(2007) was captured from 816 respondents across 18 public universities. In
Table 4, it can be seen that the inclination on ‘both teaching and research but
leaning towards teaching’ has increased in research universities although thedrive towards research, especially after 2007, was overwhelming. The
percentage of those whose inclinations were ‘primarily in research’ had also
decreased and this trend was evident in all types of universities. It is also
evident that academics are trying to strike a balance between the twoconcentrations; teaching and research. This phenomenon was highlighted byGray, Froh and Diamond (1992):
The results indicate that people in the university community tend to favora balance between research and undergraduate teaching. In contrast,
respondents reported that the “university” places greater emphasis on
research than on teaching. Differences in the way respondents perceived
the direction the university is taking and the direction it should takesuggested a conflict between the culture of the university and the valuesof individuals.
The findings had also shown that the percentage whose inclination was on‘both teaching and research but leaning towards research’ had decreased
tremendously in research universities but an upward trend can be traced for144 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities

comprehensive and technical universities (Table 5). The findings may be inconflict with the expectations for research universities. However, from the
Scival Spotlight 2011 report of Universiti Putra Malaysia and the number of ISI
publications of Universiti Malaya which was merely 500 in 2007 to more than2000 in 2011 (refer to university websites), the productivity of Malaysian
research universities cannot be denied. It may be extrapolated from this study
that provision of extra funding and resources for research, and university
strategies such as reducing undergraduate education and concentrating more on
graduate education has provided academics the much needed environment toexcel in teaching as well as research, development and commercialization. In
other words, the right kind of environment may lead to producing more but withlesser effort.
Table 5. The changing inclination towards teaching and research by
university types
Item

Research

Comprehensive

Technical

2007

2012

2007

2007

2012

2007

Primarily in teaching

4.4

8.5

8.9

14.5

6.4

10.2

In both, but leaning towards
teaching

38.5

44.5

54.9

37.1

51.4

42.85

In both, but leaning towards
research

54.9

45.5

34.5

45.1

39.4

42.85

Primarily in research

2.2

1.6

1.7

3.3

2.8

2.3

Involvement in specific teaching activities
Academics’ involvement in specific teaching activities was also captured in
the survey. They were asked to response ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the items given. Toease the discussion, the highest for each item is underlined (Table 6). The
findings show that academics of research universities are more involved in mostof the teaching activities listed and the technical universities are also doing a fairbit. However, academics of comprehensive universities are doing somewhat
less than the academics in research and technical universities. This can be
related to a statement by Jenkins (2004) that research and teaching are closelyinterdependent and most teaching is conducted by people who are active inadvancing knowledge. In short, active researchers are more committed in
executing and trying out various teaching activities.
Generally, classroom instruction remains dominant in Malaysian public

Aida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 145

universities. It can be seen that involvement in distance education was rather
low as compared to the rest of the activities (42% in research universities and22.8% in technical universities). In Malaysia, public universities are focusing
less on distance education. It is has been utilized by private universities
especially Open University Malaysia (OUM), Multimedia University (MMU)and University Tun Razak (Uni Razak). In line with this, it can also be seenthat ICT-based learning is also rather low. However, many are using e-mails asa way of communicating with students.
Table 6. Involvement in specific teaching activities by university types
Research
Item

Yes

Comprehensive
No

Yes

Technical

No

Yes

No

n

%

n

%

n

%

N

%

N

%

n

%

Classroom instruction

314

98.1

6

1.9

266

96.0

11

4.0

188

93.1

14

6.9

Individual instruction

259

80.9

61

19.1

192

69.3

85

30.7

130

64.4

72

35.6

Learning in project

257

80.6

62

19.4

215

77.9

61

21.1

170

84.2

32

15.8

Practice instruction

203

63.4

117

36.6

149

53.8

128

46.2

127

62.9

75

37.1

ICT-based learning

160

50.0

160

50.0

137

49.6

139

50.4

106

52.5

96

47.5

Distance education

134

42.0

185

58.0

65

23.7

209

76.3

46

22.8

156

77.2

Development of course
material

249

77.8

71

22.2

203

73.3

74

26.7

151

74.8

51

25.2

Curriculum/program
development

243

75.9

77

24.1

186

67.4

90

32.6

156

77.2

46

22.8

Face-to-face interaction
with student outside of class

266

83.1

54

16.9

234

84.5

43

15.5

176

87.1

26

12.9

Electronic communication(e-mail) with students

273

85.3

47

14.7

217

78.3

60

21.7

160

79.2

42

20.8

Involvement in specific research activities
Apart from teaching activities, respondents were also asked to indicate theirinvolvement in various research activities and comparisons were made by typesof universities as indicated in Table 7. Similar to Table 6 above, the highest
percentage is underlined. Research universities surpassed the comprehensive
and technical universities in all research activities. Furthermore, technicaluniversities were found to be more involved in the listed research activities whencompared to comprehensive universities.

146 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities

Table 7. Involvement in specific research activities by university types
Research

Item

Comprehensive

Technical

N

%

N

%

N

%

Preparing experiment, inquiries etc.

203

65.4

145

52.2

99

49.0

Conducting experiment, inquiries etc.

207

64.7

130

46.8

105

52.0

Supervising a research team or
graduate research assistants.

254

79.4

163

58.6

128

63.4

Writing academic papers that containresearch result or findings.

288

90.0

212

76.3

160

79.2

Being involved in the process oftechnology transfer.

156

48.8

92

33.1

62

30.7

Answering calls for proposal or writing.

233

72.8

158

56.8

120

59.4

Managing research contracts andbudget.

223

69 .7

140

50.6

128

63.4

Purchasing or selecting equipment andresearch supplies.

225

70.3

138

49.6

120

63.2

Ninety percent of the respondents of research universities indicated thatthey are involved in writing academic papers that contain research results orfindings, as compared to 76.3 percent and 79.2 percent in comprehensive andtechnical universities respectively. The lowest are for being involved in theprocess of technology transfer, ranging from 30.7 percent involvement intechnical universities to 48.8 percent in research universities, followed byconducting experiments, inquiries etc. (64.7% in research universities, 52% intechnical universities) and preparing experiments, inquiries etc. (65.4% in
research universities, 49% in technical universities).
In research andcomprehensive universities, there is a good mix between science and social
science disciplines, thus technology transfer and conducting experiments may bemuch lower as compared to the other research activities listed because it is not
the nature of the disciplines. As for writing academic papers, the highpercentage is largely contributed to the high expectations of the universities andthe monitoring of performance based on the key performance index set by each
university for academics.
Collaboration in research activities
In Table 8, findings regarding the extent of collaboration in conducting
research projects are presented. The items focused on whether researchers wereconducting individual work or collaborating in their projects, either with those inAida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 147

the same country or in other countries. Across the three types of institutions, it
can be seen that a majority were not working individually in their projects.
However, quite a number were still not collaborating.
Table 8. Collaboration in research activities by university types
Research
Yes

Item

Comprehensive
No

Yes

Technical

No

Yes

No

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Are you working individually/
without collaboration on anyof your research projects?

89

27.8

219

68.4

65

23.4

175

62.9

44

23.9

139

75.5

Do you have collaborators in
any of your research
projects?

275

85.9

34

10.6

205

73.7

38

13.7

168

83.2

17

8.4

Do you collaborate withpersons at other institutions
in your country?

246

76.9

63

19.7

163

58.6

79

28.4

145

71.8

42

20.8

160

50.0

148

46.3

107

38.5

133

47.8

76

37.6

109

52.5

Do you collaborate withinternational colleagues?

A higher percentage of those from research universities was conducting
collaborative research projects, more dominantly with colleagues within the
country. In research universities, only 50 percent were collaborating withinternational colleagues and the percentages are even lower in comprehensive
and technical universities (38.5% and 37.6% respectively). Lack of funding
may be a major factor in the lack of collaboration in research projects especiallywith international colleagues.
In multiplying the efforts of promoting
collaborative projects, the CA project of the National Higher Education Strategic
Plan which was discussed earlier, had included one strategic objective for CA
project (Academia) specifically “number of academics who have published incollaboration with at least two others from two different faculties or two
different institutions”. In the revision of the strategic objectives for CA project(Academia) in early 2013, the strategic objective was extended to include
collaboration with international colleagues. This is one of the strategies
undertaken to increase visibility of and reference to Malaysian universities thus
boosting their position in the various world university rankings.
Source of funding for research
Generally, most of the funding for research in Malaysian public universities
is obtained through the national government or organizations (Table 9); mainly

148 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities

MOSTI and MOHE. Apart from that, grants are secured from internationalorganizations such as the Malaysia Toray Science Foundation and the United
Nations Development Programme. Especially in research universities, special
budgets are given by the government for internal grant allocation.
Table 9. Source of funding for research activities
Item
Your own institution
National government or organizations
Foreign government or international organizations
Nongovernment organizations of Business firms
OthersN

Mean (%)

SD

570
542
423
418
411

42.85
60.03
1.42
1.51
0.79

36.78
34.77
5.56
6.80
7.54

Table 10. Scholarly output of respondents
Item

N

Mean

Scholarly books you authored or co-authored
Scholarly books you edited or co-edited
Articles published in an academic book or journal
Research report/monograph written for a funded project
Paper presented at a scholarly conference
Professional article written for a newspaper or magazine
Patent secured on a process or invention
Computer program written for public use
Artistic work performed or exhibitedVideo or film produced
Others

597
574
659
618
680
565
557
548
555
544
533

0.98
0.94
4.80
2.08
3.95
0.98
0.40
0.29
0.29
0.12
0.05

Scholarly outputs
Lastly, it is good to compare how much the transformation in Malaysian
higher education has actually materialized in terms of scholarly outputs.
Respondents were asked to indicate their scholarly outputs in the last three years.
As shown in Table 10, quite a number had produced articles in academic books
or journals (mean = 4.80) and had presented papers at a scholarly conference(mean = 3.95) and produced research monographs (mean = 2.08). However,not many are focusing on writing or editing books.
As observed in Universiti Putra Malaysia, and the trend is similar in otherinstitutions, only those in social science disciplines are into publishing books orbook chapters. And only those in sciences are working on patents.
These numbers are far from encouraging. As these data were elicited from

Aida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 149

respondents comprised of only 14 percent professors but 64.2 percent oflecturers, that may explain the small number of scholarly outputs being produced.
As has been discussed earlier, productivity has increased tremendously,
especially in research universities since 2007. Likewise, it has also been very
encouraging in comprehensive and technical universities.

Conclusion
In the over-zealousness of academics to perform in research andpublications due to the over-emphasis by both the MOHE and also theuniversities, the findings show that academics especially in research universities
were giving balanced concentration to both. This is very promising because
academics must ensure balanced concentration on teaching and research, while
not forgetting other commitments such as community engagement andadministrative duties.
In terms of inclination, the findings verified that a majority of the
respondents were inclined to both research and teaching although some wereinclined to teaching while quite a number were inclined towards research. The
number who was interested primarily in research or primarily in teaching wasvery small and that is a good indication. As a higher education institution,
there must be a balance in both kinds of activities. Teaching and researchcomplement each other.
The focus on teaching may be contributed largely by the establishment of
the MQA which assures quality education through its many standards such as
COPPA, programme standards, guidelines for good practices (GGP) and also the
SETARA and d-SETARA rating to assess teaching and learning. Furthermore,
CA projects such as CA project (teaching and learning) and CA project(e-Learning) are the MOHE’s platform to monitor progress and performances ofuniversities.
The focus on teaching may not be due to extrinsic driving forces alone, but
it may also be driven by intrinsic motivation such as passion for teaching.
Although these academics may have other career options, but the main reasonsthat most join academia is their passion for both research and teaching.
Morshidi’s (2009) conclusion from the CAP project (2007) portrayed
Malaysian academics as civil servants with tenured positions who were toocomplacent, and that Malaysian academics need to project some elements ofextraordinariness in their work and output. The situation was very true prior to2007. The designation of four Malaysian universities as research universities in150 Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian Public Universities

2006, and later one more institution made the benchmark standards, has
somehow accelerated the research and development efforts of academics. From2007 onwards, Malaysian higher education has undergone tremendous
transformation. With the extreme demands, academics are now more targetedto publish in journals with high impact. It is no longer “publish or perish”
culture but “publish in ISI or perish” culture. The focus is on quality, impact
actor, citations, research, development and commercialization (R&D&C) outputs
including patents and copyrights, and commercialization. Exerting extra
pressure and tension may sometimes be the right ingredient for universities to
expedite their progression in becoming ‘world class’ and to be more recognized
and relevant.
† This research was funded by the National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN),
Penang, Malaysia.

References
Azman, N., Pang, V., Sirat, M., & Yunus, A.S. (2014, forthcoming). Teaching and Research in
Malaysian Public Universities: Synergistic or Antagonistic? In J.C. Shin, A. Arimoto, W.
Cummings, & U. Teichler. (Eds.), Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher
Education: Systems, Activities, Nexus, and Rewards. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gray, P.J., Froh, B., & Diamond, R. (1992). A National Study of Research Universities on the
Balance Between Research and Undergraduate Teaching. Syracuse, NY: Center for
Instructional Development, Syracuse University.
Jenkins, A. (2004). A Guide to the Research Evidence on Teaching-Research Relationships.
York: Higher Education Academy.
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (MOHE) (2007a). Pelan Strategik Pengajian Tinggi
Negara Melangkaui Tahun 2020 (National Higher Education Strategic Plan). Putrajaya:
Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.
MOHE. (2007b). National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010: Triggering Higher
Education Transformation. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.
MOHE. (2011a). The National Higher Education Action Plan Phase 2 (2011-2015). Retrieved
May 4, 2013, from http://www.mohe.gov.my/ transformasi/fasa2/ psptn2-eng.pdf
MOHE. (2011b). The National Higher Education Strategic Plan beyond 2020. NHESP2:
Malaysia’s Global Reach: A New Dimension. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education
Malaysia.
MOHE. (2012).

Malaysian Higher Education Statistics 2011. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher

Aida Suraya Md. Yunus & Vincent Pang 151
Education Malaysia.
MOHE. (2013a). Categories of Public HEIs. Retrieved May 4, 2013, from http://jpt.
mohe.gov.my/eng/menuipt.php
MOHE. (2013b). Skim Geran Penyelidikan Fundamental. Retrieved May 4, 2013, fromhttp://jpt.mohe.gov.my/ menupenyelidik.php
MOHE. (2013c). Malaysia Research Assessment Instrument (MyRA). Retrieved May 4, 2013,
from http:// jpt.mohe.gov.my/eng/menuipt.php
Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA). (2008). Code of Practice for Institutional Audit.
Retrieved May 4, 2013, from http://www.mqa.gov.my/portal2012/garispanduan/COPIA/
COPIA%202nd%20Edition.pdf
MQA. (2012). Sistem Penarafan Institusi Pengajian Tinggi 2011 (SETARA11). Retrieved May
4, 2013, from http://www.mqa.gov.my /portal2012/default/ en/ratings_setara11.cfm
MQA. (2013a). Assuring Quality.

Retrieved May 4, 2013, from http://www.mqa.gov.my/

portal2012/default/en/qa.cfm
MQA. (2013b). General Information D-EQUIVALENT. Retrieved May 4, 2013, fromhttp://www.mqa.gov.my/portal2012/default/bm/D-setara.cfm
Morshidi Sirat. (2009). Malaysian Academics: Who they are and what they strive for? Paper
presented in CAP Beunos Aires.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 2013 153

Development and Challenge of Academic Professionin Taiwan

Chen, Robin Jung-Cheng

Introduction
Taiwan higher education has dramatically extended its scale, publicly andprivately, for the past ten years which leads university management moredifficult challenges because of the limitation of national resource distribution.
In addition, diploma inflation, difficulty recruiting students and reduced learning
quality all put higher education into a challenge situation. When it comes to theacademic professional development, many academics are facing more challenges
and changes compared to past decades. This study explores the reasons for andthe consequences of these challenges and changes in Taiwan.
For the past decade, research has become a fundamental activity foracademics in Taiwan. As Clark (1973) argued, “research university”, a term
once used to describe the top 100 American universities, now is an appropriate
label for the leading universities in most developed countries. Internationally,
scientific and technological research capabilities can ultimately predict a
country’s membership in the “First” as opposed to the “Third World” (Gottlieb &Keith, 1997). In any disciplinary area, professors at research universities are
expected to produce knowledge, use the latest research results in their teaching,
and train students to conduct research. Today in Taiwan most universities havestrict regulations requiring journal publication, and that becomes the major
indicator of academic promotion. “Publish or perish” has become the dominantvalue for academics, and is essential to academic survival.
The study is part of the largest ever international comparative study, which
Assistant Professor, National Cheng-Chi University, Taiwan / Coordinating Professor, Seattle
Pacific University, USA, e-mail: robin@nccu.edu.tw

154 Development and Challenge of Academic Profession in Taiwan

includes Japan, China, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia
and Taiwan, and is a follow-up to a similar study sponsored by the United States
Carnegie Foundation in the early 1990s. The study uses a common survey
instrument developed and conducted by Research Institute for Higher Education(RIHE), Hiroshima University, Japan with a serial of meetings. Data from
Taiwan will be incorporated into a larger international data set which will enableinternational comparisons regarding the changing nature of the academic
profession.
Core concepts of this paper include:
To what extent is the nature of academic work related to publication?
What are the external and internal drivers of these changes?
How do the academic professions respond to changes in their external andinternal environment?
What is the capacity of academics to contribute to the higher education in
Taiwan and what are the consequences?

The current development of higher education in Taiwan
Oversupply of universities
The total number of higher education institutes was 154 in 2000, andincreased to 163 in 2010. (Ministry of Education, 2011) The increasing number
was only 9 within a decade which resulted from the growing number ofuniversities. In the previous decade, 1990 to 2000, the number of universities
has dramatically increased from 57 to 135. And the private one has added 37.
On the other hand, the number of the public and private junior colleges
decreased 42. Junior colleges decreased 4 in a decade and all of them are
private. According to this data, increased number of universities is from therestructuring of the colleges and junior colleges. Does it raise higher educationcompetiveness by upgrading colleges to universities? Will upgrading colleges
result in disproportional resource distribution? More research and exploration
are required to reach a definitive conclusion.
Declining student enrollments
The number of births in 2001 was 260,354, then declined to 205,854 in
2005. In 2010, the number even reduced to 166,886. The birth rate decreased

Chen, Robin Jung-Cheng 155

from 15.93 per thousand people in 1986 to 7.21 making Taiwan the country
having the lowest birth rate in the world. In other words, the population isaging and will show negative growth. The Council for Economic Planning andDevelopment speculates that the population’s negative growth will happen in
2022. (Chen, 2010) If 18 years is taken as the age of entry into university,
persons born in 1995 will go to university in 2013 and the number will be
329,581. In 2016, the number will decline to 271,450 in 2028, and the number
will continue to reduce to 166,866 (Department of Household Registration,2011). In brief, the low birth rate’s impact on higher education will be more
serious in the next decade. Individuals unable to go to university because of
accident, death or mentally challenged are not included. The number of firstyear students will decline to 247,966 (Ministry of Education, 2011), forming a
gap compared to the birth rate. The data show that higher education does nothave a positive condition in the next decade if there are no other sources ofstudents.
Increased teacher quality
If the number of doctoral degrees is an indicator of teacher quality in higher
education, Taiwan’s higher education has improved rapidly in the past decade.
The number of teachers in higher education was 77,297 in 2010, and the teachers
from the public universities and colleges holding a doctoral degree increased
from 64.9 percent in 2000 to 82.9 percent in 2010. In private universities andcolleges, the teachers with a doctoral degree increased from 37.8 percent in 2001
to 61.9 percent in 2010. (Ministry of Education, 2011) The growth is nearly
double. In vocational schools and junior colleges, the number of the teacher
having a doctoral degree also doubles. When analyzing by age, 45 to 49
year-old university and college teacher counts the highest proportion (23.8%) in
2010. Compared with the year 2000, 35 to 39 year-old teachers were thehighest proportion (24.4%). The teacher’s age extended 10 years old in the past
decade.
Legalization of university evaluation
Taiwan began improving the quality of higher education’s teaching andresearch in 2006. The Ministry of Education authorized the Higher Education
Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan to conduct the first five-year
university evaluation. The university evaluation’s primary characteristic was to156 Development and Challenge of Academic Profession in Taiwan

ensure quality instruction and the practice of self-improvement mechanisms.
The evaluation’s result will become the basis of the university scale’s adjustment,
the tuition and incidental fees and funds’ subsidy. Although the result of theevaluation raised dispute from some universities, the evaluation still makes theuniversities pay more attention to practice and improvement of teaching,counseling and the quality of teacher work. And the public can also take theresult in to consideration when their children are selecting the university they
will attend.
The second evaluation period began in 2011. It differs when comparedwith the first period because of “item 4: achievement and social accountability”.
This item is to ensure student’s learning achievement and responsibility. In
other words, universities are to have a complete learning evaluation mechanismin the future to choose the students who can accord with the university’s
development. University should also create a mechanism which can help thestudents reach basic accomplishment and core ability. This learning evaluation
is to ensure students have these capabilities before their graduation. That is to
say that the evaluation has already revealed students’ learning achievements, andthe view of the “input” when the enrollment to “output” when the graduation has
replaced the view of traditional method that focused on teaching. In sum, themost important thing is how much students have learned from school. The
rigid demand of achievement became a significant emphasis of university
administration because of the university evaluation. The professor evaluation,
exit mechanism of university, teaching quality assurance mechanism and so on,
all of them have seriously impacted academic freedom, which is the spirit of themedieval university, because the scholars queried about academic freedom
could not ensure the quality of education (Chen, 2010). Scenes of the students
gathered and followed when professors gave lecture did not exist anymore.
What kinds of the basic accomplishments and core abilities that students shouldhave when graduating and how these capabilities can match the market are the
new thing that concern universities.
Universal university education
According to higher education models (Trow, 1970s), higher education
development can be divided into three categories. The elite: represents that
persons receiving higher education are below 15 percent when concerned withthe same age people. The mass: represents that persons receiving higher
education are below the 50 percent when concerned with the same age people.

Chen, Robin Jung-Cheng 157

The universal: represents that persons receiving higher education are over the 50
percent when concerned with the same age people.
University education in Taiwan was the elite education, only the privileged
people could get into the university. But with rapid changes of Taiwanesesociety, the Ministry of Education has already declared that the university isuniversal education and changed the property of university education.

Transformation and challenges of the academic profession
Scoot (1995) considered that higher education not only presented asociety’s political and economic development, but also a cooperative product of
the intellectual and the scientific community. The intellectual’s reflection andthe system’s changes are mutually influenced, and, most of the interactions
cannot avoid the impact of global political and economic change. Therefore,
we cannot just consider a small number of traditional dimensions when
discussing assessment of a university’s ranking compared to international peers
and the academic profession’s development. When it comes to competinginternationally, the most obvious example is the world university’s ranking.
Bowen, Kurzweil & Tobin’s (2005) study demonstrated that the problem became
more complex when the ranking got into the higher education’s operation,
including the number of Nobel Prize recipients, the essay reference rate,
numbers accepted by the top periodicals and the amount that printed on the
Science Citation Index or the Social Sciences Citation Index are all taken into
consideration. Nonetheless, this paper finds no method to replace theabove-mentioned one. In consequence, the academic profession development
impacted by the globalization may become more standardized and moreregularized.
Concerning innovation and the profession of knowledge production, will
this development limit the academic profession or improve the quality of theacademic? It is worthy of further study. Teaching, research, and service are
the three main areas traditionally related to academic development. But when
every scholar defines professional knowledge in a more detailed manner andtries to respond to the demand of global competition, these three main areas
clearly start to change. However, the role of the academic profession still faced
the double pressure of external challenges and internal demand. What deserves
notice is the role of the institution has become more and more important,including the power of controlling management and resource distribution.
These reasons have all changed the appearance of academic development

158 Development and Challenge of Academic Profession in Taiwan(Henkel & Little, 1988).
Apart from these essentially-change reasons, disagreement of theoccupational status in academic works is also included. The generalized
academic staff is usually used to indicate the employee having the service
efficiency (Enders & de Weert, 2009). As a result, even to be classified as an
academic staff and doing the academic profession, the staff still cannot be sorted
together because of the delicate division and strong competition. As Hasley(1992) has mentioned in his work “Decline of Donnish Dominion”, the power ofBritish higher education institute faculty has declined because of the scale of thehigher education system is getting larger. So we have to understand that theacademic profession is not a firm organic operation, we should be
psychologically prepared because the academic profession has started to collapse.
Academic circles in the United States also observed a familiar situation. For
example, Clark (1987) noticed that a barrier has been produced between thesenior level and junior level at an institution. The design and practice of tenure
also have been questioned gradually.
The academic environment has
dramatically changed in the past 30 years, and the change shook tenured scholars’
status.
In sum, many higher education systems around the world have undergone
the significant structural changes. It also altered the academic profession’s
traditional characteristics. From Enders & de Weert (2009, p.3), we cangeneralize some common phenomena as the following:
Higher education’s generalization is facing changing student characteristics
and expectations.
Pressure to protect academic freedom is increasing gradually. Funds forteaching and research have already transferred because resource allocationand outcomes subsidies have changed. This makes the academic
profession have to face pressure of producing more public goods underfewer government subsides.
Gradually-increasing achievement and quality evaluation leads to a cultureof examining and effects.
Change of a state management model and the employment relationshiprelated to the public level have gradually integrated into the privatecompany’s operation.
Appearance of a new relationship between government, industry, and theuniversity lead to political priorities in higher education and research. It
will focus on the practice of socially-related knowledge and an emphasis on
the application, equality and practicality of knowledge. These phenomena

Chen, Robin Jung-Cheng 159

all excite the new model of knowledge production.
New management models and the management class of higher education
institutions appear.
Use of technology in research, teaching and learning will replace alternativeeducation.
Internationalization and globalization will gradually deepen their influenceon the higher education system.

Methodology
The sampling population is composed of faculty in higher education
institutes that offer baccalaureate degree or higher and researchers inindependent research institutes. Both faculty and researchers refer to assistantprofessor, associate professor, professor, assistant research fellow, associateresearch fellow and research fellow. All of these academics are included in thedesired population of this survey.
An ideal sample size for Taiwan is 400, according to the cooperation
meeting held in Hiroshima. To achieve an effective sample size of 400, it isnecessary for the actual sample size to be larger than 400 to account for
non-response of the target population. The sample size needs to be adjusted toreflect anticipated response rate. Experience in previous survey studies in
Taiwan suggest that response rates to survey tend to hover around 30 percent.
A conservative response rate of 30 percent has been assumed for the survey.
Therefore, this study design sample size has been rounded up to 1,200, and thenumber of the respondents is 412.
Preparation of the sample involved the National Academy for Educational
Research (NAER), the agency that organizes hundreds of committees conducting
all kinds of text books reviewing and compilation. NAER was asked to provide
a full list of committee members who nearly cover different types and scales ofhigher education institutes in Taiwan to draw as sample.
In order to explore academic profession development and change, the study
investigated questions divided into six parts. The first part of the survey
addressed career and professional situation, the second part of the survey
addressed general work situation and activities, the third part of the survey
addressed teaching, the fourth part of the survey addressed research, the fifth partof the survey addressed management, and the last part addressed demographics.
Both descriptive statistics and inferential analysis were used in analysis of datacollecting. Creswell (2008) points out that using descriptive statistics will160 Development and Challenge of Academic Profession in Taiwan

enable the analysis of the trends and tendencies of the data and provide an
explanation of “why the results turned out the way they did” (p.57). In addition,
inferential analysis will help to draw inferences and make predictions based on
the data.

Findings and discussion
Currently, Taiwan has three main academic positions in universities or
research institutes: professor, associate professor, and assistant professor, andthere are only few lectures and teaching assistants remaining for the previous
system. Whether the academic change is from external or internal expectations,
getting more publications in journals or books seem to be the first priority foracademics to develop their profession. Therefore, the Table 1 to Table 6
present figures that allow comparison of the distribution of academics across the
samples in terms of academic background and demographics to exam theiracademic publications. Note that certain numbers do not sum to the 412 due tomissing data.
In summary, the figures show that:
The distribution of males and females working as academics (66.35% to33.65%) fits the distribution of population (67.6% to 32.4%) (Ministry of
Education, 2013) and male academics show a greater production thanfemales in publication (mean: 7.07 to 4.75);
Most academics are married or partnered (88.89%) and have more
publications for the past three years than singles (mean: 6.55 to 4.03);
Table 1. Articles published in an academic book or journal (by gender)
MeanN

percent

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Male

7.07

209

66.35

6.947

0

50

Female

4.75

106

33.65

3.355

0

15

Total

6.29

315

100

6.078

0

50

Missing

97

Table 2. Articles published in an academic book or journal (by family status)
MeanN

percent

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Married/Partnered

6.55

280

88.89

6.313

0

50

Single

4.03

35

11.11

2.802

0

13

Total

6.27

315

100

6.074

0

50

Missing97

Chen, Robin Jung-Cheng 161

Academics whose spouse doesn’t have full time job shows much moreproductivity in publication (mean: 9.70 to 5.74);
Highest degree earned is close to evenly distributed between domestic andoverseas institution (48.8% to 51.2), and the publications is slightly different(mean: 5.51 to 7.17);
Table 3. Articles published in an academic book or journal (by employed
spouse/partner)
MeanN

percent

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Full time

5.74

239

83.86

4.470

0

21

Non full time

9.70

46

16.14

11.183

0

50

Total

6.38

285

100

6.220

0

50

Missing

127

Table 4. Articles published in an academic book or journal (by highest degree)
MeanN

percent

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Domestic

5.51

142

48.80

4.120

0

21

Overseas

7.17

149

51.20

7.545

0

50

Total

6.36

291

100

6.164

0

50

Missing

121

Table 5. Articles published in an academic book or journal (by discipline)
MeanN

percent

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Humanity

5.15

59

19.80

4.151

1

20

Social science

5.37

56

18.79

3.570

0

15

Nature science

6.58

31

10.40

5.309

1

18

Engineering

6.68

34

11.41

7.938

0

40

Agriculture
Health/Medical
science

5.50

2

0.67

.707

5

6

19.50

10

3.36

16.9134

50

Fine Arts
Teacher training andeducation science

2.33

9

3.02

1.732

0

5

6.22

93

31.21

4.479

0

21

Others

7.25

4

1.34

4.573

2

12

Total

6.28

298

100

6.129

0

50

Missing114

162 Development and Challenge of Academic Profession in Taiwan

Table 6. Articles published in an academic book or journal (by academic rank)
MeanN

percent

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

7.65

150

47.32

7.588

0

50

5.39

102

32.18

4.110

0

20

Lecture

1.67

3

0.95

.577

1

2

Assistant professor/
Assistant research fellow

4.75

59

18.61

3.288

0

15

Research assistant

.67

3

0.95

.577

0

1

Total

6.26

317

100

6.051

0

50

Professor/
Research fellow
Associate professor/
Associate research fellow

Missing

114

The selected sample is distributed proportionately across different
disciplines despite slight under and over-representation at few disciplines
due to the availability of the academics, and among those, in health/medical
science discipline shows the largest production in publication (mean=19.5)
while the fine arts discipline has only 2.33;
Respectively, professor, associate professor, and assistant professor show an
ordinal production in publication (7.65, 5.39, 4.75), and this also indicatesthe respondents are more likely to be senior academics.
Though the above set of descriptive statistics includes several individual
variables with demographics and background, it is worth examining variables
that are related to current changes of higher education: satisfaction of work,change of working condition, the quality of students.
The academic
productivity is also taken as the dependent variable to see the correlation.
Surprisingly, a moderate positive correlation with research paper productivity is
the quality of students. From descriptive material presented Table 7, marking“excellent” review for the quality of students reaches 5.70 publications inaverage; “good” for the quality of students reaches 7.72 publications in average;“fair” for the quality of students reaches 5.50 publications in average; “poor” forthe quality of students reaches 4.50 publications in average; “don’t know” for thequality of students reaches 2.50 publications in average. Table 8 shows thetests of between-subjects effects (F value= 3.023; p=.018). The quality of thestudents has its significant meaning of producing research papers for academics.
With the same tests of different variables: satisfaction of work, change ofworking condition, there is no significant meaning with research paper

Chen, Robin Jung-Cheng 163

production.
These findings provide support that the correlates of academics publication
productivity differ markedly across disciplines and demographic backgrounds.
Table 7. Dependent variable: Articles published in an academic book or journal
Quality of the students

Mean

Std. DeviationN

Excellent

5.70

3.91

27

Good

7.72

7.26

134

Fair

5.50

4.33

98

Poor

4.50

3.65

18

Don’t know

2.50

0.70

2

Total

6.50

5.96

279

Table 8. One-way ANOVA of articles published in an academic book orjournal with the quality of students
SourceSum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

104.349

3.023

.018

1100.930

31.893

.000

3.023

.018

Corrected Modela417.396

4Intercept

1100.930

1

Quality of the students

417.3964

104.349

Error

9458.354

274

34.520Total

21657.000

279

Corrected Total

9875.749

278

a: R Squared = .042 (Adjusted R Squared = .028)

Conclusion
Higher education in Taiwan has changed dramatically in the past ten years.
The university’s position has been transformed from elite education to universal
education, meaning that the university focus has shifted from isolation in theso-called ivory tower to the secular society and responds to market demand andoperating achievement. In the viewpoint of “achievement accountability”, allof these factors have to be emphasized: the professor’s research papers output,
the world ranking, the university evaluation, the standardization of the teachingcontent and the graduates’ abilities have to match the market’s orientation. The
government’s role of operating higher education also transferred from thecomprehensive controller into a supervisor in the second line. So thegovernment’s subsidies changed to focus on the joint project in order to save the164 Development and Challenge of Academic Profession in Taiwan

resources and the university management has turned to be more independent
from government.
The value of getting published has driven the higher education institutepolicy in Taiwan. With respect to the relative importance of ascription versus
either achievement or institutional characteristics in discussing publication
productivity, the findings for academics in different discipline are quite similar.
For example, across disciplines the mentioned variables, much of themale-female productivity gap that exists in each discipline can be explained byexamining the gender differences in variables that correlate strongly withpublication productivity. For instance, females receive fewer grants than males
and are employed disproportionately in disciplines with low averages for article
productivity such as humanities.
Most academics agree that working conditions higher education havechanged during the past decade. But only less than one third of respondents
hold positive views while the remainder of more than two thirds of respondents
think working condition will worsen. The pressure of getting published might
be one of the pressure sources according to the above analysis, but there aremuch more about the external factors, including decreasing population, limited
government finical support, international competition, imbalance of graduate
supply to market demand, and the misplaced priority arrangement for the
professoriate in conducting research, teaching and service.

References
Bowen, W., Kurzweil, M., & Tobin, E. (2005). Equality and excellence in American higher
education. Charlottesville, VG: University of Virginia Press.
Chen, M.Y. (2010). Sheng tai shao 2023 nian ren kou fu cheng zhang. Zi You Shi Bao Dian Zi
Bao. Retrieved from http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/
Clark, B.R. (1973). Development of the Sociology of Higher Education. Sociology of
Education, 46, 2-14.
Clark, B.R. (1987). The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary and Institutional
Settings. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Approaches.
London, England: Sage.
Department of Household Registration (2011). The Birth Rate of 30 Years. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ris.gov.tw/

Chen, Robin Jung-Cheng 165
Ender, J. & de Weert, E. (2009). The Changing Face of Academic Life. London, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gottlieb, E. & Keith, B.(1997). The Academic Research-Teaching Nexus in Eight
Advanced-Industrialized Countries. Higher Education, 34, 397-420.
Halsey, A. H. (1992). Decline of Donnish Dominion: the British Academic Professions in the
Twentieth Century. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 114-116.
Henkel, M. & Little, B. (1988). Changing Relations between Higher Education and the State.
London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publisher.
Ministry of Education (2011). Summary of Education at All Levels. Retrieved fromhttp://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/New271115114171.doc
Ministry of Education (2013). 2013 Education Statistic Indicators. Retrieved fromhttps://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/ebook/indicators/2013indicators.xls
Scott, P. (1995). The Meanings of Mass Higher Education. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 2013 167

The Academic Profession in Vietnam

Pham Thanh Nghi

Introduction
The academic profession everywhere in the world is undergoing dramaticchange.
According to Altbach (2003) the long-established academic
communities from the Global North are at the center at least for the immediate
future, an immutable reality of the world knowledge system. Universities indeveloping countries and their academic communities must function in theunequal world of peripheries. Related to peripherality is dependency. Third
World academics often perceive themselves as dependent on the main centers ofknowledge and the world scientific networks. As part of the third worldcommunity, Vietnamese academic community was formed and develops
depending on the development of its higher education system. The so called
academic profession emerged in Vietnam with the establishment of the firsthigher education institutions at the beginning of 20th century, and currently faces
with dramatic change. This paper examines the Vietnamese academic
profession at a time of higher education transition from bureaucratic control to amarket mechanism.

1. Higher education development and formation of academic
profession in Vietnam
If establishment of the Temple of Literature in Thang Long (Hanoi today) in
1070 as the formal inauguration of higher education in Vietnam, the system has
existed for nearly one thousand years. The provision of higher learning throughclassical education during feudal time was understandably elite by the nature andProfessor, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, Vietnam, e-mail: ptnghi2008@gmail.com

168 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

aimed at meeting administrative requirements of the imperial court (Lam, Nung
& Sloper, 1995, p.135). Centuries later, in 1918, regulations about higher
education in Indochina was promulgated that affected the establishment of theCollege of Medicine and Pharmacy (1902), Teacher Training College (1917),
College of Veterinary Medicine (1918), College of Law and Administration(1918), College of Agriculture and Forestry (1918), College of Engineering(1918), College of Fine Art and Architecture (1924), College of Literature (1923),
and College of Experimental Sciences (1923) (Hac, 1995). Some colleges weremerged to form the University of Indochina in Hanoi in 1939. Providing intheory the needs of the entire Indochina area, it had enrolled some 1,200 students
by 1945. Most lecturers were French or graduated at French universities.
During the war of resistance against the French Colonialists, 1945-1954,
there was a partition of the whole country into two areas: the French controlledareas and the liberated areas. In the former one, higher education remained thesame as in the period of French colony. In the liberated areas, the Vietnam War
resistance government paid attention to the development of colleges or classes at
the university level. In 1950 three tertiary education centers developed in theprovince of Thanh Hoa, in the inter-provincial area of Viet Bac and Nanning,
China. After 1954, these three tertiary education centers were unified into the
University of Hanoi (Hac, 1995, pp.51-52).
The division of Vietnam into the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the
North, and the Republic of Vietnam in the South in 1954 heralded two parallelsystems of higher education. Higher education in the North developed on theSoviet model and higher education in the South was contrasted on the Americanmodel. In the academic year 1974/1975, there were thirty higher education
institutions in the North. During the war, many institutions were divided into
small colleges and some were relocated to rural areas. In the South, before
reunification of the country, there were four public universities located in Saigon,
Hue, Can Tho and Thu Duc; three community colleges in My Tho, Nha Trangand Da Nang; and seven private tertiary education institutions in various
locations (Hac, 1995).
In 1975, all colleges and universities in Vietnam were united into a national
system regulated according to the model of Soviet Union. At the Sixth
Congress held in 1986, the philosophy of Communist Party of Vietnam was
fundamentally changed to move the country from a centrally planned economy
to a market economy. In responding to this socio-economic change, the higher
education system began, in 1987, a series of important policy initiatives in
keeping with national policies for innovation. Principal among those was thePham Thanh Nghi 169

acknowledgement that higher education programs should aim at serving not only
the state and collective economic sectors, but also all other economic sectors;
that higher education budgets should be based not only on the allocation offinance by the State but also on the mobilization of other resources, including
payment of tuition fees; that the scope of higher education and training should
develop on the basis of diversity of training forms; and that at the same time, thedevelopment of formal training should follow a more rational and systematic
pattern which would ensure both quality in education and also satisfy new andemerging requirements of the society and economy (Dao, Thiep & Sloper, 1995).
Restructuring of the higher education system began in the early 1990s andhas continued. The process started with the establishment of two national
universities in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City and three regional universities inThai Nguyen, Hue and Da Nang as multi-disciplinary institutions. Otherchanges have taken place at the provincial level. Hong Duc University wasestablished in Thanh Hoa in 1997 as a first multi-disciplinary university
functioning under of the supervision of provincial authority. Following thisevent, Hai Phong province celebrated the inauguration of Hai Phong University
in the second largest city in the North as a multi-disciplinary university under
supervision of Hai Phong Provincial People Committee. The University of An
Giang was established as the third multi-disciplinary institution under theprovincial supervision. At present, nearly each province has its own university.
Modern Vietnamese higher education has developed rapidly in the past 20 years.
There are 414 higher education institutions, among which 188 universities and226 three years colleges.
Higher education institutions in Vietnam can be classified as follows:- Multidisciplinary institutions;- Specialized institutions in such areas asengineering, agriculture-forestry-fishery, economics, medicine, pharmacy,sports, culture and arts;- Local multidisciplinary universities;- Teacher training colleges and universities;- Junior colleges.
The emergence of non-public colleges and universities in the early 1990s
was considered an important change towards a diversified system of higher
education. Since that time, the sector of non-public higher education has grown
dramatically. In academic year 2010-2011, there were 80 private tertiary
institutions in the country with enrollments of 333,921 students. Compared to
public institutions, non-public universities and colleges have more autonomy in170 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

organization, governance, staff management and financial mobilization.
Although economic reform started in 1986, the economic and social
situation in the country was still difficult during the period of 1980-1990. In
this period, the number of academics was increased, the student enrollment
declined slightly. This led to decreases in the student/academic ratio. (Table 1).
Table1. Data on academics and students, 1980-2011
Academic years

1980/1981

1989/1990

2001/2002

2010/2011

Numbers of academics

17,592

20,68135,93874,573

No. of Doctoral degree holders
Percentage

1,409
8.0

2,494
12.0

4,970
13.8

7,924
10.6

No. of Master’s degree holders
Percentage

NA
-

NA
-

9,543
26.5

30,374
40.7

153,671

126,025

974,119

2,164,774

8.73

6.09

27.1

29.8

No. of students enrolled
Student/faculty ratio

The situation was different from of 1989-2002. Higher education
expanded dramatically. The number of academics increased only 1.7 times,
while student enrollments had grown 7.7 times which made the student/faculty
ratio increase to more than four times from 6.09 : 1 to 27.1 : 1 (Table 1). Thisratio was relatively stabilized during the next decade and reached 29.8 : 1 in theacademic year 2010-2011. During this period, student enrollments andacademics working for higher education institutions had increased two times.
The expansion of student enrollment was faster in the university sector (fouryear training) compared to the college sector (three year training).
Qualification of the academics in higher education institutions gradually
improved. The proportion of doctoral degree holders to the total number ofacademics increased from 8.0 percent in the academic year 1980-1981 to 13.8
percent in the academic year 2001-2002 and then declined to 10.6 percent in theacademic year 2010-2011. This proportion in the university sector is muchhigher than in the college sector (Table 1, 2 & 3). The change of this
proportion in each sector and the whole system is rooted in the dramatic increaseof student enrollment during the last two decades.
In the last decade, the rate of master’s degree holders in both university andcollege sectors increased steadily (Table 2 & 3). There were 44.9 percent
academics holding master’s degrees in the university sector, and 31.8 percent in
the college sector, in the academic year 2010-2011.

Pham Thanh Nghi 171

Table 2. University academic qualification 2001-2011
Doctoral degree holders

Master’s degree holders% of total

Number% of total

Number% of total

25,546

100

4,812

18.8

7,583

29.7

33,989

100

5,744

17,6

11,46033.7

2007/2008

38,217

100

5,643

14.8

15,421

40.4

2010/2011

50,952

100

7,338

14.4

22,865

44.9

Total

Academic
years

Number

2001/2002
2004/2005

Table 3. College academic qualification 2001-2011
Academicyears

Doctoral degree holders

Master’s degree holders

Number% of total

Number% of total

Number% of total

2001/2002

10,392

100

158

1.5

1,960

18.9

2004/2005

13,677

100

246

1.8

3,079

23.9

2007/2008

17,903

100

243

1.4

4,854

27.1

2010/201123,622

100

586

2.5

7,509

31.8

Total

Like other developing countries, at the stage of academic profession
formation, Vietnam relied heavily on postgraduate education in other countries.
As a colony, the first group of lecturers came to Vietnam from France. All
academics at that time were trained overseas. In 1951 the first group of
Vietnamese students was sent to the Soviet Union for undergraduate studies.
And in 1955, postgraduate education for Vietnamese started in such countries as
Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, and Rumania. Until 1990 the postgraduate education for
Vietnamese was undertaken mainly in Eastern European countries. Between
1980 and 1990 Vietnam yearly sent about 1,000 persons to short-term andlong-term practical training or formal studies without aiming to attain degrees
and long-term studies to attain degrees (Dat & Sloper, 1995).
The government is committed to sending students abroad through, forexample, schemes such as Program 322, which each year sends around 450 ofVietnam’s best and brightest students overseas for study, at annual cost of 100
billion Vietnamese dong (HERA, 2005, p.73). Country-specific programs also
exist, for example, the Training Vietnamese Citizens in the Russian Federation
under the Debt Processing Agreement, which at an annual cost of some 48
million Vietnamese dongs has sent 305 students to Russia for studies. Anotherprogram, the Vietnamese-American Education Foundation project, sends 100
doctoral students annually to the United States in the priority areas of medicine,natural sciences and technology, mathematics, and environmental sciences.

172 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

Most of these students are enrolled from universities and research institutes andare expected to be back and continue their academic career.
In the Higher Education Law, passed by the National Assembly in 2012,
academics working in a higher education institution are required at least to havea master’s degree. At present, the level of academic qualification is still rather
low (Table 2 & 3). The Higher Education Reform Agenda (HERA, 2005) is
aimed at increasing by 2020, 60 percent of academics having master’s degrees
and 35 percent having doctoral degrees. This goal seems by 2020, but it is seen
as a long-term goal of the higher education system. Vietnam’s in-country
postgraduate training is growing rapidly, with large enrollments, but it is facedwith quality problems. In 2012 and 2013, the Ministry of Education andTraining carried out several quality inspections and, as a result, many master’sand doctoral training programs were forced to stop enrollment.
In order to analyze in more details characteristics of academic profession in
Vietnam, a survey was undertaken in October 2012. The training profile ofrespondents selected at 16 universities is presented in Table 4. Among 799
academics, there are 231 doctoral, 388 master’s and 155 bachelor’s degree
holders as highest degrees. The largest number of academics has been trainedin the country. At the level of bachelor’s degree, only 17 percent of academics
have been trained overseas. This rate increases to 19.5 percent at master’s
degree and 33.3 percent at doctoral degree. These academics have graduatedfrom countries such as Russia, Australia, France, Germany, USA and Japan.
Table 4. Training profile of respondents
Bachelor’s degree
Total

Master’s degree

In-country Overseas

Total

Doctoral degree

In-country Overseas

Total

In-country Overseas

799

644

135

614

495

119

231

154

77

100%

83%

17%

100%

80.5%

19.5%

100%

66.6%

33.3%

Table 5. Academic rank of respondents
Academic rank

Frequency

Valid percent

Professor

2

0.3

Associate Professor

30

3.8

Lecturer

650

83.0

Research associate

21

2.7

Research assistant

20

2.6

Other

60

7.7

Total

783

100

Pham Thanh Nghi 173

Table 6. Overall satisfaction with the academic profession
Frequency

Valid Percent

1 – Very high

127

16.2

2

361

45.9

3

246

33.6

4

28

3.6

5 – Very low

60.8

Total of academics responded

786

100

Table 7. Time spent by academics on teaching, research, service andadministration
Hours per week whenclasses are in session

Hours per week whenclasses are not in session

Teaching

15.4

18.8

Research

14.2

19.7

Service7.2

7.2

Administration

9.3

10.3

Other academic activities

8.3

9.5

Total

54.4

65.5

Activities

In terms of academic rank, most respondents (83%) are lecturers, two
respondents (0.3%) have the title of professor, 3.8 percent are associate
professors, and the rest are research associate, research assistant or others (Table
5).
Most academics are satisfied with their career; 62.1 percent demonstrated
high and very high levels of satisfaction, only 4.4 percent expressed an
unsatisfactory attitude toward the academic profession (Table 6). This highlevel satisfactory attitude could be explained by prestige of teaching and learning
activities in Vietnamese culture. Moreover, at present, academics working atuniversities and colleges have above average income in the society. Academics
enjoy their professional activities and at the same time they are able to cover theliving expenses.
Student enrollment expansion in the last two decades has led to heavy workloads for academics. In term of regulation, each academic is required to teach
280 teaching hours per year, but in practice academics are asked to work many
more hours and get paid for that. Consequently, they have not much time left
for research. Hours spent on teaching and research reported by respondents are
fairly balanced (Table 7), they spend more time on each activity when classes are
not in session. Vietnamese academics spend much more time on teaching per
week, 34.2 hours (when classes are in session and not in session), compared to174 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

25 hours by Japanese and 26.8 hours by Taiwanese. Vietnamese academics
also spend more time on teaching when classes are not in session. Regarding
time spent on research activities, Japanese and Taiwanese academics spend more
hours both when classes are in session and not in session. Japanese spend 46.3
hours on research per week; Taiwanese spend 41.2 hours; while Vietnamese
academics spend only 34.1 hours.
Concerning preferences for “teaching or research”, academics clearly
leaning toward teaching (Table 8). This situation is rooted in differentiation offunctions given to higher education institutions in Vietnam. Teaching andresearch are separated in Vietnamese academic institutions. The primaryfunction of higher learning institution is teaching; research function is engaged
to research institutions traditionally organized separately from colleges anduniversities. However, as demonstrated in a Venn diagram (Light, 1974), “anacademic profession is that subset of a scholarly profession with academic
appointments at institutions of higher education. As a body, it exercises thefirst two powers of profession and to a large degree regulates the quality ofprofessional work” (p.11). Research and teaching graduate students are
considered as two important functions of academics at a university.
Table 8. Teaching and research preferences
Frequency

Valid Percent

Primarily in teaching

187

23.8

In both, but leaning towards teaching

390

49.6

In both, but leaning towards research

183

23.3

Primarily in research

26

3.3

Total

786

100

Table 9. Disciplines of training, academic unit and current teachingNo

Disciplines

Highest degree

Academic unit

Current teaching1

Humanities

16.8

10.7

14.0

2

Social sciences

30.7

28.5

28.9

3

Natural sciences

15.3

13.9

14.7

4

Engineering

1.0

1.1

1.2

5

Agriculture

4.5

4.6

4.1

6

Health/Medicine sciences

2.2

2.5

2.1

7

Fine arts

0.3

0.2

0.1

8

Teaching and education science

20.4

28.9

25.6

9

Others

8.8

9.6

9.3

10

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

Pham Thanh Nghi 175

Since reorganization in 1987, Vietnamese higher education institutions haveaimed at strengthening the research function by organizing research centers or
research institutes within universities and attract researchers working at research
institutes outside the university to teach postgraduate courses.
There is good correspondence between disciplines, academic units andcurrent teaching of the academics (Table 9). Academics have a tendency of
selecting academic units and current teaching in accordance with their discipline.
The relation between disciplines and academic units is high with r = 0.70, while
the relation between discipline and current teaching is even higher with r = 0.747.
Many academics with highest degrees in humanities and social sciences work forother academic units and teach subjects other than humanities and social
sciences, while many academics from other disciplines work for education units
and teach educational subjects.
There were 231 respondents with doctoral degree who provided
characteristics of their doctoral training (Table 10). Most of them wrote a
dissertation (85.3%), chose their own research topic (80.1%), received intensive
faculty guidance (76.6%), and took a prescribed set of courses (66.7%). To lessextent, the doctoral training is also characterized by providing instructional skills(36.3%), being involved in research projects (40.2%) and serving an institutionalor departmental committee (33.7%).
Although the quality of higher education in Vietnam is considered below
international standards, academics are optimistic about the graduate education
they received; 84.7 percent of respondents evaluated the training for academics
as a teacher good and excellent; 75.2 percent evaluated the training foracademics as a researcher good and excellent.
Table 10. Characteristics of doctoral training (n=231)
No

Characteristics

Frequency

Percent

154

66.7

1

Taking a prescribed set of courses

2

Writing a thesis or dissertation

197

85.3

3

Receiving intensive faculty guidance

177

76.6

4

Choosing own research topic

185

80.1

5

Receiving a scholarship or fellowship

95

41.1

6

Receiving an employment contract

70

30.3

7

Receiving training in instructional skills

84

36.3

8

Being involved in research projects

93

40.2

9

Serving an institutional or departmental committee

78

33.7

176 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

Vietnam is a nation which has low mobility of human resources. Working
people stay at one institution longer compared to working people in other nations.
Higher education professors in Vietnam move more frequently compared toresearchers. The average time of changing jobs among 413 lecturers is 2.82,
while this number among 66 researchers is only 1.85.
Vietnamese higher education institutions basically employ academics andother staff using a tenure system. Employees are given a secured job for life
and all are paid more or less the same, regardless of their qualification andcontributions. This equalized system has resulted in low working motivation
and an abundance of less qualified academics in the system. Most respondents(95.7%) are full-time employees for higher education institutions. 66.4 percent
academics have no additional work, the rest has additional work for anotherresearch institute or higher education institution (20%), business organization(5.7%), non-profit organization (3.4%) or as self-employed (9.9%).
Academics receive the major part of income from their institutions (98.26
million VND per year, about 5,000 USD). Only 148 academics (of 725) said
that they have additional income from all other concurrent employers (48.84
million VND). 84 academics have additional income from self-employment
with 51.52 million VND. Among 725 academics, who responded this question,
77 persons (10.6%) have major income less than VND 30 millions; 77 percent
have income less than VND 100 millions.
There are interesting data on reasons why academics leave or remain in
higher education institutions (Table 11). Income and resources for research areconsidered by the respondents as major reasons to leave with 49.6 percent and39.1 percent respectively, while major reasons to stay are the academic
cooperation among colleagues (47.7%), academic reputation of
institution/department (43.2%), region in which this institution is located(42.9%), family reason (40.8%), and resource for research (38.6%). It is clearthat income of academic profession is less attractive than many other professions.
Young academics usually leave universities for other jobs that help them
improve their family financial situation and social status. The major reason to
make academics to stay is the cooperation among colleagues. As Parsons andPlatt state, a collegial mode of relationship among faculty is the dominant form
(Light, 1974, tr.9). It means that the collegial environment or creative work in
the university environment attracts many academics who value human relations
and creative nature of teaching and research work at the university.

Pham Thanh Nghi 177

Table 11. Reasons to leave or stayNo.

Reasons

To leave (%)

To stay (%)

1

Income

49.6

18.2

2

Resource for research

39.1

38.6

3

Academic reputation of institution/department

30.2

43.2

4

Academic cooperation among colleagues

27.2

47.7

5

Region in which this institution is located

26.9

42.9

6

Teaching load

23.3

33.6

7

Administrative load

19.9

29.4

8

Teaching language

17.4

33.0

9

Family reason

28.4

40.8

10

Other

25.7

30.7

5
4.2

4.21
4.04
3.99

4.19
4.10
3.98

2.82

2.73

4.67
4.45
4.35
M1

3.4
2.6

M2
2.25

M3
M4

1.8
1
1-10 years

11-20 years> 20 years

Figure 1. Changes of teaching motivation in the academics

A motivational study of Vietnamese professors undertaken by Luot (2012)as an additional evidence to confirm that work motivation has more significant
meaning than financial encouragement. According to Luot, teaching activities
are stimulated by a system of motivation including self-determination (M1),development of students (M2), income (M3) and professional development (M4).
Each mentioned above motivation could play a dominant or a minor role instimulating academics to work.
Luot (2012) also found that the combination of motivations, where selfdetermination, development of students and professional development play
dominant role and income, as a motivation, plays minor role, consists of 69.17
percent cases while the combination of motivations, where all four motivations

178 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

plays a dominant role, consists of only 16.06 percent cases. Income, as amotivation, plays less and less important role in the system of motivation of theacademics when they move further on their professional carrier (Figure 1). The
examination of teaching and research activities undertaken by academics mayhelp discover major characteristics of academic profession in Vietnam.

2. Teaching
Vietnam’s Higher Education Reform Agenda (HERA) claims that thesystem of higher education is confounded by:- poor quality of training and poor qualification of academic staff;- subjects being too theoretically focused and not linking with market needs;- imbalance between supply and demand in the labor market;- research activities in HEIs being paid minimal attention because of a strong
orientation to teaching, not research;- limited resources.
Although academics in universities have a heavy teaching workload. The
persistence of the Soviet model of separating research and teaching by (a)researchers in national institutes being isolated from training activities and thereal demands of national social and economic needs; and (b) universities
traditionally being more teaching oriented are considered as factors that impede
attempts to modernize and reform teaching and learning at universities (Harman& Bich, 2010, p.74).
The weakness of separating teaching from research has been alleviated inrecent years by the attempt to establish numerous research centers or institutes
within universities. Responding to the questions “how much academics thinkthat research and teaching activities are actually emphasized” and “how muchthey expect these activities to be emphasized”, academics have mentioned an
actual imbalance between teaching and research and expected more balance
between teaching and research (Table 12).
According to academics, teaching is currently more emphasized thanresearch; therefore, they expect the university to place greater emphasis on
research. The relation between actual and expected emphasis on research (withr = 0.47) is less strong than actual and expected teaching (with r = 0.60). At thesame time, the relation between actual teaching and actual research (with r =0.710) is less strong than expected teaching and expected research (with r =0.725), despite that two these relations are strong.

Pham Thanh Nghi 179

There are several objectives of education in a higher education institution,
but “to have students acquire knowledge and qualification necessary for amember of society” is defined by academics as the most important goal; “to havestudents acquire a broad range of academic interest and knowledge” and “to havestudents acquire knowledge and qualification necessary as a professional” arelisted in the second and third places, while “to have students acquire knowledge
and qualification necessary as an academic researcher” is listed in the fourth
place (Table 13). Educational goals as defined by academics are not reallypractical; training a professional is not defined as the most important goals of theuniversity. This explains why higher education institutions are criticized by the
public not to respond well enough to the needs of society.
Most academics do not highly value the quality of currently enrolled
students; only 52.5 percent respondents said that quality of the students is goodand 4.5 percent said excellent (Table 14). In recent years, the student
enrollments have expanded dramatically and minimum scores for entering higher
education were rather low; a few non-public colleges and universities haveenrolled students with scores lower than the minimum requirements.
Table 12 . Evaluation by academics on emphasis of teaching and research
Actually emphasized(1) on scale 1-5

Expected to beemphasized (2)scale 1-5

Relations between(1) and (2)Research

3.81

4.14

0.47**

Teaching

4.17

4.33

0.60**

Administration

3.65

3.62

0.27**

Social service

3.35

3.54

0.35**

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 13. Objectives of education in the institution
No

Objectives of education

Mean

Percent of respondents
saying “related” and“strongly related”

1

To have students acquire knowledge andqualification necessary for a member ofsociety

4.06

73.6

2

To have students acquire a broad range ofacademic interest and knowledge

3.90

67.3

3

To have students acquire knowledge andqualification necessary as a professional

3.89

64.4

4

To have students acquire knowledge andqualification necessary as an academic
researcher

2.97

28.6

180 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

Table 14. Quality of students and quality of educational activities
No

Quality

Mean

Percent of respondents
saying “excellent” and“good”; or “improved” and“much improved”

1

The quality of the students currently enrolled

2.42

57.0

2

The quality of educational activities been
improved

4.17

87.0

There is a different picture on quality improvement of the educational
activities. 37 percent of respondents said that the quality of educational
activities is much improved and 50 percent said that it has improved to someextent (Table 13). In recent years, teaching and learning conditions in higher
education institutions in Vietnam have improved significantly. For example,
the number of academics with post-graduate degrees has increased and facilities
for teaching and learning have improved impressively.
As Harman and Bich (2010) have pointed out, learning materials, passive
and outdated teaching methods, poor lecturer preparation and time students
spend in lectures do not compare favorably with many countries in the region.
There is a great challenge for academic staff to adapt their mindsets to moreinteractive styles of teaching and learning. Students defer to the “wisdom” ofthe lecturers, expect them to provide all the answers, memorize what they are
told and regurgitate this information when required. Not much independent
thinking is taught. This passive style of learning prevents students fromperforming creatively and independently in an information society where theskills of critical thinking, problem solving and learning how to learn throughout
life are so crucial (pp.75-76).
Altbach (2003) has described the dependency of third world academics on
the main centers of knowledge and the world scientific networks of thedeveloped world.
Vietnamese academics, who gained foreign degrees,
constitute a significant part of the professoriate and are treated as power elite of
the academic community. Scholars returning from abroad often wish to implantthe values they absorbed during their studies to upgrade local standards, eventhough some time such replication is not desirable in local conditions. These
academics follow the latest international academic development and seek tomaintain links with colleagues in the country where they studied, importscientific equipment as well as ideas. Activities organized at the university
with international involvement are dependent very much on academics returningfrom overseas studies.

Pham Thanh Nghi 181

The level of international involvement reflects the level ofinternationalization of a higher education institution. According to Ellingboe(1998), internationalization is a process of integration of international
perspective into the system of higher education. This perspective is future –oriented, multi – dimensional, inter – disciplinary, leadership – oriented andattractive to stakeholders. This perspective has an impact on internal dynamics
to respond and adapt to the external diversified, globally oriented and changing
environment. Ellingboe (1998) has identified 5 factors having impacts on
internationalization of a higher education institution: leadership; participation ofinternational forces in the institution activities; the preparation of the curriculum
appropriate to the international standards; the availability of international
academics and students in the university life; and availability of many units indesigning programs such as accommodation units, centers for conference
planning, professional centers, cultural centers, linguistic centers, student centersetc. (p.205).
Among 280 academics responding to the question regarding teachingabroad and using other languages; 10.7 percent of them said that they teach acourse abroad and 90.7 percent said that they teach a course in a language
different from the language of instruction. Vietnamese is a formal language ofteaching at universities; other language could be used for teaching in a special
course or at an institution with permission of the appropriate authority. It isclear that only small proportion of academics (about 32%), who has involved inteaching a language other than Vietnamese.
Activities with participation of foreign partners are not organizedintensively at Vietnamese universities. Only 25.6 percent of academics said
that foreign academics teach frequently in their universities and 50.7 percent said
occasionally. The same situation is found in the assessment of participation ofacademics in international conferences, enrollments of international students andstudying abroad by Vietnamese students (Table 15).
Table 15. Activities with foreign partners
No

Activities% said“frequently”% said“occasionally”

Total

1

Foreign academics have taught
courses

25.6

50.7

76.3

2

International conferences andseminars have been held

22.8

54.6

77.4

3

Foreign students have beenenrolled

32.8

36.5

69.3

4

Students have studied abroad

36.8

40.0

76.8

182 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

3. Research and application
There are three different kinds of public institutions involved in research
activities in Vietnam. The most important are the national research institutes
that administratively report to the Office of the Prime Minister and aresupervised by the Vietnam Academy of Natural Sciences and Technology(VAST) and Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences (VASS). Secondly, there areabout 180 R&D units (laboratories and institutes) within various national
ministries or under control of other government agencies. The third group of
institutions includes the public universities that undertake research within
faculties, departments and their own research institutes. Among these, the twonational universities and two largest polytechnic universities have the mostdeveloped research activities (Bezanson, 2000).
The government has made clear in its public statements and in HERA that
research capacity must be developed in universities, particularly the 14 key
universities that were identified in 2004. In recent years, the emphasis given todifferent kinds of institutions has changed to some extent. For example,
funding for basic research in national institutes has been reduced, forcing them
to become increasingly involved in applied research and technology services,with funding being based on contracts with ministries, government agencies andsometimes firms. Universities, on the other hand, have been encouraged to
expand their basic research and also to seek contracts from ministries and theprivate sector (Bezanson, 2000; Nguyen, 2000).
Regarding research, academics characterized the basic/theoretical andapplied/practical-oriented emphasis in their research. On Table 16, the average
point indicated for applied/practical-oriented research and basic/theoreticaloriented research is 2.23 and 2.45 respectively, while the average point indicatedfor the socially-oriented/intended research for betterment of society and thecommercially-oriented/intended research for technology transfer is 3.18 and 3.72
respectively, where on the scale, 1 means “very much emphasized” and 5 means“not emphasized at all”. In practice, university professors are being funded forbasic research from the government budget, while they need to seek funding
from other sources such as foundations and contracts with business enterprises
for socially-oriented or commercially/intended research for technology transfer.
Research is weak with university professors having little time available due
to high teaching loads and access to very limited funding. Most research is still
conducted in specialized research institutes, which are not yet linked closelywith teaching, even where they are part of a university. The weakness is a

Pham Thanh Nghi 183

legacy of the concept that universities were seen more as teaching institutions
that are narrowly focused on professional training and certification, to theneglect of their other roles (Nghi, 2010, p.56).
In spite of impressive economic development over the past decade, only asmall proportion of Vietnam’s R&D is conducted in enterprises. On the other
hand, it is clear that there is a small but growing demand for technology andtraining services that universities and research institutes find difficult to meet.
In many traditional sectors, such as agriculture and forestry, research institutes
and universities play an important role in bringing technical solutions to
producers (Harman & Ngoc, 2010).
At the individual level, academics intensively participate in writing research
papers, and in preparing and conducting experiments and inquiries. To a lesser
extent, academics participate in supervising a research team or graduate research,
purchasing or selecting equipment and being involved in the process oftechnology transfer (Table 17).

Table 16. Relations of basic/applied/commercially-oriented research
No

Items

Mean (1 very much – 5
not at all)

Valid percent of much +very much1

Basic / theoretical

2.45

53.3

2

Applied / practical-oriented

2.23

69.1

3

Commercially-oriented / intended
for techno. transfer

3.72

21.5

4

Socially-oriented / intended

3.18

32.4

Table 17. Academics participation in research activities
No

Activities academics participate

Valid percent of “yes”

1Preparing experiments, inquiries etc.

50.5

2

Conducting experiments, inquiries etc.

56.1

3

Supervising a research team or graduate research

26.2

4

Writing academic papers

75.6

5

Involved in the process of technology transfer

18.3

6

Writing proposals or research grants

45.0

7

Managing research contracts and budgets

17.4

8

Purchasing or selecting equipment and research supplies

31.0

184 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

Table 18. Research output for higher education in Vietnam in 2005
Ownership
PublicType ofmanagement

Number of
publishedarticlesPercentage ininternational
journal

Averagepublications per
academics

17,088

0.03

0.45

146

0

0.36

Total
National
Regional

292

0.09

0.09

Other

15,941

0.02

0.80

Local

30

16

0.03

Colleges

726

28

0.07

72

0

0.07

Semi-public
Non-public
Total

38

0

0.01

1717,198

0.03

0.39

Source: The World Bank (2008, pp.37-38) (data are drawn from the MOET 2005).

Table 19. Output of research and professional activities
Items

No. publications per
academic in three years

1

Scholarly books authored, co-authored

2.99

2

Scholarly books edited, co-edited

0.59

3

Articles published in an academic book or journal

1.70

4

Research report/monograph written for a funded project

0.52

5

Paper presented at a scholarly conference

1.25

6

Professional article written for a newspaper or magazine

0.73

7

Patent secured on a process or invention

0.02

8

Computer program written for public use

0.04

9

Artistic work performed or exhibited

0.02

10

Video or film produced

0.09

11

Others0.02

Due to the low proportion of doctorates in Vietnamese universities and therank structure of the academic profession, most academics in Vietnam are notactively involved in research measured by the number of articles andpublications produced. Table 18 provides data on research output in 2005 forpublic, semi-public and non-public institutions. Public institutions have thebest record with over 17,000 publications, but only 0.03 percent of these were ininternational journals. The average publication per academic was low (0.45
publications per academic).

Pham Thanh Nghi 185

The output of research and professional activities taken from our survey(Table 19) is more positive compared to the statistical data from the Ministry of
Education and Training. The average number of articles published per
academic in academic books or journals is 1.70 compared to 0.45 in the Ministryof Education and Training (MOET) Survey data.
A case study (Hien, 2010) revealed that “a vast gulf still separates
Vietnamese universities from their peer institutions in the region” (p.2). This
study also found that within the South East Asian countries, the level of researchintensity within a country correlates strongly with per-capita GDP and even morestrongly with Human Development index (p.3). Our survey results indicate thatthe indicator of research and professional activities of Vietnamese universities islow. For example, patent secured on a process or invention and paper presented
at a scholarly conference is 0.02 and 1.25 per academic in three years
respectively may be low, but 2.99 scholarly books authored or co-authored per
academic in three years seems high. The high scholarly book index may be
resulted in the recent MOET policy on encouraging academics to write reference
books for students.
Publication of research results in international journals is considered an
important indicator of research quality of institutions and countries. In our
survey, 19.9 percent of respondents stated that they have publications in alanguage different from the language of instruction and only 2.3 percent
respondents confirmed that they have publications in a foreign country (Table
20). Harman and Ngoc (2010, p.98) argue that low research productivity seems
to stem from a number of factors, particularly lack of adequate time for research,lack of appropriate working conditions and the absence of financial incentives toengage in research.
Table 20. Outcomes published in foreign countries
Items

Percentage of academics
having publications

1

Published in a language different from the language of
instruction at current institutions

19.1

2

Co-authored with colleagues located in the country of current
employment

27.4

3

Co-authored with colleagues located in foreign countries

7.9

4

Published in a foreign country

2.3

5

On-line or electronically published

17.1

6

Peer-reviewed

27.6

186 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

Conducting research, academics need to work individually and at the sametime work in a team. 45 percent of academics confirmed that they work
individually in any research projects. Majority of academics (84.7%) has
collaboration in research with persons inside and outside their institutions. 65.2
percent academics collaborate with persons at other institutions in Vietnam andonly 28.3 percent said they have collaborative works with international
colleagues (Table 21). International cooperation now has place in teaching,research and undertaking development projects. When the country is open to
the outside world, professional people have accepted a new way of doing things.
Professional teams are formed on the base of skills and cultural values toundertake research and development projects.
Data on Table 22 show that one fourth of respondents have confirmed theirmembership in a scientific society in the country and only 5.8 percent said thatthey are a member of an international scientific association. In terms ofconference participation, less than half of academics who responded to thequestionnaire noted that they attended scientific conference in Vietnam andabout one fourth said that they participated in a conference organized outside
Vietnam in the last three years. This means that there are a significant numberof academics who have no chance to share scientific and professional
information, to make contact with colleagues or to form a network ofprofessionals.
Table 21. Collaboration in research
Alternatives

Percentage ofacademics saying “yes"1Working individually in any research projects

45.0

2

Having collaboration in any of research projects

84.7

3

Having collaboration with persons at other institutions in the
country

65.2

4

Having collaboration with international colleagues

28.3

Table 22. Membership and participation in professional organizations
No

Items

Percentage of academics
has confirmed

1

Member of a scientific society

26.9

2

Member of an international scientific society

5.8

3

Attending scientific conferences in the country

46.0

4

Attending scientific conferences outside Vietnam

27.3

Pham Thanh Nghi 187

Regarding the research budget, only 214 respondents mentioned the budgetof their research project. 60 percent participated in a research project funded up
to 100 million VND (around USD 5,000) and about 10 percent of respondents
said that they participated in a research project being funded from 1 billion VND(USD 50,000) to 28 billion VND (USD 1.4 million). There are several levelsof funding for research projects in Vietnam. At the institutional project level,
academics usually get sufficient funding to undertake the first stage of basic
research, to define research problems or to review literature for further study.
At the ministerial project level, academics are required to conduct independent
research in their discipline or to solve a particular practical problem that issignificant to their profession or has practical application. At the national
project level, academics have an opportunity to undertake a significant project
for their discipline or for practical application, and they receive relatively highfunding to undertake such a research project. Most academics conduct researchat the first and second levels of funding, which are lacking in attractiveness tomost academics.

Conclusion
Vietnamese academics perform their tasks at a time of transition fromcomplete centralized control to a more decentralized system. HERA goals for
improving curriculum, innovating teaching methodology, integrating research
into teaching and intensively developing academic staff are a positive sign.
Due to the low proportion of academics possessing doctoral degree, there is anurgent need to invest in their research careers and to decrease teaching loads tomake time available for research engagement. As statistical data and survey
results have shown, the level of international involvement in Vietnamese higher
education is very low; the question here is how to create conditions foracademics to involve in the overseas training, academic exchange, andparticipation in international conferences and at the same time invite foreign
academics to teach and to conduct research with Vietnamese colleagues.
Although most academics are satisfied with their career, their income is still
relatively low compared to their counterparts in other countries, and there is alsoa serious need for substantial investment in academic staff development.
Academic staff development includes not only introducing an intensive
postgraduate education but also developing appropriate induction programs for
new academics, introducing performance reviews and establishing appropriate
incentive and reward mechanisms.
The academic profession is a188 The Academic Profession in Vietnam

newly-emerging career in Vietnam, but it plays an important role in the processof industrialization and modernization of the country. There is a very
challenging task for the higher education system to create appropriate conditions
for academics to undertake balanced activities and to develop their careers.

References
Altbach P.G. (2003). Centers and Peripheries in the Academic Profession: The Special
Challenges of Developing Countries. In P. Altbach (Ed.), The Decline of the GURU: The
Academic Profession in Developing and Middle-Income Countries. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bezanson K.A. (2000). Science technology and industry strategy for Vietnam. Hanoi: United
Nations Development Organizations.
Dao, T.C., Thiep, L.Q., & Sloper, D. (1995). Organization and Management of Higher
Education in Vietnam: An Overview. In D. Sloper, & L.T. Can (Eds.), Higher Educationin Vietnam: Change and Response (pp.74-94). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Dat, N.T., & Sloper, D. (1995). Postgraduate Degrees and Classification Schemes for
Academic Staff. In D. Sloper, & L.T. Can (Eds.), Higher Education in Vietnam: Change
and Response (pp.117-133). New York: St. Martin Press.
Ellingboe, B.J. (1998). Divisional Strategies to Internationalize a Campus Portrait: Results,
Resistance, and Recommendations from a Case Study at a US University. In J.A.
Mestenhauser, & B.J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum:Internationalizing the Campus (pp.198-228). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on
Education and Oryx Press.
Government of Vietnam. (2005). Resolution No. 14/2005/NQ-CP, dated 2 November 2005 forthe comprehensive reform of higher education system by 2020.
Hac, P.M. (1995). The Education System of Vietnam. In D. Sloper, & L.T. Can (Eds.), Higher
Education in Vietnam: Change and Response (pp.41-61). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Harman, G., & Ngoc, L.T.B. (2010). The Research Role of Vietnam’s Universities. In G.
Harman, M. Hayden, & P.T. Nghi (Eds.), Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam:
Challenges and Priorities (pp.87-102). London: Springer.
Harman, K., & Bich, N.T.N. (2010). Reforming and Teaching and Learning in Vietnam’s
Higher Education System. In G. Harman, M. Hayden, & P.T. Nghi (Eds.), Reforming
Higher Education in Vietnam: Challenges and Priorities (pp.65-86). London: Springer.
Hien, P.D. (2010). A Comparative Study of Research Capabilities of East Asian countries and
Implications for Vietnam. Higher Education, 60 (6), 615-625.

Pham Thanh Nghi 189
Higher Education Reform Agenda (HERA). (2005). Resolution No. 14/2005/NQ-CP, dated
November 2, 2005. Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Lam D.B, Nung, N.X., & Sloper, D. (1995). Research Activities and Higher Education. In D.
Sloper, & L.T. Can (Eds.), Higher Education in Vietnam: Change and Response(pp.134-160). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Light, D. Jr. (1974). The Structure of the Academic Professions. Sociology of Education, 47(1), 2-28.
Luot, N.V. (2012). The System of Teaching Motivations and its Changes. Proceedings ofTraining, Research and Application of Psychology in the Context of International
Integration, 707-716.
Nghi, P.T. (2010). The Higher Education Reform Agenda: A Vision for 2020. In G. Harman, M.
Hayden, & P.T. Nghi (Eds.), Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam: Challenges andPriorities (pp.51-64). London: Springer.
Nguyen, T.H. (2000). National Policy Dialogue on Research and Technology for Developmentin Vietnam: An Assessment. Maastricht, The Netherlands: European Centre forDevelopment Policy Management.
The World Bank. (2008). Vietnam: Higher Education and Skills for Growth. Washington, DC:
The World Bank.

Conclusion

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.20, 2013 191

What have We Learned from the International
Survey on the Academy in Selected AsianCountries?

Futao Huang

As discussed in each chapter, this proceeding covers a wide range of topics
relating to several important aspects of the academy in selected Asian countries
and the United States as well as worldwide. Though notable differences exist
in individual presentations in terms of their research interest and methodology of
research, etc., the two keynote speeches and other presentations based onnational surveys with a common questionnaire have provided preliminary
findings about characteristics of the academic profession in participating
countries by describing their teaching and research activities as well as major
patterns of governance/management in higher education. In some countries, e.g.
Cambodia and Malaysia as well as Vietnam, simple arguments on the factors
affecting changes in academics’ teaching and research activities, andgovernance/ management styles in individual countries were also made.
With respect to outlines of all the presentations which are included in theproceeding, differing from the presentations made by the speakers who mainly
employed the data from national surveys in Cambodia, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan
and Vietnam, the two keynote speeches which were offered by Professor
Arimoto from Japan and Professor Cummings from the Unites States present
much broader portraits of the changing academic profession. For example,
Professor Arimoto’s speech examined changes in the role of higher educationand especially their influences on the academic profession from historical andcomparative perspectives. He argued for the necessity of the teaching/researchnexus and the importance of integration of teaching, research and learning
Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

192 What have We Learned from the International Survey on the Academy in Selected Asian Countries?

though he admits it is extremely difficult for any university to do it nowadays.
In addition, his speech also touched on conflicts between the ideals and thereality of the academy through an analysis of the Carnegie and CAP surveys andthe characteristics of the academy in the 21st century. Professor Cummings
reviewed issues about what has happened since the late 1970s when Martin Trow
presented his hypothesis about the massification of higher education, and what
implications for the academy and for youth, particularly for Asian academics intheir teaching, research, governance and management arrangements are. By
identifying the academy from nineteen participating countries teams into threedifferent types: those from the elite stage, the transitional stage and the mass
stage, seemingly, his comparative study suggests that no essential differences
could be found in key academic activities which were undertaken by theacademy from the different types. Though Professor Yan from China made anoral presentation of major features of Chinese academics in their teaching andresearch activities and their views on governance patterns by utilizing some datafrom the Chinese survey, it is interesting to note that Professor Yan’s paper madean intensive and detailed introduction of the emergence of and changes in
Chinese academics from an historical standpoint.
His account of thecharacteristics of China’s academy should surely help us have a better
understanding of the academy in the contemporary China.
In contrast, the rest of the presentations about Cambodia, Malaysia, Japan,
Taiwan and Vietnam are concerned with preliminary findings of their surveys
from various perspectives. To illustrate, Associate professor Yuto Kitamura and
Mr. Naoki Umemiya from Japan talked about current conditions and challenges
for faculty members at higher education institutions in Cambodia. Their
presentation elaborated many issues concerning academics’ careers andprofessional situation, their general work situation, academics’ activities
concerning teaching, research, internationalization, and their overall satisfaction
with their current jobs. Prof. Pham Thanh Nghi from Vietnam presented ananalysis of major findings about academics’ teaching, research and their
participation in governance/management activities.
Their presentations
touched on a wide range of issues and provided overall portraits of academics
characteristics in the two countries at the system, institutional and individuallevels. In contrast, Prof. Tsukasa Daizen and Lecturer Naomi Kimoto fromJapan facilitated an emphasis on educational and research activities of theacademic profession in Japan. Their report highlighted the key teaching andresearch activities undertaken by Japan’s academics. Prof. Aida Suraya Md.
Yunus from Malaysia also dealt with teaching and research concentration of

Futao Huang 193

academics in the three types of Malaysian public universities 㸸 research,
comprehensive and technical institutions. Dr. Robin Jung-Cheng Chen outlined
the development and challenges of the academic profession in Taiwan. Hispresentation identified the main issues facing the academic profession there witha sharpened focus on teaching and research activities. Differing from othercountry reports, Associate Professors Akiyoshi Yonezawa and Masataka
Murasawa from Japan examined issues in the governance and management
arrangements in Japan; they considered the relation between participation ingovernance by individual faculty and their academic productivity.
Arguably, at this stage, it appears that there is not a typical Asian pattern.
Except for the similarities which could be found in the high percentages withfull-time employment and who are male in all the countries, there was little
evidence of a distinctive Asian pattern of the academy. However, the datasuggests there exist two clear types of academies across the participating
countries. One type is represented by Japan and Taiwan and the other typeincludes the other four countries: Cambodia, China, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
Furthermore, all the country reports indicate that governance and management
arrangements are basically shared across all the participating countries.
Though institutional managers have primary influence on various important
decisions, especially on selecting key administrators and deciding budgeting
priorities in Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam, compared with Japan and Taiwan,
seemingly, individual academics from Vietnam have the least influence on
important decisions, including academics matters. Additionally, the academics’
behavior and perceptions vary significantly by type of institution, by discipline,
by age, by gender, by academic degree, and so forth.
With respect to implications for research, they can be summarized asfollows:• Does there exist a distinctive Asian pattern of the academic profession?
• Should an Asian pattern or identity of the academic profession be sought foror created? Or should the Asian academic profession become moreinternationalized and go beyond national or regional boundary?
Regarding implications for policy, they include the following aspects:• How to address issues related to the increasingly aging population of theacademic profession in Japan and Taiwan and to produce a younger
generation?
• How to make the academic profession in Japan and Taiwan better prepared194 What have We Learned from the International Survey on the Academy in Selected Asian Countries?

for the increasingly diversified student body in the process of thetransformation of higher education from mass higher education to near
universal access to higher education?
• How to produce an academic profession of high quality to meet rapidly
expanding higher education systems in countries like Cambodia andVietnam?
• How to improve young academics’ life and working conditions, especiallythose from the private sector, and make the academic profession a more
attractive profession in emerging countries?
Though a much clearer picture of the academy in the selected Asian
countries has been provided, numerous issues still need to be addressed. For
example, how to improve the quality of national data sets and to make themmore compatible? How to make an in-depth and comparative study of theacademic profession across the participating countries? And how to link ouracademic outcomes to political and legal decisions that might lead to a positiveand healthy impact on the academic profession in each country?

Appendices195

Appendix 1: Conference Program*
The Changing Academic Profession in Asia
Teaching, Research, Governance and Management
Date: January 24-25, 2013
Venue: Hiroshima Garden Palace

Thursday, January 24
8:30 -

Registration*** Opening Ceremony ***9:00 - 9:15

9:15 - 9:25

Opening Remarks
Eiko Tsuchiya, Executive and Vice President (Research),
Hiroshima University, Japan
Masashi Fujimura, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Akira Arimoto, President, Kurashiki Sakuyo University / Director,
Research Institute for Higher Education, Kurashiki Sakuyo
University, Japan
Orientation
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan*** Keynote Speeches ***9:25 - 10:05

10:05 - 10:45*

Chairs:Reiko Yamada, Professor, Department of Education and Culture,
Faculty of Social Studies, Doshisha University, Japan
Fumihiro Maruyama, Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Keynote Speech 1“Academic Profession in the International and Comparative
Perspectives: Trends of Asia and world”
Akira Arimoto, President, Kurashiki Sakuyo University / Director,
Research Institute for Higher Education, Kurashiki Sakuyo
University, Japan
Keynote Speech 2“Massification of Higher Education: Implications for the academy”
William K. Cummings, Professor of International Education, The
Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington
University, USA

As of January 2013

196 Conference Program

10:45 - 11:00

Coffee Break*** Session 1: Governance & Management ***11:00 - 11:30

11:30 - 12:00

Presentation 1: China“Similarities and Differences of Perception of Academic Profession
Across Three Types of Institutions”
Fengqiao Yan, Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking
University, China
Aimin Wang, Deputy Director, Beijing City University, China
Presentation 2: Japan“Academic Profession and University Governance in Japan”
Akiyoshi Yonezawa, Associate Professor, Graduate School ofInternational Development, Nagoya University, Japan
Masataka Murasawa, Associate Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan

12:00 - 12:30

Discussion

12:30 - 13:30

Lunch*** Session 2: Teaching & Research Activities ***13:30 - 14:00

14:00 - 14:30

Chairs:Keiichiro Yoshinaga, Associate Professor, Center for Higher
Educational Development, Tokyo University of Agriculture andTechnology, Japan
Jung Cheol Shin, Associate Professor, Department of Education,
Seoul National University, South Korea
Presentation 3: Cambodia“Current Conditions and Challenges for Faculty Members at
Higher Education Institutions in Cambodia”
Yuto Kitamura, Associate Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences,
Sophia University, Japan
Naoki Umemiya, Deputy Director, Technical & Higher Education
Division, Human Development Department, Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA), Japan
Presentation 4: Indonesia“Trends in Teaching and Research among Academic Profession inIndonesia”
Nizam, Secretary for the Board of Higher Education, Ministry of
National Education, Indonesia / Professor of Civil Engineering,
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia

197

14:30 - 15:00

Discussion

15:00 - 15:15

Coffee Break

15:15 - 15:45

Presentation 5: Japan“Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in
Japan: by using the APA survey in 2011”
Tsukasa Daizen, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
Naomi Kimoto, Assistant Professor, Comprehensive Education
Center, Prefectural University of Hiroshima, Japan
Presentation 6: Malaysia“Teaching and Research Concentration of Academics in Malaysian
Public Universities”
Aida Suraya Md. YUNUS, Professor, Universiti Putra Malaysia,
Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia / Director of Centre for Academic
Development, National Higher Education Research Institute,Penang, Malaysia

15:45 - 16:15

16:15 - 17:00

Discussion

18:30 - 20:30

Reception at Hotel Granvia Hiroshima

Friday, January 25
8:30 -

Registration*** Session 2: Teaching & Research Activities ***9:00 - 9:30

9:30 - 10:00

Chairs:Khieu Vicheanon, Deputy Secretary General, Cambodian
Accreditation Committee, Cambodia
Kazunori Shima, Associate Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Presentation 7: Taiwan“Development and Challenge of Academic Profession in Taiwan”
Robin J. CHEN, Director, Office of R&D and International Affairs,
National Academy for Educational Research, Taiwan
Presentation 8: Vietnam“Academic Profession in Vietnam: Prelimenary findings from 2012
survey”Pham, Thanh Nghi, Senior Researcher, Vietnam Association of
Psychological and Educational Sciences, Vietnam

198 Conference Program

10:00 - 10:30

Discussion

10:30 - 10:50

Concluding Remarks
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
Closing Speech
Akira Arimoto, President, Kurashiki Sakuyo University / Director,
Research Institute for Higher Education, Kurashiki Sakuyo
University, Japan

10:50 - 11:00

199

Appendix 2: List of Participants
OVERSEAS PARTICIPANTS
Invited Experts
Cambodia
Khieu Vicheanon

Deputy Secretary General, Cambodian Accreditation
Committee, Cambodia

China
Fengqiao Yan

Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking
University

Aimin Wang

Deputy Director, Beijing City University

Indonesia
Nizam

Secretary for the Board of Higher Education, Ministry of
National Education, Indonesia / Professor of Civil
Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Malaysia
Aida Suraya Md. Yunus

Professor, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor,
Malaysia / Director of Centre for Academic Development,
National Higher Education Research Institute, Penang,
Malaysia

South Korea
Jung Cheol Shin

Associate Professor, Department of Education, Seoul
National University

TaiwanRobin J. Chen

Director, Office of R&D and International Affairs,
National Academy for Educational Research, Taiwan

VietnamPham, Thanh Nghi

Senior Researcher, Vietnam Association of Psychologicaland Educational Sciences, Vietnam

USA
William K. Cummings

Professor of International Education and International
Affairs, The Elliott School of International Affairs, The
George Washington University
and another 1 overseas participant

As of January, 2013200 List of ParticipantsJAPANESE PARTICIPANTS
Vice-President
Eiko Tsuchiya

Executive and Vice President (Research), Hiroshima
University, Japan

Invited Experts
Akira Arimoto

President, Kurashiki Sakuyo University / Director,
Research Institute for Higher Education, Kurashiki
Sakuyo University, Japan

Yuto Kitamura

Associate Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences, Sophia
University, Japan

Naoki Umemiya

Deputy Director, Technical & Higher Education
Division, Human Development Department, Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Japan

Naomi Kimoto

Assistant Professor, Comprehensive Education Center,
Prefectural University of Hiroshima, Japan

Akiyoshi Yonezawa

Associate Professor, Graduate School of International
Development, Nagoya University, Japan

Reiko Yamada

Professor, Department of Education and Culture,
Faculty of Social Studies, Doshisha University, Japan

Keiichiro Yoshinaga

Associate Professor, Center for Higher Educational
Development, Tokyo University of Agriculture andTechnology, Japan

Research Institute for Higher Education㸦RIHE㸧
Masashi Fujimura
Tsukasa Daizen
Futao Huang
Fumihiro Maruyama
Yumiko Hada
Satoshi P. Watanabe
Jun ObaMasataka Murasawa
Kazunori Shima

Director and Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
and another 34 Japanese participants

201

Appendix 3: Questionnaire
Version 6. 27 September 2011A.

Career and Professional Situation

A1

For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country inwhich you obtained it.
DegreeYear

Earned in country of   no, please specify country
current employment

First degree(Bachelor degree)@@@@

Yes @ No @Second degree(Master degree)@@@@

Yes @ No @Doctoral degree@@@@

Yes @ No @Other degree@@@@

Yes @ No @A2

                                      

Please, identify your academic discipline. ( Check one in each column)
Check one in each column

HighestDegreeCurrent
Acad. Unit

Current
Teaching

1

@

1

@

1

@

Humanities

2

@

2

@

2

@

Social sciences

3

@

3

@

3

@

Natural sciences

4

@

4

@

4

@

Engineering

5

@

5

@

5

@

Agriculture

6

@

6

@

6

@

Health/Medical sciences

7

@

7

@

7

@

Fine arts

8

@

8

@

8

@

Teacher training and Education science

9

@

9

@

9

@

12

@

12

@

12

@

Other: (please specify) ..................................................................................................
(please specify)

Not applicable

A3

How would you characterize the graduate education or training you received in yourdoctoral degree? (If you do not hold a doctoral degree: Please go to question A4)

1@

You were required to take a prescribed set of courses

2@

You were required to write a thesis or dissertation3@

You received intensive faculty guidance for your research

4@

You chose your own research topic

5@

You received a scholarship or fellowship6@

You received an employment contract during your studies (for teaching or research)

7@

You received training in instructional skills or learned about teaching methods

8@

You were involved in research projects with faculty or senior researchers

9@

You served on an institutional or departmental (unit) committee

Check all that apply202 Questionnaire
A4 How would you assess the quality of the graduate education or training you
received for your role as teacher or researcher?
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Not
applicable

1

@

@

@

@

@

The training for your role as teacher

2

@

@

@

@

@

The training for your role as researcher

A5

Since you took a bachelor degree, how long have you been employed as a full time
position in the following? [If “0,” so indicate]1@ @Higher education institutions2@ @Research institutes

3@ @(Other) Government or public sector institutions

4@ @(Other) Industry or private sector institutions5@ @Self-employedA6

By how many institutions have you been employed since attaining your bachelor
degree?

1@ @Higher education institutions2@ @Research institutes

3@ @Other institutions (including self-employment)

A7

Please indicate the following

1

@@@ @

Year of your first full-time appointment (beyond research and teaching assistant) in the higher
education institutions

2

@@@ @

Year of your first full-time appointment (beyond research and teaching assistant) in the Research
institutes

3

@@@ @

Year of your first appointment to your current institution (beyond research and teaching assistant)

4

@@@ @

Year of your appointment/promotion to to your current rank at your current institution

5@@

For how many years have you interrupted your service at your current institution for family
reasons , personal leave or full-time study? [If “0,” so indicate]

A8

How is your employment situation in the current academic year at your higher
education institution/research institute? [Check one only]1@ Full-time employed2@ Part-time employed,

4@ Other (please specify) ............................................................................................................................................

3@ @ % of full-time

A9

Do you work for any additional employers or do additional remunerated works inthe current academic year?

1

@

No

2

@

In addition to your current employer, you also work at another research institute or higher education institution

3@

In addition to your current employer, you also work at a business organization outside of academe

4@

In addition to your current employer, you also work at a non-profit organization or government entity outside ofacademe5@

In addition to your current employer, you are also self-employed.

6@

Other: ....................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

203
A10

How would you describe your current institution?
Check one only1@

The institution which offer a doctorate degree by all specialized fields

2@

The institution which offer a doctorate degree by more than 50 % of specialized fields

3@

The institution which offer a master degree by all specialized fields

4@

The institution which offer a master degree by more than 50 % of specialized fields

5@

The institution which offer only a baccalaureate degree

6@

Other: ....................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

A11

What is your academic rank (If you work in a research institutions with ranks
differing from those at higher education institutions, please choose the rank mostclosely corresponding to yours)?

1@

Professor

2@

Associate professor

3@

Lecturer

4@

Assistant professor, Research associate

5@

Research assistant, Assistant

6@

Other(Please specify) .......................................................................................................................................

A12

What is the duration of your current employment contract at your higher
education institution or research institute? [Check only one]
Check only one

1@

Permanently employed

2@

Fixed-term employment without permanent/continuous employment prospects

3@

Other: .....................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

A13

1What is your overall annual gross income (including supplements) from thefollowing sources?

current higher education institution/research institute [NATCAT: Currency and number of@ @ @ @ Your
boxes]@ @ @ @ All other concurrent employers[NATCAT: Currency and number of boxes
3 @ @ @ @ Other income (e.g. self-employment) [NATCAT: Currency and number of boxes]
2

A14

During the current academic year, have you done any of the following?
Check all that apply

1@Served as a member of national/international scientific committees/boards/bodies

2@Served a peer reviewer (e.g. for journals, research sponsors, institutional evaluations)

@
4 @
3

Served as an editor of journals/book series
Served as an elected officer or leader in professional/academic associations/organizations

5@

Served as an elected officer or leader of unions

6@

Been substantially involved in local, national or international politics

7@

Been a member of a community organizations or participated in community-based projects

8@

Worked with local, national or international social service agencies

9@

Other: ...............................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

204 Questionnaire
A15 In thinking about leaving or staying at this institution, how important are thefollowing considerations?
Strong Reason
to Leave

NeutralStrong Reason
to Stay

Not
Applicable

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

@

@

@

@

@

@

Income

2

@

@

@

@

@

@

Resources for research

3

@

@

@

@

@

@

Academic reputation of institution/department

4

@

@

@

@

@

@

Academic cooperation among colleagues here

5

@

@

@

@

@

@

Region in which this institution is located

6

@

@

@

@

@

@

Teaching load

7

@

@

@

@

@

@

Administrative load

8

@

@

@

@

@

@

Teaching language

9

@

@

@

@

@

@

Family reason

10

@

@

@

@

@

@

Other:

B.

General Work Situation and Activities

B1 Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a typicalweek on each of the following activities? [If you are not teaching during the current
academic year, please reply to the second column only.]
Hours per week Hours per week
when classes when classes areare in session
not in session
1

@ @

6

@ @

Teaching (preparation of instructional materials and lesson plans, classroom
instruction, advising students, reading and evaluating student work)

2

@ @

7

@ @

Research (reading literature, writing, conducting experiments, fieldwork)

3

@ @

8

@ @

Service (services to clients and/or patients, unpaid consulting, public or voluntary
services)

4

@ @

9

@ @

Administration (committees, department meetings, paperwork)

5

@ @

10

@ @

Other academic activities (professional activities not clearly attributable to any of
the categories above)

B2

Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in
research?
Check only one

1@ Primarily in teaching2@ In both, but leaning towards teaching3@ In both, but leaning towards research4@ Primarily in research

B3

Please indicate the degree to which each of the following affiliations is important to
you.

Very
important1

Not at allimportant
2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @My academic discipline/field2@ @ @ @ @My department (at this institution)

3@ @ @ @ @My institution

205
B4

At this institution, how would your evaluate each of the following facilities,
resources, or personnel you need to support your work?
Poor

Excellent
1

2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @Classrooms

2@ @ @ @ @Technology for teaching3@ @ @ @ @Laboratories

4@ @ @ @ @Research equipment and instruments

5@ @ @ @ @Computer facilities

6@ @ @ @ @Library facilities and services

7@ @ @ @ @Your office space

8@ @ @ @ @Secretarial support

9@ @ @ @ @Telecommunications (Internet, networks, and telephones)

10@ @ @ @ @Teaching support staff@ @ @ @
11 @Research support staff

12@ @ @ @ @Research funding

13@ @ @ @ @Retirement arrangements

14@ @ @ @ @Paid sabbatical leaves

15@ @ @ @ @Travel funds for academics

16@ @ @ @ @Other fringe benefits (e.g., medical insurance, life insurance, housing, education)

17@ @ @ @ @The intellectual atmosphere18@ @ @ @ @The sense of community

B5 Please indicate your views on the following
Strongly
DisagreeStrongly
Agree
1

2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @Scholarship is best defined as the preparation and presentation of findings on original
research2@ @ @ @ @Scholarship includes the application of academic knowledge in real-life settings

3@ @ @ @ @Scholarship includes the preparation of reports that synthesize the major trends andfindings of my field

4@ @ @ @ @This is a poor time for any young person to begin an academic career in my field5@ @ @ @ @If I had it to do over again, I would not become an academic

6@ @ @ @ @My job is a source of considerable personal strain

7@ @ @ @ @Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other8@ @ @ @ @Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge toproblems in society

B6 How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your current job?
Very high1Very low2

3

4@ @ @ @

5@

B7 Since you started your career, have the overall working conditions in higher
education improved or declined?
Very much
improved
1

Very muchdeteriorated
2

3

4

5

@ @ @ @ @

206 Questionnaire
B8 We would like to learn more about your attitudes toward international connections
in higher education. Please indicate how you feel about the following issues.
( please check only one column on each decision)
Agree

NeutralDisagreeNot
Applicable

1

@

@

@

@

@

@

Connections with scholars in other countries arevery important to my professional work.

2

@

@

@

@

@

@

In order to keep up with developments in mydiscipline, a scholar must read books and journals
published abroad.

3

@

@

@

@

@

@

Universities and colleges should do more to promotestudent and faculty mobility from one country toanother.

4

@

@

@

@

@

@

The curriculum at this institution should be moreinternational in focus.

C.

Teaching (Refer to the current academic year or the previous academic year (ifyou do not teach in this academic year). If you do not/did not teach in this or theprevious academic year go to section D)

C1 How much does each of the following goals have to do with the objectives of
education in your institution? Please answer on a scale of 1 (not related) – 5(strongly related) (please check only one column on each decision)
Not
Related1

Strogly
Related
2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @1. To have students acquire knowledge and qualifications necessary for a member ofsociety2@ @ @ @ @2. To have students acquire a broad range of academic interests and knowledge

3@ @ @ @ @3. To have students acquire knowledge and qualifications necessary as a professional

4@ @ @ @ @4. To have students acquire knowledge and qualifications necessary as an academic
researcher

C2 How would you rate the quality of the students currently enrolled in yourdepartment?
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Don’t know

1

2

3

4

5

@

@

@

@

@

C3 Please indicate the proportion of your teaching responsibilities during the current
academic year that are devoted to instruction at each level below [If “0,” so indicate]
Percent of
instruction
time
1

@ @

Undergraduate programs2@ @Master programs3@ @Doctoral programs4@ @Continuing professional education programs

5@ @Others207
C4 During the current (or previous) academic year, have you been involved in any of
the following teaching activities?
Check all that apply
1@ Classroom instruction/lecturing

2@ Individualized instruction

3@ Learning in projects/project groups

4@ Practice instruction/ laboratory work

5

@ ICT-based learning/computer-assisted learning

6@ Distance education

7@ Development of course material

8@ Curriculum/program development

9@ Face-to-face interaction with students outside of class10@ Electronic communications (e-mail) with students

C5 Does your institution set quantitative load targets or regulatory expectations forindividual faculty for the following:
Check all that apply1@ Number of hours in the classroom

2@ Number of students in your classes

3@ Number of graduate students for supervision

4@ Percentage of students passing exams

5@ Time for student consultation

C6 Please indicate your views on the following:
Strongly
agree
1Strongly
disagree
2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @You spend more time than you would like teaching basic skills due to student
deficiencies

2@ @ @ @ @At your institution there are adequate training courses for enhancing teaching quality

3@ @ @ @ @Practically oriented knowledge and skills are emphasized in your teaching4@ @ @ @ @In your courses you emphasize international perspectives or content

5@ @ @ @ @Your research activities reinforce your teaching6@ @ @ @ @Your service activities reinforce your teaching

C7 During the current (or previous) academic year, are you teaching any courses.
Check all that apply1@ Abroad2@ in a language different from the language of instruction at your current institution
C8 During the past three years at this institution, how frequently have the following
occurred? ( please check only one column on each decision)Frequently

Occasipnal
yRarely

Never

Dom’t
Know

@

@

@

@

@

Foreign academics have taught courses

2

@

@

@

@

@

International conferences and seminars have been held

3

@

@

@

@

@

Foreign students have been enrolled

4

@

@

@

@

@

Our students have studied abroad

1

208 Questionnaire
C9 Over the past five years, to what extent has the quality of educational activities been
improved in your University?
Much
Improved

Improved
To Some
ExtentUnchanged Deteriorated
Somewhat

Significantly
Deteriorated

5

4

3

2

1

@

@

@

@

@

C10 How much do you EXPECT that each of the following activities will be emphasizedwhen faculty are promoted in your institution? Please answer on a scale of 1 (Notemphasized) to 5 (Strongly emphasized)
Not
Emphasized1Stronglyi
Emphasized
2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @Research2@ @ @ @ @Teaching

3@ @ @ @ @Administration and Management

4@ @ @ @ @Social Services

5@ @ @ @ @Other ()

C11 How much do you think that each of these activities is ACTUALLY emphasized whenfaculty are promoted in your institution? Please answer on a scale of 1 (Notemphasized) to 5 (Strongly emphasized)
Not
Emphasized1Stronglyi
Emphasized
2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @Research2@ @ @ @ @Teaching

3@ @ @ @ @Administration and Management

4@ @ @ @ @Social Services

5@ @ @ @ @Other (

D.

Research (Refer to the current academic year or the previous academic year (ifyou are not active in research in this academic year). If you are not/were not active
in research in this or the previous academic year go to section E.)

D1 How would you characterize your research efforts undertaken during this (or theprevious) academic year?
Yes

No

1

@

@

Are you working individually/without collaboration on any of your research projects?

2

@

@

Do you have collaborators in any of your research projects?

3

@

@

Do you collaborate with persons at other institutions in your country?

4

@

@

Do you collaborate with international colleagues?

)

209
D2 How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or theprevious) academic year?
Very
much
1

Not at all
2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @Basic/theoretical2@ @ @ @ @Applied/practically-oriented

3@ @ @ @ @Commercially-oriented/intended for technology transfer

4@ @ @ @ @Socially-oriented/intended for the betterment of society

D3 Have you been involved in any of the following research activities during this 9or
the previous) academic year?
Check all that apply
1@ Preparing experiments, inquiries etc.

2

@ Conducting experiments, inquiries etc.

3

@ Supervising a research team or graduate research assistants

4@ Writing academic papers that contain research results or findings

5@ Involved in the process of technology transfer

6@ Answering calls for proposals or writing research grants

7@ Managing research contracts and budgets

8@ Purchasing or selecting equipment and research supplies

D4 How many of the following scholarly contributions have you completed in the past three years?
(Number completed in the past three years)
1@ @Scholarly books you authored or co-authored2@ @Scholarly books you edited or co-edited3@ @Articles published in an academic book or journal

4@ @Research report/monograph written for a funded project5@ @Paper presented at a scholarly conference6@ @Professional article written for a newspaper or magazine

7@ @Patent secured on a process or invention8@ @Computer program written for public use

9@ @Artistic work performed or exhibited10@ @ Video or film produced

11@ @ Others (please specify):(please specify)

㸽
D5 Have you experienced the following in the last three years㸽
Yes

No

1

@

@

published in a language different from the language of instruction at your current institution

2

@

@

co-authored with colleagues located in the country of your current employment

3

@

@

co-authored with colleagues located in other (foreign)countries

4

@

@

published in a foreign country

5

@

@

On-line or electronically published

6

@

@

Peer-reviewed

210 Questionnaire
D6

If you received any grants or special funding support for research in the last three
years as an individual or as part of an academic group, please estimate the total
amount received during the three year period. (if you did not receive any grants forsearch in the last three years, please go to question D8.)

$ @ @ @ @ @ @D7

In the current (or previous) academic year, which percentage of the funding for yourresearch came from1@@㸣Your own institution

2@@㸣National government or organizations

3@@㸣

Foreign government or International organizations

4@@㸣Nongovernmental organizations or Business firms

5@@㸣

Others: ........................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

D8 Please answer the following questions about jour membership and participation in
professional organizations.
1@ @ @ To how many (name of country) disciplinary/scientific societies do you belong?

2@ @ @ To how many international disciplinary/scientific societies do you belong?

3

the past three years, how many discipl inary/scientific conferences did you attend in (name of@ @ @ During
country)?

4

the past three years, how many disciplinary/sci ent ific conferences did you attend outside (name@ @ @ Duringof country)?

E.

Management

E1 At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following
decisions ( please check only one column on each decision)?
Government orexternal
stakeholders

Institutional
managers

Academic Unit
managers

Facultycommittees/
boardsIndividual
faculty

Students

1

@

@

@

@

@

@

Selecting key administrators

2

@

@

@

@

@

@

Choosing new faculty

3

@

@

@

@

@

@

Making faculty promotion and tenure
decisions

4

@

@

@

@

@

@

Determining budget priorities

5

@

@

@

@

@

@

Determining the overall teaching load of
faculty

6

@

@

@

@

@

@

Setting admission standards forundergraduate students

7

@

@

@

@

@

@

Approving new academic programs

8

@

@

@

@

@

@

Evaluating teaching

9

@

@

@

@

@

@

Setting internal research priorities

10

@

@

@

@

@

@

Evaluating research

11

@

@

@

@

@

@

Establishing international linkages

211
E2 How influential are you, personally, in helping to shape key academic policies?
Somewhat
influential

Veryinfluential

A little
influential

Not at all
influential

Notapplicable

1

2

3

4

5

1

@

@

@

@

@

At the level of the department or similar unit

2

@

@

@

@

@

At the level of the faculty, school or similar unit

3

@

@

@

@

@

At the institutional level

E3 By whom is your teaching, research, and service regularly evaluated?
Check all that applyYourteachingYour
research

Your
service

1

@

1

@

1

@

Your peers in your department or unit

2

@

2

@

2

@

The head of your department or unit

3

@

3

@

3

@

Members of other departments or units at this institution

4

@

4

@

4

@

Senior administrative staff at this institution

5

@

5

@

5

@

Your students

6

@

6

@

6

@

External reviewers

7

@

7

@

7

@

Yourself (formal self-assessment)

8

@

8

@

8

@

No one at or outside my institution

E4 At my institution there is…
Strongly
agree
1Strongly
disagree
2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @… A strong emphasis on the institution’s mission

2@ @ @ @ @… Good communication between management and academics

3@ @ @ @ @… A top-down management style

4@ @ @ @ @… Collegiality in decision-making processes

5@ @ @ @ @… A strong performance orientation

6@ @ @ @ @… A cumbersome administrative process

7@ @ @ @ @… A supportive attitude of administrative staff towards teaching activities

8@ @ @ @ @… A supportive attitude of administrative staff towards research activities

9@ @ @ @ @…professional development for administrative/management duties for individual faculty

E5 Please indicate your views on the following issues.
Strongly
agree
1Strongly
disagree
2

3

4

5

1

@ @ @ @ @Top-level administrators are providing competent leadership2@ @ @ @ @I am kept informed about what is going on at this institution

3@ @ @ @ @Lack of faculty involvement is a real problem

4@ @ @ @ @Students should have a stronger voice in determining policy that affects them

5

@ @ @ @ @The administration supports academic freedom

212 Questionnaire
E6 To what extent does your institution emphasize the following practices?
Very much
1

Not at all
2

3

4

5

1

@ @

@ @ @

Performance based allocation of resources to academic units

2

@ @

@ @ @

Evaluation based allocation of resources to academic units

3

@ @

@ @ @

Funding of departments substantially based on numbers of students

4

@ @

@ @ @

Funding of departments substantially based on numbers of graduates

5

@ @

@ @ @

Considering the research quality when making personnel decisions

6

@ @

@ @ @

Considering the teaching quality when making personnel decisions

7

@ @

@ @ @

Considering the practical relevance/applicability of the work of colleagues when making
personnel decisions

8

@ @

@ @ @

Recruiting faculty who have work experience outside of academia

9

@ @

@ @ @

Encouraging academics to adopt service activities/entrepreneurial activities outside theinstitution

10

@ @

@ @ @

Encouraging individuals, businesses, foundations etc. to contribute more to higher
education

F.

Personal Background

F1 What is your gender?
1@ Male2@ Female

F2 Year of birth
㸯㸷 @ @㸯㸷Year

F3 What is your familial status
1@ Married/partner

2@ Single

3@ Other: .......................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

F4 If married/partner, is she/he employed?
1@ Yes, full-time2@ Yes, part-time

3

@ No

F5 Is your spouse/partner also an academic?
1

@ Yes

2

@ No

213
F6 Do you have children living with you?
1

@ Yes, 1 child2@ Yes, 2 children

3@ Yes, 3 or more children

4

@ No

F7 Did you ever interrupt your employment in order to provide child or elder care in the
home?

3

1

@

Yes

2

@

No

@ @ If yes, for how many years?

F8 What was/is your nationality/citizenship andyour country of residence
CitizenshipCountry of Residence(please specify)(please specify)

At birth
At the time of yourfirst degree
Currently

F9What is first language/mother tongue?

(please specify)

F10Which language do you primarily employ in teaching?

1@ First language/mother tongue

2@ Other: .......................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

F11

Which language do you primarily employ in research?

1@ First language/mother tongue

2@ Other: .......................................................................................................................................................................
(please specify)

F12

How many years since the award of your first degree have you spent…

1@ @ …in the country of your first degree2@ @ …in the country in which you are currently employed, if different from the country of your first degree3@ @ …in other countries (outside the country of your first degree and current employment)

214 Questionnaire
Following the initial analysis of the data provided by the questionnaire, we are lanning to
examine some issues in more detail through interviews. If you could be available for aninterview, please let us have details of how we may contact you..
㻌 㻌 Your Institution :Your Name :㻌 E-mail Address :Telephone Number :We would like to thank you for your kind cooperation in answering thequestionnaire.

215

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 PacificRegion.

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 Forum Vol. 8 (2011).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 9 (2012).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 10 (2013).

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).

216

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

217(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).
No.14: Producing Qualified Graduates and Assuring Education Quality in the
Knowledge-Based Society: Roles and Issues of Graduate Education (Report of theInternational Workshop on Graduate Education, 2009) (2010).
No.15: The Changing Academic Profession in International and Quantitative Perspectives: A
Focus on Teaching & Research Activities (Report of the International Conference on
the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2010) (2010).
No.16: Diversifying Higher Education Systems in the International and Comparative
Perspectives (Report of the International Workshop on University Reform, 2010)(2011).
No.17: The Changing Academic Profession in Asia: Contexts, Realities and Trends (Report of
the International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2011)(2011).
No.18: University Management, Present and Future: How and by whom? (Report of theInternational Workshop on University Reform, 2011) (2011).
No.19: Comparison of University Governance: USA, UK, France and Japan (Report of theInternational Seminar on University Governance, 2012) (2013).

RIHE International
Seminar Reports No.20

No.20, October 2013

ISBN978-4-902808-83-4

Hiroshima University

Seminar Reports

THE CHANGING ACADEMIC PROFESSION IN ASIA:TEACHING, RESEARCH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENTRIHE International

No.20, October 2013

RIHE International
Seminar Reports
THE CHANGING ACADEMIC PROFESSION IN
ASIA: TEACHING, RESEARCH, GOVERNANCE
AND MANAGEMENT
Report of the International Conference on
the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2013
Organized by: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University andResearch Institute for Higher Education, Kurashiki Sakuyo University

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY