RIHE International Seminar Reports
No.17, November 2011ᵰᶃᶎᶍᶐᶒᴾᶍᶄᴾᶒᶆᶃᴾᵧᶌᶒᶃᶐᶌᵿᶒᶇᶍᶌᵿᶊᴾᵡᶍᶌᶄᶃᶐᶃᶌᶁᶃᴾᶍᶌᴾ
ᶒᶆᶃᴾᵡᶆᵿᶌᶅᶇᶌᶅᴾᵟᶁᵿᶂᶃᶋᶇᶁᴾᵮᶐᶍᶄᶃᶑᶑᶇᶍᶌᴾᵮᶐᶍᶈᶃᶁᶒᵊᴾᵐᵎᵏᵏᴾ

ᵲᵦᵣᴾᵡᵦᵟᵬᵥᵧᵬᵥᴾᵟᵡᵟᵢᵣᵫᵧᵡᴾᵮᵰᵭᵤᵣᵱᵱᵧᵭᵬᴾᵧᵬᴾᵟᵱᵧᵟᵘᴾ
ᵡᵭᵬᵲᵣᵶᵲᵱᵊᴾᵰᵣᵟᵪᵧᵲᵧᵣᵱᴾᵟᵬᵢᴾᵲᵰᵣᵬᵢᵱᴾ

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITYThe Changing Academic Profession in Asia:
Contexts, Realities and Trends
Edited and Published by
Research Institute for Higher Education
Hiroshima University
2-2, Kagamiyama 1-chome
Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8512 Japan
TEL: +81-82-424-6240, FAX: +81-82-422-7104
http://en.rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/
Printed by:Nakamoto Sogo Printing Co.Ltd.
5-1-1, Ozu,Minami-ku,Hiroshima City
732-0802, Japan
TEL: +81-82-281-4221, FAX: +81-82-284-6579
November 2011
ISBN978-4-902808-66-7

i

FOREWORDAs various kinds of university reform are rapidly in progress around theworld, understanding the nature of the academic profession is essential for our
deeper consideration of the higher education system in a global andknowledge-based society. For this reason, the Research Institute for Higher
Education (RIHE) at Hiroshima University established a program of research on
the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) in 2005. This five year research
program was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science as a grant-in-aid
for scientific research and headed by Professor Akira Arimoto, then Director of
RIHE and now Professor-Emeritus at Hiroshima University and President ofKurashiki-Sakuyo University
The CAP research was completed last year atwhich time we were awarded another four-year grant from the Ministry tocontinue and expand our research on academic profession especially in the Asian
region.
The first conference of this new project was held in Hiroshima in February
2011. This conference was organized by the Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan in cooperation with Hijiyama University,
Japan. The title of the conference was “The Changing Academic Profession in
Asia: Contexts, Realities and Trends.” We invited, as we did in the previous
project, speakers and participants from countries in Asia and around the world.
The conference, as you may find in this publication, was very fruitful andinformative. Based on the outcome of this conference, we will continue toexpand the second stage of research on this topic for another four years. We arehoping that, based on the past several international conferences and workshops
concerning this topic, a better and deeper understanding of the academic
profession will be achieved.
November 2011

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

CONTENTS

Foreword

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

Keynote Speeches
Keynote Speech 1
Universities Reforms in Japan
Tsuyoshi Enomoto ····················································· 1 1
Keynote Speech 2
International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective
Akira Arimoto ··························································· 15
Keynote Speech 3
The Rise of Asian Research Universities: Focus on the context
William K. Cummings ·················································· 57
Keynote Speech 4
Is There an Asian Academic Profession?
Common and Diverse Features in Comparative Perspective
Ester Ava Höhle and Ulrich Teichler···································· 79

Presentations
China
The Same Term but Different Connotations: Cultural and historicalperspectives on studying the academic profession in Asia
Fengqiao Yan······························································· 97
Japan
The Academic Profession in East Asia: Changes and realities
Futao Huang ······························································· 113
Japan
The Academic Profession in Japan: Work, careers and scholarship
Hideto Fukudome ························································· 133

Malaysia
The Academic Profession in Malaysia 2010: A proposed study
Vincent Pang, Morshidi Sirat, Aida Suraya Md Yunus, Ambigapathy
Pandian, Fauziah Mohd. Taib, Munir Shuib,
Norzaini Azman, Koo Yew Lie, Shukran Abdul Rahman,
Rosni Bakar, Lay Yoon Fah, Ramayah Thurasamy,
Ramayah Thurasamy, Worran Kabul, Roszehan Md. Idrus,
Lai Yew Meng, and Mohd. Rahimie Abd. Rahim ····················· 149
South Korea
The Korean Academic Profession Revisited: Academic activity, performance,and governance
Jung Cheol Shin ··························································· 161
South Korea
The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea: Networking strategies
and research performance
Soo Jeung Lee and Yangson Kim ······································· 177
TaiwanThe Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession: From regulation to supervision
Hsiou-Hsia Tai and Chia-Yu Chen ······································ 197
ThailandConnect ASEAN: Promoting regional integration in higher education inSoutheast Asia
Supachai Yavaprabhas ···················································· 213
USA
The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic Profession: What does that
prototype really look like?
Martin J. Finkelstein ······················································ 229

Conclusion
Changes in and Issues of Academic Profession in Asia
Futao Huang ······························································· 245

Appendices
1. Conference Program ································································· 249
2. List of Participants ··································································· 253

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Professor
Martin J. Finkelstein, Professor, Seton Hall University, USA, who edited all the
manuscripts in this report.

Shinichi Yamamoto
Director & Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University
Akira Arimoto
President,
Kurashiki Sakuyo University

Keynote Speeches

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011

1

UniversitiesReformsinJapan

5February2011
TsuyoshiEnomoto tenomot@mext.go.jp
Director,HigherEducationPolicy,MEXT

History…
Fromagovernmentdocument…
27March
CabinetOfficereports

Daigakuryo• Therearestudentsinuniversitydormitories䋨ᄢቇኰ䋩 whohaveonly
narrowlyacquiredacademicknowledgeandskillsthroughseveralyears
ofstudy.
• Withoutsufficientfinancialsupportduetotheirfamily'slowincome,
therearestudentswho,thoughtheylikestudying,cannotfulfil their
desiretopursueanacademiccareer.Wewouldliketonominatefiveto
tentalentedstudentswhoareabletoconcentratefullyontheiracademicactivities,inordertoencouragethenextgenerationthroughtheirexample.
Allreportswereaccepted.
Dated27March730,“ContinuationofChroniclesofJapan” 䋨⛯ᣣᧄ♿䋩
1

2

Universities Reforms in Japan

History…
“ Ihavethoughtthatacareerorientededucationalcurriculumshouldbe
establishedinuniversities.… Thereasonisbecausemanystudents
graduatefromuniversities,thebesteducationalinstitutions,but are
unabletofindavocationinwhichtheycandedicatetheirlives.Even
studentswhoareamongthemostbrilliantonearthspendmorning to
eveningaftergraduationlookingforanythingtomakealiving.…”“AVocationandaHobby” (1911)bySosekiNatsume2

Whatareuniversities?
 Highleveleducationandresearch Autonomyandindependence Degreeawardpower Theframeworkguaranteedbythegovernment

3

Tsuyoshi Enomoto

3

Universityexpansion
156newuniversities(mostareprivate)inthelastdecade.
Numberofuniversities
National(=statefunded)PublicPrivate

1999

99

66

457

2010

86

95

growth13

29

Numberofstudents

Total

National

PublicPrivate

Total

622

620T

100T

1,980T

2,700T

597

778

630T

140T

2,120T

2,890T

140

156

10T

40T

140T

190T

4

4

Universities Reforms in Japan

Quantity
The18yearoldpopulation
1992:2millionÆ 2010:1.2million
IssuesNotonly18yearoldstudents,+maturedstudents(now2%comparedto20%)+internationalstudents+learningopportunitiesintheregion
6

NationalQualityAssuranceFrameworkUpto2003:
 Relativelyrigidrequirementsforchartering
2004onwards:
 Charteringderegulated
 ExternalevaluationintroducedÆMoreuniversities
Qualityhasbecomeanissue

7Tsuyoshi Enomoto

5

NationalQualityAssuranceFramework
Threecomponentsoftheframeworksince2004
SEU:StandardsforEstablishing(Chartering)•Minimumrequirements

Chartering(UniversityEstablishingCouncil)

ExternalEvaluation•Degreeawardpowershouldbe
authorised by•Every7years,universities
shouldbeevaluated.

8

MainIssues
fromtheInterimReportbyUniversityCouncil(Jan.2011)

1

QualityofEducation

2

MissionDifferentiation/Partnerships

3

Management

From the Interim Report by University Council (Jan. 2011)
9

6

Universities Reforms in Japan

1

QualityofEducation
 Consistencyofprogrammes/courses

 Qualityassuranceframework

 Globalisation
10

Quality Manyconcernsaboutthecontentsandstandards.

 Universitieshavemadeefforts. Needtoprovideasufficientresponsetothe
demandsofsociety.

11

Tsuyoshi Enomoto

7

ThreelayersofQAactivities Internaleffortsbyindividualuniversities
 Crossuniversityactivities
 Governments Funding Nationalframeworke.g.Newregulationforinformationdisclosure(2011onwards)
12

NationalQualityAssuranceFramework
IssuesunderdiscussioninUniversityCouncil
SEUdefinitions(whatisuniversity?)
ShouldbeclearerandlessabstractEvaluationunderthesecondcycle(2011onwards)
Shouldbeclearer,simplerandmoreencouraging

13

8

Universities Reforms in Japan

Studentsandjoboffer
The ratio of students receiving tentative job offers

14

Educationandemployment
 JobofferratesdecreaseÆ Jobhuntingseasonstartsearlier(1 2yearsbeforegraduation)
Æ Damagesteaching&learning Needsrelationshipoftrust15

Tsuyoshi Enomoto

2

9Missiondifferentiation/Partnership(Universitieshavewiderangingfunctions) Visualisation ofeducationandresearch Assessmentbyfunction

16“SevenFunctionsofuniversities”
2005ReportbyUniversityCouncil
1)Worldclassresearch/education
2)Educationforhighlevelprofessionals
3)Educationforvariousprofessionals
4)Liberalarts5)Designatedfields(e.g.arts)
6)Lifelonglearning7)Regionalcontribution

17

10

Universities Reforms in Japan

2

Missiondifferentiation/Partnership Consortia
 Credittransfers
 Jointdegrees(e.g.veterinaryscience) ProfessionalDevelopmentcentres

18

3Management
 Funding arrangement
 Supportfor“Independentdevelopment”“Partnerships”“Withdrawal”
19Tsuyoshi Enomoto

3

11

Management

Duringthelast10years, Nationaluniv.

15consolidated, Publicuni.

11consolidated, Privateuni.

6consolidated,and
9discontinued.
20

Transitionbetween2000and2007inPublic
ExpendituresforHEIs

OECD“EducationataGlance2010” TableB3.3
21

12

Universities Reforms in Japan

ExpendituresforHEIsasaPercentageofGDP

PrivateExpenditure(OECDAverage)

PublicExpenditureOECD“EducationataGlance2010” TableB2.4
22

AverageTuitionFees&ProportionofStudentsWhoBenefit
fromPublicFinancialSupportOECD“EducationataGlance2010” ChartB5.3

23

Tsuyoshi Enomoto

13

Majorfundingforuniversities㪇24Transitionofmajorfundingforuniversities

25

14

Universities Reforms in Japan

MainIssues
fromtheInterimReportbyUniversityCouncil(Jan.2011)

1

QualityofEducation

2

MissionDifferentiation/Partnerships

3

Management

From the Interim Report by University Council (Jan. 2011)
26

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011

15

International Trends in the Academic Profession
from a Japanese Perspective

Akira Arimoto

Introduction
Recently, the academic profession worldwide has been rapidly changing in
response to the volatile social environment around academia. The author ofthis paper has been committed to the following three surveys related to theacademic profession for some twenty years since the 1990s:(i)

The international survey on the academic profession conducted by the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1992) (Altbach,Ed., 1996; Arimoto & Ehara, Eds., 2008)(ii) The national survey on the changing academic profession in Japan
conducted by the Japanese Research Project (2007) (Arimoto, Ed., 2008)(iii) The international survey on the changing academic profession in theworld conducted by the CAP Project (2007) (Arimoto, 2008, 2009a;
Arimoto, Ed., 2011)

Related to the CAP project survey, the Japanese Research Project consistingof “An International Comparative Study of Construction of a 21st Century Typeof Academic Profession” (directed by Akira Arimoto, 2006-2010) and “AnInternational Comparative Study of Development of a 21st Century Type ofAcademic Profession” (directed by Akira Arimoto, 2010-2014) conducted threeinternational conferences in 2008, 2009, and 2010, and published theirproceedings (RIHE, 2008, 2009, 2010).
These surveys, conferences and proceedings suggest that the academic
President, Kurashiki Sakuyo University, Japan, e-mail: akira.arimoto@ksu.ac.jp

16International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

profession has transformed itself or evolved from its traditional structure to a 21st
century type of structure over a period of fifteen years in Japan as well as
elsewhere in the world. There are likely to be similarities and differences in thechanges in the academic profession in Japan and elsewhere in the world. The
existing similarities may reflect the fact that the academic profession conducts
the same kind of work all over the world while the differences may reflect thecontrol of the profession’s traditions, culture, and climate by individual systems,
irrespective of the nature of academic work. From the former perspective, it issaid that the academic community is small and unified; and from the latter
perspective, that it is large and diversified.
Needless to say, a primary goal of an academic organization is to contributesocial development by way of the research, teaching and service that constituteacademic work. Equally, a primary goal of the academic profession, and onethat belongs to the academic profession, is to pursue the same vision as theacademic organization. In particular, qualitative enhancement of research andteaching, two vehicles of academic work, must be most important to all.
Specifically, much weight must be put on the enhancement of academic
productivity, which consists jointly of research productivity and teachingproductivity. This kind of goal is likely to be adaptable more or less toacademies and academics all over the world, but even so it is undeniable that
productivity output depends on systems to a considerable degree.
Similarities and differences are identifiable in any comparison of theregions in the world whether it be Europe, North America, South America, Asia,
and Africa, or individual countries. In this sense it is interesting to make acomparison of the academic profession in the world from an Asian andparticularly a Japanese perspective in order to enquire and illuminate current
situations and problems.
This keynote paper intends as its first step to undertake a comparison of theacademic profession worldwide from a Japanese perspective. The data to be
used are mainly based on those of the CAP Project (2007).

1. Framework of study
This study attempts a consideration of the main subject, “International
trends of the academic profession” from a Japanese perspective. The CAP
survey embraces the academic profession in eighteen countries (the US, Canada,
the UK, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Finland, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina,
Australia, Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong [strictly not a country but a region],Akira Arimoto

17

Malaysia, South Africa) (INCHER-Kassel, 2009).
Figure 1 illustrates the framework for this research with a focus on
knowledge, academic work, and a research-teaching-study [R-T-S] nexus.
Knowledge is fundamentally important in the sense that it is the basic
component of academic work (Clark, 1983; Becher & Trowler, 1989). In
academia, knowledge means advanced knowledge, as codified in academic
disciplines, such as mathematics, physics, biology, economics, sociology,
psychology, and education. The function of knowledge requires understandingof knowledge, discovery of knowledge, dissemination of knowledge, applicationof knowledge, and control of knowledge, translated as learning, research,teaching, service, and management and administration respectively.

Figure 1. Framework for this research: knowledge, academic work, and
R-T-S nexus

The main task of the academic organization in which the academic
profession exists is academic work, consisting of learning (or study), research,teaching, service, administration and management, among which research andteaching are most important as the two primary vehicles. From the standpointof scholarship, as discussed by Ernest Boyer, we have to pay attention to therelation between research and teaching (Boyer, 1990). In addition to this, fromthe standpoint of the Humboldtian ideal, the relation among research, teaching
and learning is worth paying attention to as it is from this ideal that the conceptof the R-T-S nexus is derived (von Humboldt, 1910; Clark, 1997; Ushiogi, 2008).
As we discuss later, this nexus presents one of the most important problems in
the Carnegie survey in 1992 and the CAP survey in 2007.

18

International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

Akira Arimoto

19

Figure 3. Social condition, social structure and social function of AP

As Figure 3 shows, the academic profession (AP) has a normative structure,a social stratification, and a social structure. Change to the AP is forced byenvironmental changes such as social change (i.e., globalization, knowledge
based society, marketization, IT revolution, and population decrease) andknowledge reconstruction. At the same time, the AP affects the larger
environment by its social function consisting of academic work (i.e., research,teaching, and service). One of the social function’s typical effects is that itbrings about social change by changes in academic productivity, that is inresearch and teaching productivity (Merton, 1973; Arimoto, 1996).
As mentioned above, the academic profession possesses a social structure
derived from factors that include a normative structure, social class, age, gender,
generation, position, and salary. Therefore, it is to be expected that theacademic profession will change from the 20th century to the 21st century by aseries of effects on social condition, social function, and social structure. For
example, the academic profession was involved solely in teaching during the
Middle Ages and early modern era, and in teaching and research together in the20th century. Perhaps it is expected to be involved in teaching, research, andlearning together, or separately, in the 21st century.

20International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

2. Changing the academic profession in the world
Any analysis over the past twenty years recognizes that various changes insociety, science, policy, and academia have directly and indirectly affected
academics’ consciousnesses and behaviors to a considerable degree (Clark, 1987;
Shinbori, 1965; Arimoto, 2008a). Especially, relevant are the many changes foracademics related to academic mobility, academic funding, massification of
students, and awareness of gender bias.
(1) Environmental changesa) Globalization has accelerated cultural integration across national borders
and slowed efforts to sustain each nation’s culture and tradition. Mobility ofhuman resources such as scientists, scholars, researchers, and students has
extended well beyond national borders. As the CAP survey conducted in 2007
testified, academics in many countries recognized that numbers of international
students have gradually increased. Especially, competition among countries isintensified in recruitment of prominent international students in an environment
where many international students are inclined to seek to study at centers oflearning (COL) (Ben-David, 1977), or centers of excellence (COE) in western
universities and colleges. At the same time, mobility of scientists, scholars, andresearchers, of course including academics, is increasing around the world’s
COLs.
In the context of these international trends, we can recognize a delayed
globalization as well as internationalization in Japan owing to the fact that there
are still no more than small increases in mobility of international students andacademics. Researchers sent from Japan to other countries reached a peak of as
many as 7,674 in 2000, but the number had declined to half of that figure, 3,739
by 2009, a symptom of “inward-direction” (The Asahi News Paper, 2010).
b) The Knowledge-based society valorizes innovation, learning, andmanagement, causing academia worldwide to emphasize a number of issues: (i)technology transformation, venture business, and a university-industry nexus, (ii)teaching innovation with new teaching programs, (iii) research evaluation,
administration and management, and funding resource allocation. The relationof knowledge to society is shifting from a “knowledge society 1”, in which thescientific concept of CUDOS (Merton, 1973) works to provide an ethos foracademics, to a “knowledge society 2”, in which it does not work functionally
due to the emerging borderless state between academia and society (Arimoto,2009b, 2010a). The social changes from “knowledge 1” to “knowledge 2”, andfrom “mode 1” to “mode 2” (Gibbons, et al., 1994), has necessarily caused

Akira Arimoto

21

changes to academia and academics as well.
The increased importance of knowledge in society has established aknowledge economy that connects knowledge and society tightly, and in whichefficiency and the effects of knowledge are linked intimately. Connected tonational economic growth, the expectation is that academies should contributesignificantly to that growth. To this end, increased efficiency and productivity
is sought by reclassifying institutions into research universities and teaching
universities. In this context, the Central Council of Education (CCE) proposed
seven classifications of universities and colleges (CCE, 2005). With theincreasing importance attached to values such as rationalization, relevance, andaccountability, universities and colleges are required to shift from a knowledge
community, respecting a series of values such as uselessness, redundancy,
freedom, and autonomy, to a knowledge enterprise.
c) Marketization has brought about many changes in traditional universities
and colleges. Market principles combined with the “law of the jungle” that has
the stronger preying upon the weaker together with a differentiated society, inwhich there is severe competition for survival, is likely to continue. In thescientific community, priority competition and the Mathew effect operate, as
discussed by R.K. Merton (Merton, 1973; Arimoto, 1987). One typicalexample is the world university rankings published since 2003 by agencies suchas London Times and Shanghei Jeotong University (Kobayashi, 2005; London
Times, 2008; Thomson Reuters, Ed., 2010). As a result, it is undeniable that
their introduction and the serious response they have received have dramaticallypromoted the possibility of producing an internationally unified pecking order ofuniversities and colleges.
According to the Kagaku Gijutu Seisaku Kenkyusho (NISTEP: National
Institute of Science and Technology Policy) on the basis of Thomson Reuter’s
Web of Science, as shown in Table 1, the total number of articles inpeer-reviewed scientific journals published worldwide amounted to 987,497 in2008 (Table 1). The top ten countries are the U.S., China, the U.K., Germany,
Japan, France, Canada, Italy, Spain, and India. Japan’s articles increased about
1.7 times from 40,990 in 1988 to 69,300 in 2008. Irrespective of the increase in
the absolute number of articles, however, Japan has fallen from second place in1998 to fifth place in 2008. On the other hand, emerging countries have moved
up: Brazil has risen from 20th to 14th place; Korea from 16th to 12th; India from12th to 10th; and China from 9th to 2nd (Table 1).

22International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

Table 1. Publication of articles by nation and region (top 25 nations & region)
1988
U.S.
U.K.
GermanyJapan
RussiaFranceCanadaItaly
India
Australia
the Netherlands
SwedenSpain
Switzerland
China
IsraelPolandBelgium
Denmark
Czech
Finland
South Africa
Austria
BrazilHungryWorld

192,730
48,107
41,81840,99037,63130,701
25,214
15,63014,21911,975
10,989
9,546
8,468
7,756
6,742
6,109
5,710
5,411
4,568
4,138
3,682
3,575
3,479
2,907
2,907
560,724

1998
U.S.
Japan
U.K.
Germany
FranceCanada
Italy
RussiaChina
Spain
Australia
India
the Netherlands
SwedenSwitzerland
Korea
Belgium
TaiwanIsraelBrazilPolandDenmark
Finland
Austria
Turkey
World

2008
U.S.
China
U.K.
Germany
Japan
FranceCanada
Italy
Spain
India
Australia
Korea
RussiaBrazil
the Netherlands
TaiwanTurkeySwitzerland
SwedenPolandBelgium
Iran
IsraelDenmark
Greek
World

210,357
60,34760,78954,632
41,367
26,467
26,39924,31621,09819,126
17,945
16,066
15,742
12,925
11,577
9,105
8,358
8,221
7,912
7,683
7,169
6,561
6,008
5,746
4,409
666,982

275,625
104,157
75,91473,84969,30053,70744,37943,52835,71635,43730,08530,01625,16625,061
23,981
19,882
18,62318,061
16,633
14,885
13,386
11,171
9,956
9,421
9,353
987,497

Source: Kagakugijutuseisaku Kenkyusho

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000
1998
1998
100,000

2008

㪸㫑
㫀㫃
㫃㪸㫅
㪻㫊
㪫㪸
㫀㫎
㪸㫅
㪫㫌
㫉㫂
㪼㫐
㪪㫎
㫀㫋㫑
㪼㫉
㫃㪸㫅
㪻
㪪㫎
㪼㪻
㪼㫅

㪙㫉
㪫㪿
㪼

㩷㪥
㪼

㫋㪿
㪼㫉

㫉㪼
㪸
㪩㫌
㫊㫊
㫀㪸

㪢㫆

㪠㫅
㪻㫀㪸
㪘㫌
㫊㫋
㫉㪸
㫃㫀㪸

㪪㫇
㪸㫀㫅

㪠㫋㪸
㫃㫐

㫅㪺
㪼
㪚㪸
㫅㪸
㪻㪸

㪝㫉
㪸

㫐

㫇㪸
㫅
㪡㪸

㪢㪅
㪬㪅

㫉㫄
㪸㫅

㪞㪼

㫅㪸
㪚㪿
㫀

㪬㪅

㪪㪅

50,000Source: CAP (2007)

Figure 4. Publication of article by nation and region

Akira Arimoto

23

Such changes in the scientific community are likely to be echoed in thechanging situation in the world’s academic community. For example, results of
two surveys clarify that Korea, situated in the emerging group fifteen years ago
jumped up to the first place in the advanced group this time, while Japan went
down from the top to second place (Arimoto, Ed., 2011).
d) In relation to market mechanisms, it is remarkable that competition has
become more severe due to the quantitative increases accompanying
massification. During the past fifteen years, massification of higher education
has been promoted in universities and colleges worldwide so that increasedenrollment of students has surpassed the available numbers of academic
positions. In some countries, it is difficult to get permanent academic
appointments to meet the needs of the increased numbers of students. As aresult, the proportion of permanent academics has decreased, while that ofpart-time academics has increased (Arimoto, Ed., 2011). Ratios of permanent
academics above 70 percent are still seen in Malaysia, the U.K., Mexico,
Norway, Japan, and Canada, but ratios lower than 40 percent are found in Korea,
Argentina, China, Hong Kong, Germany, and Finland. A high ratio of contract
appointments (i.e., fixed-term and usually part-time) of more than 40 percent isseen in Argentina, Hong Kong, Portugal, and Korea. Latin American countries
had a high ratio of part-time academics in 1992 at the time of the Carnegie
survey; this ratio has been lowered during the past fifteen years in Mexico andBrazil, though it is still extraordinarily high in Argentina because of a too rapid
increase in students.
e) Academic reforms in research and teaching have been stimulated by theacceleration of innovation in Information Technology (IT). The genericapplication of IT to dissemination of information and its social application are
included in information communication technology (ICT). Employment of ICT
is rapidly causing changes in universities as well as societies. Informationsociety, which has its roots in the electronic and computer developments of the
1960s, resulted from the enabled and accelerated growth of IT. In the emerging
knowledge-based society in the 1990s, IT, comprising the computer, internet,
mobile, and mobile information terminal system, has become indispensable for
information gathering, communication, maintenance, and sharing.
Accordingly, academies and faculty members cannot escape from the powerof IT. Rather it is necessary for academics to use its effectiveness as much as
possible. Infrastructure rearrangement related to IT so as to pursue academic
work is a major step for academics’ survival as well as academia’s survival. In
this regard, the CAP survey questioned academics about their satisfaction with

24

International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

provision of various facilities including teaching and research equipment. The
responses show satisfaction is high in Hong Kong, Finland, Norway, andGermany, while it is low in Argentina, Japan, Korea, and Mexico (Arimoto, Ed.,2011). The former can be categorized as a group of technological haves and thelatter, a group of have-nots. It is interesting to note that Japan finds itself
among the have-nots, although it is deemed a country with a high GDP.
(2) Change of norm from closedness to openness
In recognition of the emerging value of modernization, countries anduniversities worldwide have adapted their social structures from closedness toopenness, and similarly are changing their reward systems from ascription toachievement. The change from an ascription – oriented society, in which
individuals are treated based on their imputed status, to an achievement oriented
society implies that individuals are treated based on their levels of achievement.
Modernization moves from the former closed society to an open society.
Academia seeks an achievement orientation: it undertakes research andteaching to advance the frontiers of the academic disciplines in order to leadmodern society on the basis of achievement rather than ascription. The
scientific ethos of CUDOS, which was pointed out by R.K. Merton (Merton,
1973), is that prevailing in the traditional society of “knowledge 1” and hence
the universalism included there is apparently a counter culture against
particularism. As Figure 5 shows, modernization is from a closed society to an
open society, from III to I, in which value is realized in the shifts fromparticularism to universalism and also from ascription to achievement.
Accordingly, as a result of consideration of these models, academia adapts its
orientation to that of achievement and universalism rather than that of ascription
and particularism, developing the former closed society to one of openness.

Open society

Figure 5. Pattern of modernization from closed to open societyAkira Arimoto

25a) Gender
In adaptation of the framework of norm change, the current CAP survey
must deal first of all with a gender problem. It is understandable that the resultsof CAP survey show that the academic profession in the world is now moving
generally towards dealing equally with the statuses of male and female
academics as seen particularly in Argentina, Australia, Finland, Malaysia, theU.K., and the U.S., although there are still some quantitative and qualitative
differences even among these countries. On the other hand, the treatment offemale academics as seen in their small number and low status compared to theirmale counterparts in Japan is the worst of all the participating countries.

Source: CAP (2007)

Figure 6. Gender by Country, 2007

26

International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

As Figure 6 reveals, the proportion of female academics in Japan (9.0) is
the smallest, followed by Korea (18.4), Germany (27.5), Hong Kong (32.7), andItaly (33.2) among the CAP respondents. Statistics for the whole academic
profession in Japan show that the CAP sample is biased: the true proportion of
female academics was about 18 percent in 2007 and 20 percent in 2010. Evenso, the average proportion of female academics in the OECD countries is about
40 percent and so how to raise that in Japan to this level at least is an important
problem for higher education policy. Of course, since 1998 there has been anational movement related to the gender problem when a law of a society of
male and female partnership was enacted (Naikakuhu, 2009).

b) Mobility
Second, academics’ mobility is considered to be an important element in theframework. Phenomena such as lack of mobility, inbreeding, and unchangeable
status in the institutional hierarchy are apt to occur frequently in the closed
society of the academic marketplace. As the current survey shows, mobility is
increasing in Australia, Argentina, Canada, Hong Kong, the U.K., and the U.S.
As Figure 7 shows, academics, on average over the whole CAP sample, havebeen employed in approximately two (1.94) institutions during their academic
careers. Those in the U.S. (2.62) have the highest average, followed by
Argentina (2.57), and Canada (2.49), while China (1.28) has the lowest, followedby Malaysia (1.48) and Portugal (1.55). As for Japan, the average academic
had been employed by only 1.5 institutions in the 1992 survey (Arimoto & Ehara,
Eds., 1996), though the average had risen to 1.98 in the 2007 survey.
Nevertheless, it is true that they remain at the middle in the international
distribution.
Even though it has slightly increased during the past fifteen years,
academics’ vertical and horizontal mobility among institutions is a rarity inJapan. In addition, the problem of inbreeding in the prestigious institutions isstill highly recognizable compared especially to the situation in the U.S. (Pierson,
1952; Shills, 1979; Shinbori, 1965; Arimoto, 1981, 2008; Yamanoi, 2007; Horta,
Sato & Yonezawa, 2010). In this regard, it is said that the Japanese academic
profession has been underdeveloped through maintenance of its traditional
closed character.

Akira Arimoto27

Source: CAP (2007)

Figure 7. Average number of higher education institutions or research
institutes in which academics were employed during their careers(3) Implementation of top-down type administration and bureaucratization
With its increasing bureaucratization, the form of administration andmanagement has been transformed from a “collegial type” to an “enterprisetype” so that the academic profession has lost its traditionally constructed status.
a) First, the bureaucratization of administration and management which
progressed to a considerable degree in western universities and colleges has
extended to other countries including Japan in the past fifteen years.
b) Second, the relationship between administrators and academics haschanged from one of a “community of knowledge” to one of an “enterprise ofknowledge”. The European continental type of university used to have a typeof administration and management based on faculty autonomy, where chairholders elected their deans and rectors, while the American type of university
used to have administration and management based on campus level autonomy,
where a trustee committee selected and appointed presidents. The former canbe called a rectorial type and the latter, a presidential type. Recently,

28International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

transformation from the former to the latter is progressing sharply and hence theconflicts within the academic communities have inevitably deepened (Arimoto,Ed., 2008).
In general, academic authority and decision making have shifted fromfaculty members to administrators and managers in the western countries sincethe 1980s. As Burton Clark pointed out, entrepreneurial universities andcolleges have emerged and administration and management has shifted from thebottom-up type derived from the “academic guild” of the medieval universities
to the top-down type derived from enterprises (Clark, 1998). Accordingly, it isnatural that communication between academics and administrators have become
worse. In the case of Japan, corporatization of the national universities took
place in 2004 and since then many complaints have been noted among
academics in the national sector, especially among those in the national
non-research universities (Arimoto, Ed., 2008).
(4) Allocation of resources among institutions and academics by way of
selection and concentration
At a time when international competition has increased among almost all
countries, the importance of academia’s contribution to economic growth has
been recognized to the extent that the national governments are expected to
devote much expenditure and resources to this sector. Yet investment andsupport have not necessarily been well implemented and in reality wide
differences are noticeable among countries and among institutions.
a) According to OECD (2008), national expenditure on higher education is,
on average, about 1.0 percent of GDP in the OECD participating countries, witha variation from almost 2% to only 0.5%. The figure for Japan is as low as
0.5% of GDP, close to that of Korea and the lowest among OECD countries(Table 2) (OECD, 2008, p.240).
Rich countries and poor countries are distinguishable even among theOECD countries. As far as these provisions are concerned, Japan belongs to
the poorer countries, even though its GDP is third highest in the world.
It is difficult for poor countries to allocate much money evenly to all
institutions. With increasing international competition to raise the peak ofacademic productivity in terms of individual institutions, it is natural for national
governments to selectively support internationally competitive institutions inorder to optimize the returns on their investment through selection andconcentration. For example, in Asian countries, this kind of pattern is widely
observable: COE and GP programs in Japan; Project 985 in China; Brain Korea
21 Project in Korea (Altbach & Umakoshi, Eds., 2004).

Akira Arimoto

29

30

International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspectiveb) Second, the differential public expenditures on higher education havecaused a widening gap between rich and poor institutions as well as systems interms of teaching and research environments. It is interesting that GDP andworsening teaching and research environments are highly correlated according to
the CAP survey. Countries expending small proportions of GDP on higher
education such as Japan, demonstrate a sort of poverty in their teaching andresearch environment, including provision for the classroom, laboratory, library,computer, telecommunications, and teaching support staff, that directly andindirectly affects academics’ consciousness and behavior (Table 3) (Arimoto, Ed.,2011). In the case of Japan, for example, academics’ complaints and stresses
arising from the poor environment are among the highest in the eighteencountries (Arimoto, 2010d).

(5) Differentiation and fragmentation between research and teaching
The social function of the academic profession embraces a set of research,teaching, and service activities as its role, although research and teaching are themost fundamental. It can now be replaced by the importance of research,teaching, and learning, since teaching substantially consists of a combination of
the teaching and learning processes. While a research orientation has prevailed
for most of two centuries, the integration of research, teaching, and learning(R-T-S nexus) has become an ideal since the reforms in German universities
originating with von Humboldt (Humboldt, 1910; Clark, 1997). Yet integrationof research and teaching has not been realized, with the current situation being
far from an R-T-S nexus. It becomes necessary for academics to face up to thissituation and to seek a breakthrough.
a) First is the question of how to move beyond the research paradigm. The
German type of research-teaching orientation dominated the CAP survey,
although in the previous 1992 Carnegie survey the three types (German,
Anglo-Saxon and Latin American) were all evident (Arimoto & Ehara, Ed.,1996). Based on this new research dominant trend, it can be said that there isclear indication of differentiation and fragmentation between research andteaching rather than their integration. Four factors are thought to drive thistrend:(i)

Emphasis on research by higher education policies in many countries has
led to the separation and differentiation between research oriented
universities and teaching oriented universities.
(ii) The reward system has strengthened the emphasis on research functions inAkira Arimoto

31

the processes of recruitment and promotion of academics in universities
and colleges.
(iii) Higher visibility of research than teaching has been operative in theacademic marketplace.
(iv) International university rankings which appeared in the 21st century
emphasize research productivity more than teaching productivity.
However, in the future when universalization of higher education will
have become widespread, the importance of students’ learning as well as
academics’ teaching ability will be of greatly increased significance andas a result innovation is necessary to remedy the existing situation.
b) Second, seeking compatibility for research and teaching is indispensable.
In this regard, the possibility of compatibility depends on both the attitudes ofindividual academics and the environment in individual countries – both ofwhich are already evident in some countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Korea,
Mexico, and the U.S. According to the 2007 CAP survey, the proportion ofacademics who agreed with a statement that “teaching and research are hardly
compatible” is 25.8 percent (Table 4). The proportion is highest in Japan (50.8),
followed by China (42.6), Finland (37.0), Germany (31.1), Malaysia (30.5), andAustralia (26.3). The responses in Japan, rejecting the idea of compatibility, areremarkably high. Conversely, only small minorities of academics in othercountries accepted the statement: Argentina (6.3), Brazil (6.9), Korea (11.3), theU.S. (12.5), Mexico (12.5), Norway (13.8), and Italy (13.8). It is interestingthat all Latin American countries in effect accepted that “compatibility ispossible”.
Despite the increasing ascendance of the research paradigm, the CAP
results show that there must be a systematic mechanism at work to reconcile theconcept of teaching to research at the levels of systems and institutions. The
overall CAP response indicates that a large majority of academics reject thenotion that teaching and research are not compatible.
The reason for low compatibility of teaching and research in Japan ispossibly due to a lack of engagement at the system and institutional levels inestablishing an adequate idea of scholarship. To replace the researchorientation that has existed since the Meiji restoration, the national government
emphasizes in its recent faculty development (FD) policy a teaching orientation(CCE, 2005, 2008). In this context, reconsideration of the Humboldtian ideal isneeded, with a focus on the interrelationship of research and teachingorientations. Lack of compatibility at the level of national policy infuses

32International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

academics consciousnesses with its negative image of scholarship in a mannerthat is especially problematic for the younger generation. This is particularly
relevant because these younger academics are expected to become the core of theacademic profession in the 21st century.
Table 4. Percent of academics who responded that teaching and research are
hardly compatible
Country
Japan

%
50.8

China

42.6

Finland37.0

Germany

31.1

Malaysia

30.5

Australia

26.3

Portugal

25.8

Hong Kong

25.8

UK

25.5

South Africa

21.1

Canada

19.9

Italy

13.8

Norway13.8

Mexico

12.5

US

12.5

Korea

11.3

Brazil

6.9

Argentina

6.3

Total

25.8

Source: CAP (2007)

In the case of Japan, it is true to say from a traditional perspective that a
research orientation remains fairly strong, while the desired teaching orientation
has yet to be established. To some extent, this is a problem widely shared.
This is supported by the observation that at present educational conditions andenvironments, organizational efforts, and curriculum and contents are
insufficiently developed in all the CAP participating countries. Ways of
training teachers in graduate schools need to be improved in line with theprovisions in the U.S., although in countries around the world improvements are
beginning to occur (Arimoto, Ed., 2011).
Internationally, almost the same things are applicable to the fact that a great
degree of improvement in faculty development and self-evaluation are now
desired. As far as the relationship between research and teaching is concerned,
it is to be emphasized that not only compatibility but also integration will

Akira Arimoto

33

become an important problem to be resolved in the 21st century when
universalization of higher education has developed widely in universities andcolleges worldwide.

3. Traits of the academic profession in eighteen countries
Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 summarize the traits of the academic profession in
the eighteen countries participating in the CAP survey.
The listed categories consist of twelve items:(i) Academic productivity: research publications.
(ii) Mobility and fluidity: mobility; desire to transfer to other jobs andinstitutions; ratio of professorial positions to non-career-ladder position;
establishment of a contract system.
(iii) Administration and management: top-down style communication between
administrators and faculty members; collegiality; cooperation of academic
and non-academic staff; academic freedom.
(iv) Evaluation: research evaluation by administrators; research evaluation by
external examiner; self-evaluation: teaching evaluation by administrator;
teaching evaluation by external examiner; self evaluation.
(v) Degree holders; proportion of doctoral degree holders; ratio of domestic
to foreign degrees conferred.
(vi) Activity in disciplinary and professional associations: membership inacademic societies; referees; academic meeting leaders(vii) Gender and age: permanent employment; proportion of female academics;
proportion of senior academics; proportion of tenured academics.
(viii)Income: salary of academics’ own institution; total income.
(ix) Social class: father’s graduation from college.
(x) Facilities and equipment: classroom; laboratory; library; teachingequipment; computer; information facilities (internet, network, telephone),
support of secretariat; office room space; teaching support staff; researchmoney; ratio of public expenditure for higher education to GDP.
(xi) Research and teaching: research orientation; research time; teaching time;compatibility between research and teaching; investment in teachingmaterials; teaching abroad.
(xii) Job satisfaction: work condition; discipline orientation; institution
orientation; degree of psychological strain and stress; overall job
satisfaction.

34

International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

Table 5.1 Traits of the academic profession in 18 countries

Teaching

Evaluation

Research

Administration
andManagement

Mobility
andFluidityCountry
Category ItemAR AU BR CA CH FI DE HK IT JP KR MY MX NO PT ZA UK US
Academic Research  ٤٤ ٤ ٤ ٤ ٧     
productivity productivity
Mobility٤ ٧Desire to transfer

٨ ٤

٤

٤

٤



Student-teacher
ratio



٤



Contract system

٧ ٤

٨

Top-down type

٤ ٨

٤

Communication

٤ 

٤

Collegiality

٤ 



٤







٤

٤





٤

Administrator







External
examiner٧Self evaluation







Administrator

٤





٤

External
examiner









Student







٤

Self evaluation



٤



Cooperation withstaff
Academic
freedom





٤











٤

٤

٧

٤







٤

٤

٧

٨

٤



٤







٤

 





 




٤

٤

٤









٤

٤
٤





٨









٤

٨

٧





٧

٤



٨ 



٨

٤



٤

٧









٨

٧









٤









٤



٨











٤



٨

٤



٧



٤
٤

٧



٤
٤



٤

٤

٧
٧

٨

٨


٤


٧

٤



٤







٤















٧

٤



٤ ٤

٧

٨


٤
٨

٤

٤

Table 5.2

Category Item

GenderandAgeActivity at
professional/
Disciplinary
association
meetings

DegreeIncomeSocialclass

Country AR AU BR CA CH FI DE HK IT JP KR MY MX NO PT ZA UK US

Doctoral degree



















٤

٨



٤



٤

٨







٤

٨

٨





٤

٤

٧

٤



Senior academics



٨



Tenure٨Salary







٤



٧

Total income







٤



Father graduatedfrom college







٤

٤

Domestic doctoral
degreeProfessional
association
member
Referee
Disciplinary /Professional
association leader
Permanent
employment
Femalerepresentation

٤



٨

٤

٤




٤

٤

٤

٧



٤

٨

٧







٤



٤

٤

٤









٤



٤



٤

٧

٤







٤

٤

٧













٤

٧









٤

٤

٧

٤

٤





٤



٤



٨



٤





٤







٧

٤





٤









٨

٤

٤



٤

٧



٤



٨







٤

٧

٤



٨







٤



٤

٨









٧

٤

35

Akira Arimoto

Table
5.3
Table
5.3

Country AR AU BR CA CH FI DE HK IT JP KR MY MX NO PT ZA UK US
Country
Category Item
Category
AR AU BR CA CH FI DE HK IT JP KR MY MX NO PT ZA UK US
Item
Classroom
٨


٤
٧
٤





Classroom
‫ە‬



‫۔ ۑ‬

‫ۑ‬










Laboratory
Laboratory
Library
Library

٨


‫ە‬



٨ ٤

‫ۑ ە‬





٧
٤
٤
‫ۑ ۑ ۔‬٨‫ ە‬




٧
‫۔‬




 






Facilities
andFacilities
Equipments
andEquipments















٤




‫ۑ‬












Teaching
equipment ‫ە‬٨     ‫ۑ‬٤  ‫۔‬٧  ‫ۑ‬٤   
Teaching
equipmentComputer
٨


٤
٧

Computer
‫ە‬




‫ۑ‬

‫۔‬





Information
Information
٨



٤
٤





technology
facilities ‫ ۑ ۑ     ە‬
technology
facilities
Secretariat  ٤
٤

٧
٤
٤



Secretariat  ‫ۑ ۑ ۔  ۑ ۑ‬  










٤


‫ۑ‬

٤




‫ۑ‬




٧




‫۔‬




٨



٤
‫ە‬



‫ۑ‬

Size
of office٨ ٤ 

٧
٤


٧



٤
Size
of office‫ ۑ ە‬ ‫ۑ ۔‬





 ‫۔‬‫ۑ‬
Teaching
supportTeaching



٤
٧

٨



٤





‫۔ ۑ‬ ‫ ە‬





‫ۑ‬

staff support
staff
Research
money



٤
٤
٧
٨
٤

٤

 ٤ Research money



‫ۑ‬


‫ ۑ  ۑ ە ۔ ۑ‬ ‫ ۑ‬
PublicexpenditureinPublicGDPexpenditure in 㸫㧙     ‫ۑ‬٤ 㸫㧙 ‫۔‬٧  㸫㧙  ‫ە‬٨  㸫㧙  ‫ۑ‬٤   㸫㧙   ‫ۑ‬٤
GDP
Researchorientation   ‫ۑ‬٤     ‫ۑ‬٤ ‫ۑ‬٤  ‫ۑ‬٤ ‫ۑ‬٤    ‫۔‬٧   ‫ە‬٨‫ۑ‬٤
Researchorientation
٧


‫۔‬






٤
‫ۑ‬


٤


٤

٨  ‫ۑ   ۑ‬‫  ە‬  ٤  ‫ۑ‬٤٨‫ە  ۑ‬








compatibility
T-RT-Rcompatibility
Teaching
materials
Teaching materials

٧

٤
‫۔‬

‫ۑ‬





  




٨
٤

٤
‫ۑ  ۑ ە‬








ResearchandResearch
Teaching
andTeaching

Researchtime
Researchtime
Teaching
time
Teaching time





٧

٤
٨
‫۔‬

‫ە ۑ‬Teaching
abroadTeaching
abroad
Working
conditions ‫ۑ‬٤   Working
conditionsJobsatisfactionJobsatisfaction٤٤‫ۑ ۑ‬






‫۔‬

٧

‫ە‬






٤ ٧


 ‫۔ ۑ‬








٨






‫ۑ‬








٤
‫ۑ‬

٤

‫ۑ‬


٤ ٧
‫۔‬







٤
٤
٤
  ‫ۑ ۑ ۑ‬




٨
‫ە‬




٤
٧
٤




‫ ۑ ۔ ۑ‬














٤
٧



٨

‫ ۔ ۑ‬


‫ە‬


stressJobJobstresssatisfaction
JobJobsatisfaction









٤

٨
٤
٤
‫ۑ ۑ ە  ۑ‬




٤

٤


‫ۑ  ۑ‬
















٤
٤
‫ۑ ۑ‬


٧
‫۔‬


















Disciplineorientation       Disciplineorientation
Institution
orientation‫ۑ‬٤   Institution
orientation٤  ٤‫ۑ  ۑ‬


٧
‫۔‬






٤
‫ۑ‬


٨

‫ە‬


 ٤  ‫ ۑ‬  ٨  ‫ە‬


Note
AR:
Argentina,
AU:
Australia,
BR:
Brazil,CA:
Canada,CH:
China,
Finland,
DE:
Note
1: 1:
AR:
Argentina,
AU:
Australia,
BR:
Brazil,CA:
Canada,CH:
China,
Fl:Fl:
Finland,DE:
Germany,
HK:
Hong
Kong,
Italy,
Japan,
KR:
Korea,MY:
Malaysia,MX:
Mexico,Germany,
HK:
Hong
Kong,
IT:IT:
Italy,
JP:JP:
Japan,
KR:
Korea,MY:
Malaysia,MX:
Mexico,NO:
Norway,PT:
Portugal,
ZA:
South
Africa,UK:
UnitedKingdom,
US:
UnitedStatesNO:
Norway,PT:
Portugal,
ZA:
South
Africa,UK:
UnitedKingdom,
US:
UnitedStatesNoterankedtop,‫ۑ‬٤ranked
rankedupper
level,ranked
rankedlower
level,‫ە‬٨ranked
rankedNote
2: 2:‫۔‬٧ranked
at at
top,
at at
upper
level,
at at
lower
level,
at atbottombottomSigns in all the tables indicate a relative standing among the participating
countries in the survey, specifically, ‫ =۔‬ranked top; ‫ =ۑ‬ranked at upper
level; = ranked at lower level; ‫ =ە‬ranked at lowest level. An order ofranking is made arbitrarily by assigning 2 points to the top position (‫)۔‬, 1 point
to upper level positions (‫)ۑ‬, 0 point to intermediate level positions (no mark), ̶ 1
point to lower level positions (), and ̶ 2 points to the lowest position (‫)ە‬.
In general, upper level suggests positive positioning and lower level suggests
negative positioning.
The traits of all countries are summarized in Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. At aglance, there are countries with many ‫ ۔‬and also ‫ ە‬marks. Among the36International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

former is Finland with eight, followed by Korea with seven, Hong Kong with six,
Argentina and Mexico with five each, Norway and Japan with four each.
Among the latter is Argentina with ten, followed by Japan with eight, Italy with
five, China with four. Hong Kong is superior to other countries in regard toperceptions of facilities and equipment and, in contrast, Argentina is perceived
by its respondents often to be worst on those items and is followed by Japan.

4. Construction of a 21st century type academic profession(1) Main characteristics seen in the international trend
Constructing a 21st century prototype of the academic profession should bebased on emerging characteristics. Based on the previous considerations, thefollowing seven characteristics are relevant.

29.1

24.0

22.8

22.1

21.5

21.2
18.8
17.0

17.6

16.8
15.4

14.8

14.8

14.7

14.1

13.6
12.3

㪫㫆
㫋㪸
㫃

㫌㫋

㪬㪪
㪿㩷
㪘㪽
㫉㫀㪺
㪸
㪤
㪼㫏
㫀㪺㫆

8.9

㪪㫆

㪬㪢
㪸㫃㪸
㫐㫊
㫀㪸
㪥㫆
㫉㫎
㪸㫐
㪝㫀
㫅㫃
㪸㫅
㪻
㪤

㫐
㫅㪾
㩷㪢
㫆㫅
㪾
㪚㪿
㫀㫅
㪸
㪧㫆
㫉㫋㫌
㪾㪸
㫃
㪘㫉
㪾㪼
㫅㫋
㫀㫅
㪸
㪚㪸
㫅㪸
㪻㪸
㪘㫌
㫊㫋
㫉㪸
㫃㫀㪸
㪙㫉
㪸㫑
㫀㫃
㪟㫆

㪠㫋㪸
㫃㫐

㫉㫄
㪸㫅

㪞㪼

㪢㫆
㫉

㪼㪸
㪡㪸
㫇㪸
㫅

9.7

Note: Total score of research productivity is calculated by giving the following points to each
item: an authored book=5; an edited book=3; an article=1; a research report=2; a paper
presented at a research conference=0.5; a professional article written for a newspaper ormagazine=0.2; a patent=3; a computer program=3; an artistic work=0.5; a video or film
=0.5.

Figure 8. Average research productivity by country(a) A quantitative analysis of “research productivity” on the basis of various
publications including authored book, edited book, article, research report, patent,
computer program, etc. indicates that the overall average of the eighteencountries is 17.6 publications over a 3-year period (Daizen, 2011) (Figure 8).
Seven countries have high research productivity, i.e. are above the group mean:
Korea, Japan, Italy, Germany, Hong Kong, China, and Portugal. Four Asian

Akira Arimoto

37

phenomenon perhaps foreshadows the so-called “Asian age” of the 21st century.
On the other hand, low research productivity countries are as follows: Mexico,
Portugal, Malaysia, Brazil, the U.S., and Argentina. Half of them are countries
in Latin America. A great deal of difference is recognizable in research
productivity among participating countries.
(b) Factors defining research productivity consist of complicated functions
that must include facilities and equipment, research and teaching orientations,mobility, administration and management, and evaluation. In general, in
advanced countries, academics have a lot of research time in addition to a highresearch orientation and a high level of competitiveness is structurally
institutionalized in the process of recruitment and promotion.
For example, in Korea, which leapt to the top position from 11th in fifteen
years, both the ratio of professorial positions to associate and assistant professor
positions and that of senior professors to junior professors are lower than thosein Japan. Although the two countries share some traits, in Korea, competition
is much more severe in the recruitment of academic staff and their promotion;
the administrators, such as deans, participate in top-down type evaluation ofresearch and teaching; and not only a research orientation but also a scholarshipof compatibility between research and teaching is well recognized. In the caseof academics in Japan, while top-down type evaluation is similar to theircounterparts in Korea, competition is not so severe as shown by the fact that
there are many professorial posts and also many senior professors. But Japandiffers most from Korea in the compatibility of teaching and research – which is
the lowest among eighteen countries.
(c) Universities and colleges are now transforming from their traditional
traits to new traits shaped by massification and diversification in accordancewith an emerging “tertiary education”. The proportion of permanent positions
has declined due to a decrease of tenured appointments and an increase ofcontract, fixed term appointments and of part-time positions. In the U.S. andCanada, the traditional academic career pattern, in which graduates fromuniversities and colleges, especially from graduate schools, are dominant, isdeclining, while new patterns in the form of an “accidental type” and a “hybridtype” are increasing (Finkelstein, 2010). In the EU countries, Italy andPortugal in southern Europe hold to a traditional academic career structure,
while Norway and Finland in northern Europe retain their civil servant and union
carer foundations. The U.K. and Germany have made major changes. Brazil
and Mexico have improved their part-time employment systems to aconsiderable degree, though Argentina has not.
In Japan, part-time38

International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

employment surpassed permanent employment recently.
(d) Market mechanisms, which were observed in the West fifteen years ago,
have spread all over the world and as a result the rationalization andbureaucratization of academia and top-down type of administration andmanagement structures have become increasingly firmly established. The U.S.
has acquired the status of the leader in terms of rationalization, market
mechanisms, and bureaucratization, demonstrating high academic mobility andyet also retaining academic freedom. While similarly retaining academic
freedom, the U.K., reflects difficult conditions accompanied by highpsychological strain, the worst working conditions, and also the worst job
satisfaction.
Similar difficulties are observable in other Anglo-Saxon countries such as
Australia and Hong Kong; so, market mechanisms prevail. But more widely,difficulties are also observable in Japan, Malaysia, and South Africa. In
contrast, they are less apparent in countries in northern Europe, such as Norway,
or in Latin American countries, such as Argentina and Brazil.
In the midst of the international trend of shifting from a “knowledge
community” to a “knowledge enterprise”, an extreme shift to dominant market
mechanisms brings about many harmful constraints for the academic profession
as well as academia, because of their impact on its chief ideal and vision, that ofcontributing to the scholarship and academic productivity required for social
development.
(e) There are many differences with regard to the perceptions of facilities
and equipment provided by each country. Some countries, such as Finland,Hong Kong, Norway, and Germany, are seen to provide abundant environments,
while others, such as Argentina, Japan, Korea, and Brazil, offer only poor
environments. By and large, those countries that have public expenditures inexcess of 1 percent of GDP provide an abundant environment. In this regard,
Japan, together with Korea, show the worst level among the OECD countries,
and this fact is obviously reflected in their poor physical environments.
(f) Today, the role of the academic profession has become more and more
confused and it is important to chart an appropriate direction. However, there isno question related to this problem in the questionnaire used in the CAP survey
so any discussion in this context has to be speculative. As far as ideal of theacademic profession is concerned, compatibility of research and teaching has
become problematic. According to the CAP survey, high compatibility
between research and teaching is recognized in Argentina followed by Brazil,
Korea, Mexico, and the U.S. This can be interpreted as saying compatibility isAkira Arimoto

39

high in the countries of Latin America and in the countries of low research
productivity, with the exception of S. Korea.
Low compatibility is seen in Japan followed by China, Finland, Germany,and Malaysia, all of which, except Finland, are countries with high research
productivity. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that compared to theresult of the 1992 Carnegie survey conducted fifteen years ago, the majority ofcountries reporting “incompatability” between teaching and research arecountries characterized by a high research orientation. This fact is thought tobe a great change in the sense that compatibility between research and teaching
is being hampered by the extent that separation and fragmentation of researchand teaching are increasingly proceeding all over the world. Enhancing thenexus and integration of the two basic components or elements of academic
work is likely to be keenly connected with enhancing productivity of researchand teaching. This is probably related to a vision proper to the academic
profession as well as universities and colleges for about two centuries since therise of modern universities and colleges. Considering these facts, we are now
confronting a great turning point.
(g) The directions in which the academic profession proceeds in the 21st
century, is from the value of ascription to that of achievement, from value ofparticularism to universalism, and from value of closedness to openness,according to the framework previously described.
Generally speaking,universities and colleges worldwide are now developing more or less in these
directions. Mobility beyond national borders is increasing through the effects
of globalization, and rationalization and bureaucratization are increasingly
developing from the effects of market mechanisms. Totally, the transformationfrom knowledge communities to knowledge enterprises is accelerating.
Functions of discovery, dissemination, application, and control of knowledge are
increasingly differentiated and fragmented by the effects of the knowledge-basedsociety. Tertiary education, which is emerging and competing with traditional
universities and colleges, is one of the new forces challenging them for the
future.
The academic profession in confronting such situational changes has toseek creatively its own professional identity so as to develop academic
productivity on the basis of academic work in research, teaching, and service.
(2) The 21st century type academic profession from an international
comparison of ideals, openness, and prestige
Based on the viewpoints previously discussed, this part of the discussion
addresses tentatively a vision of the academic profession which academics are40

International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

now trying to construct. Table 6 draws an international comparison about thefollowing items: ideals (productivity, discipline orientation, compatibility of
research and teaching, academic freedom, self-evaluation of teaching), openness(social class, mobility, the ratio of female academics, the ratio of full professors
to associate and assistant professors, the contract system), and prestige (doctoral
degree holders, the leaders at academic meeting, and salary).
Table 6.
6. Ideals,
Ideals, Openness,
Openness, andand Prestige
Prestige
Table

Ideals
IdealsCountryCountry
AR AU
AU BR
BR CA
CA CH
CH FI
FI DE
DE HK
HK IT
IT JP
JP KR
KR MY
MY MX
MX NO
NO PT
PT ZA
ZA UK
UK US
US
Item
AR
Item
Research
productivity




‫ۑ‬

‫ە  ۔ ۑ ۑ ۑ ۑ‬





Research productivity



٤
٤
٤
٤
٤
٧

٨




Discipline orientation
orientation
Discipline
T-R compatibility
compatibility
T-R
Support forfor academic
academic
Supportfreedom
freedom
Student’s teachingteaching
Student’s
evaluation
evaluation
Self evaluation
evaluation
Self

Openness
Openness(Total)(Total)Ranking
Ranking
Social classclass (father’s(father’sSocialeduc)
educ)
Mobility
Mobility
Percent female
femalePercent
Percent full
full professors
professors
Percent
Contract systemsystemContract

Prestige
Prestige(Total)(Total)





















‫ە‬
٨



‫۔‬
٧




‫ۑ‬
٤



  








‫ۑ  ۑ ە‬
٨
٤

٤

‫ۑ‬
٤







‫ۑ‬
٤



‫ ە‬
٨






‫ۑ‬
٤









 ‫ۑ‬

٤





‫۔‬
٧



‫ە‬
٨



‫ ۑ ۔ ۑ‬
٤
٧
٤






















‫ۑ‬
٤



‫ ۔‬
٧











‫ۑ‬
٤





‫ ۑ‬٤‫ۑ ۔‬
٧ ٤




‫ۑ‬
٤



















‫ۑ ۑ ە‬
٨
٤
٤



 ‫۔ ۑ ۑ‬ ٤ ٤ ٧

2
2

1
1

-1
-1

2
2

-1
-1

-3
-3

-1
-1

3
3

-1
-1

-2
-2

1
1

0
0

4
4

1
1

-3
-3

-1
-1

3
3

4
4

5
5

7
7

11
11

5
5

11
11

17
17

11
11

3
3

11
11

15
15

7
7

10
10

1
1

7
7

17
17

11
11

3
3

1
1










 







‫ۑ‬
٤










‫ ۑ‬
٤











‫ە‬
٨

‫۔ ۑ‬٤ ٧‫ ۑ‬٤‫  ۑ‬
٤





 











‫ۑ ۑ‬٤ ٤‫ۑ ۔‬
٧ ٤








‫ ۑ‬٤‫ۑ  ە‬
٨

٤











‫ۑ‬
٤




















  ‫ە ۔‬


٧
٨



‫ۑ‬
٤




‫ۑ‬
٤




‫ۑ‬
٤



‫ە ۑ ۔‬٧ ٤ ٨‫ۑ ۑ ۑ‬
٤
٤
٤



 ‫  ۑ‬

٤





‫  ۑ‬٤  




5
5

5
5

-2
-2

0
0

-2
-2

2
2

0
0

3
3

-1
-1

-6
-6

-1
-1

1
1

-3
-3

-1
-1

1
1

-1
-1

2
2

-1
-1

1
1

1
1

15
15

8
8

15
15

4
4

8
8

3
3

10
10

18
18

10
10

6
6

17
17

10
10

6
6

10
10

4
4

10
10










‫ۑ ۑ ە  ۑ‬
٤

٨
٤
٤



‫  ۔ ۑ‬
٤
٧














‫ۑ‬
٤







 ‫ە ۑ‬

٤
٨
















Ranking
Ranking
Percent doctoral
doctoral degree
degreePercent
Leaderindisciplinary
Leader in disciplinary
associaitons
associaitons
SalarySalary ‫ ۑ‬٤(Total)(Total)

-1
-1

0
0

-2
-2

3
3

-4
-4

9
9

7
7

14
14

2
2

18
18

14
14

Ranking
Ranking











 ‫۔ ۑ‬

٤
٧







-2
-2

1
1
6
6



‫۔‬
٧



‫ۑ‬
٤



 ‫ە‬

٨












‫ۑ‬
٤

3
3

-1
-1

3
3

4
4

-2
-2

-3
-3

-1
-1

0
0

-1
-1

-1
-1

2
2

2
2

9
9

2
2

1
1

14
14

17
17

9
9

7
7

9
9

9
9

5
5

Source: CAP
CAP (2007)(2007)
Source:An order of ranking is made arbitrarily by assigning 2 points to the top
position (‫)۔‬, 1 point to upper level positions (‫)ۑ‬, 0 point to intermediate level
positions (no mark), ̶ 1 point to lower level positions (), and ̶ 2 points to thelowest position (‫)ە‬. In the case of the item of “research productivity” in the
category of “ideals”, for example, Korea is the highest (‫=۔‬+2), followed by thesecond group (‫=ۑ‬+1) such as China, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, and Japan, theAkira Arimoto

41

third group (no mark= 0) such as Australia, Canada, Finland, Norway, Portugal,
and the U.K., the fourth group (= ̶ 1) such as Argentina, Brazil, South Africa,
and the U.S., and finally Mexico is the lowest (‫ ̶ =ە‬2). So, for example,
among the overall scores for “ideals”, the U.S. and Mexico are ranked at the top(+4); the U.K. and Hong Kong are ranked at the upper level (+3); Finland,
Portugal, and Japan are ranked at the lower level ( ̶ 3 and ̶ 2, respectively).
Anglo-Saxon countries except Australia occupy the upper level.
For“openness”, Argentina and Australia are ranked at the top; Hong Kong, Finland
and the U.K, are ranked at the upper level; Mexico, Brazil and China wereranked at the lower level; Japan was ranked at the lowest level. Anglo-Saxon
countries are also ranked at the upper level. For “prestige”, Korea is ranked at
the top, followed by Japan, Canada and Hong Kong at the upper level. These
countries show that the academic profession carries high status and prestige.
On the other hand, Mexico, Finland, and Malaysia are ranked at the lower
level, and China is ranked lowest. It is remarkable that Asian countries such as
Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong occupy the upper position, while Latin Americancountries occupy the lower position.
Totally, Japanese academics have a high score in “prestige” (ranking 2) but
low scores in “ideals” (ranking 16) and “openness” (ranking 18). Taking into
account that the transformation from closedness to openness is an indicator ofmodernization, the construction of a 21st century academic profession has been
delayed in Japan. On the other hand, it is interesting to point out that the U.K.
and the U.S., both showing low research productivity, are well advanced inmodernization and the U.K. has also progressed in openness.
Among the countries with high research productivity, only Hong Kongoccupies a top position in “ideals”, “openness”, and “prestige”, constructing asort of top-runner-status in the academic profession. Korean academics lag
somewhat in “ideals” and “openness” though not to the same extent as Japanese
academics, even though they are strong in “prestige”. Chinese academics seemto linger at a pre-modern stage, since they are delayed in “ideals” and even more
delayed in “openness” and especially in “prestige”. Academics in Latin
American countries still remain at the developmental stage of the academic
profession, although this is a tentative analysis on the basis of the above
framework. Their rankings are generally rower as seen in the following results:
as for ideals, Argentina (ranking 5), Brazil (11); as for openness, Brazil (15),
Mexico (17); as for prestige, Argentina (9), Brazil (14), and Mexico (17).
Construction of the 21st century type of academic profession can usefully beconsidered from the perspective of an axis based upon the “ideals” Figure 9

42International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

represents a spiral enhancement toward the professional ideals by way of
exercising academic freedom, establishing openness, and promoting prestige
As the data in Table 7 show, by using the same arbitrary procedures as in
Table 6, the U.S. and Hong Kong are ranked at the top, Korea and Canada are
ranked at the upper level, Brazil, Italy, Portugal, and South Africa are ranked at
the lower level and China and Finland are ranked at the bottom. All Asian
countries except China are ranked at the upper level. Japan which is ranked as
low as 11th has a high score in “prestige” but an extremely low score in theestablishment of “ideals”. In this regard, it is clear that Japan has obviously
been significantly delayed in establishment of “ideals” compared to othercountries such as Hong Kong, the U.S., the U.K., Argentina, Canada and Korea.
Therefore, much serious effort is urgently required in Japan so as to construct a
21st century type academic profession.

Figure 9. Formation of the Academic Profession

Table7.
7. Stages
Stages inin thethe Formation
Formation ofof thethe 21
21stst Century
Century Type
TypeAcademic
Academic Profession
Profession
Table
AR AU
AU BR
BR CA
CA CH
CH FI
FI DE
DE HK
HK IT
IT JP
JP KR
KR MY
MY MX
MX NO
NO PT
PT ZA
ZA UK
UK US
US
AR
Discipline
Disciplineorientation
orientation
Supportfor
for
Supportacademicacademic
freedom
freedom

00

00

00

00

-1
-1

00

00

00

-2
-2

00

00

11

22

11

-1
-1

00

00

00

11

00

00

11

00

-2 -1
-1
-2

00

00

11

00

00

22

-1
-1

00

-1
-1

00

11

Openness
Openness

55

55

-2
-2

00

-2
-2

22

00

33

-1 -6
-6 -1
-1
-1

11

-3 -1
-1
-3

11

-1
-1

22

-1
-1

Prestige
Prestige

-1
-1

00

-2
-2

33

-4 -2
-2
-4

11

33

-1
-1

33

44

-2 -3
-3 -1
-1
-2

00

-1 -1
-1
-1

22

(Total)(Total)

55

55

-4
-4

44

-7 -2
-2
-7

00

66

-4 -2
-2
-4

33

00

-2 -2
-2
-2

00

-3
-3

11

22

Ranking
Ranking

22

22

16
16

44

18 11
11
18

88

11

16 11
11
16

55

88

11 11
11
11

88

15
15

77

66

٧
Note: Each score is based on score given to each position at Table 6 as follows: ‫(۔‬top)+2;‫(ۑ‬upper) +1; no mark (intermediate) 0; ×(lower) ̶ 1; ‫(ە‬bottom) ̶ 2

Akira Arimoto43

5. The Japanese academic profession in comparative perspective
As discussed above, the academic profession has been changing greatly
throughout the world so that many problems have accumulated and need urgent
resolution. Such problems have occurred in the areas of social conditions,social structure, and social function. Specifically, there are problems in eachindividual area: a problem of academics’ responses to various environmental
changes in the area of social condition; a series of problems such as the norms of
the academic profession, the methods of administration and management, theallocation of budgets and resources in the area of social structure; a problem ofacademic work, especially the compatibility of research and teaching, and theneed for realizing the R-T-S nexus.
The Japanese academic profession, like all others, is undergoing change; it
is confronted with its own internal changes as well as changes similar to thoseoccurring internationally. Accordingly, a comparative speculation on theobjectives to be reached in the 21st century may demand Japanese academics
adopt the perspective necessary for constructing a “profession” rather thanmerely for membership on an academic staff. In this context, some viewpoints
will be discussed in the following section.
(a) First, there is the problem of openness related to social change as a partof the social condition, especially modernization.
(i)

The extent of fluidity in the Japanese academic marketplace has remained
low during the past fifteen years, though it has been improving somewhat
recently. This is not enough to satisfy the need for social change thatdemands academics as well as academia to show a more open orientationin connection to various trends like globalization, knowledge societyorientation, and marketization. Of course, in this regard Japan is notunique: there are other countries, for example, Mexico, China, and Brazil,
which share a similarly low fluidity.
But even so, it is clear that the present situation in Japan is moreclosed than in Australia, Argentina, Canada, Hong Kong, the U.K.,
Finland, and Portugal. For example, “inbreeding” – a barometer
symbolizing such closedness – is still very high, remaining at more than70 percent in prestigious universities such as Tokyo, Kyoto, Waseda, andKeio (Yamanoi, Ed., 2007), compared to their counterparts in the U.S.
such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.
(ii) There is an associated problem of “competitiveness” which is related to
globalization and marketization all over the world. Considering the44International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

international trend toward increasingly competitive processes of academic
recruitment and promotion, it is undeniable that we can recognize aweaker competitiveness in such processes in the Japanese system.
As Michiya Shinbori pointed out some forty years ago, in the Westthe low ratio of full professorial positions to associate and assistantprofessors creates a pyramidal academic structure in their universities.
In Japan, a much more equal ratio of positions yielded an academic
structure more like a chimney (entotsu-gata) in the universities, whichsuggested that promotion of Japanese academics to a full professorship
was relatively easier than in the West (Shinbori, 1965). Even at that time(1965), Shinbori recommended replacing the chimney-type by apyramidal type. However, as Morikazu Ushiogi pointed out recently,
such change as occurred accentuated the Japanese structure by forming an
inverted pyramid type rather than the western pyramid type (Ushiogi,2009) with an increased number of full professorships. This clearly
implies that academic promotion to a full professorship occurs almost
automatically without competition by way of the so-called
Tokoroten-shiki-shounin (literally, gelidium jelly type promotion, orconveyor-belt fashion promotion).
Certainly, there are exceptional cases elsewhere, for instance in
Mexico, where the proportion of full professors is greater than that of
associate professors, but even so a lack of competition as in Japan with its
inverted pyramid is highly unusual in most countries where the pyramidal
structure prevails. The number of full professorial positions has
increased greatly over the period of forty years, and at the same time tools
for quality assurance in promotion procedures have retrogressed to theextent that academic staff, recruited originally as lecturer (koshi) or
assistant professor (jokyo), can to be almost automatically promoted tofull professors before their final retirement.
The contract system (i.e, fixed term appointment) has only recently
been introduced into Japan and has yet to become fully institutionalized.
A selective-contract system, which was instituted legally in 1996, wasapplied mostly to younger academic recruits, such as jokyo (it is usuallytranslated to assistant professor) and koshi (lecturer) but much less at
more senior levels such as jun-kyoju (associate professor) and kyoju (fullprofessor). In time it may well contribute to reform of automatic
promotion but as yet it has had little effect on stagnation. Under the
inverted pyramid type expansion it is common knowledge that theAkira Arimoto

45

unemployment of younger academics, particularly post-doctoral
researchers, has increased manifestly.
(iii) Related to the above arguments, the phenomenon of the inward
directionalism of the younger generation is a matter of concern from theperspective of constructing the future academic profession. Thus,
among 666 international students at Harvard University in 2010, there are
42 from Korea, 36 from China, 22 from Singapore, 20 from India and 5
from Japan (Asahi Newspaper, 2010). Harvard, ranked at the top of theworld university rankings, is where graduates are supposed to qualify as
future leaders in the world. In this context, the fact that the Japaneseyounger generation is largely absent from this kind of international
network will surely not improve the competitiveness for national
development at least in comparison with other Asian countries.
(b) Second, there is a problem of university policy, which during these years
has promoted the following trends: various kinds of educational reforms andfaculty development (FD); competitive allocation of resources among
institutions; shared male and female participation in society; top-down typeadministration and management; extension of university and college enrollment.
(i)

In the case of educational reforms, it is important that FD policy is
promoted as a part of quality assurance of academics with a focus onteaching (Cook, 2002). However, greater emphasis on teaching wasachieved at the expense of separation and fragmentation of research andteaching instead of their compatibility and integration, leading to adiscrepancy between the policy’s emphasis on a teaching orientation andacademics’ conscious emphasis on a research orientation (CCE, 2008).
As a result, it is natural to say that compatibility between research andteaching remains most difficult in Japanese academics among theircounterparts in the participating eighteen countries of the CAP survey(Arimoto, 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2008).
(ii) Academic funding has shifted to the rational fashion of “selection andconcentration” and necessarily accelerated differentiation within andamong universities. It has turned out to cause an increase of academics’
complaints about the funding reductions and research budget cuts inuniversities and colleges all over the country, especially in the
non-research universities. These problems also became the cause ofpsychological strains and the incentive for many academics to leave their
institutions.

46

International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective(iii) The institutionalization of a society in which male and female shareparticipation equally was legally enacted in 1998. However, we have to
pay attention to the fact that the proportion of female academics in Japanis about 20 percent whereas elsewhere in OECD countries it is about 40
percent. In an international context, the situation of Japanese female
academics has hardly been improved thus far.
(iv) Internationally, a large majority of academics register no problem with thecompatibility of research and teaching; the situation in Japan is different
in that problems are seen by half of the academics, and even those that see
no problems provide little support to students, although the expansion ofenrollment in the universities and colleges demands that academics
change their attitudes toward students. Trends of emphasizing teachingas well as teaching evaluation are seen in countries such as Hong Kong,
the U.S., Norway, and Canada. However, it cannot be denied that inJapan, where super-diversification of students is actually proceeding, thegulf between academic staff and students has hardly been reduced thus
far.
(c) Third, academic organization, focused on the social structure of theuniversity and college, have implications for the academic functions notably inregard to administration and management, allocation of research money,
working conditions, time available for domestic life, income and salary, andpsychological strain and stress.
(i)

Various reforms were initially affected by the series of policies withrespect to administration and management already mentioned in thediscussion of implementation of top-down type administration andbureaucratization, for example, and were actually conducted throughrevamping the control of academic organizations. The trend toward
rationalizing administration and management was recognized early inwestern universities and colleges in order to concentrate power on thepresident and trustees rather than the faculty (Arimoto & Ehara, Eds.,
1996; Slaughters & Leslie, 1997; Ehara & Sugimoto, Eds., 2005). In
Japan, MEXT has changed its policy from direct control of universities
and college to the management of them, which produced a structure inwhich presidents and trustee members became MEXT’s agents (Arimoto,2010d).
This trend is functioning, in relation to the allocation of researchmonies (discussed below) toward the disorganization of the “knowledge

Akira Arimoto

47

community” and the construction of the “knowledge enterprise” that in
effect brought about hostility and fragmentation among academics.
Academic communities retaining faculty autonomy continue to exist
in substance in Norway, Argentina, and Brazil. However, a top-down
type of administration and management is prevalent in Australia, the U.K.,
the U.S., Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Africa, and Japan. Overall, a
trend of deepening tensions between bureaucratization and autonomy isprogressing in many countries. Such a trend has been increasing inJapan, although there is seemingly a sort of balance sheet, or Japanesecultural response, at work consisting partly of a signal of deepening
conflicts between administrators and faculty members, and partly of asignal of cooperating faculty members and supportive administrative staff
members.
(ii) During the past fifteen years, the changed distribution of research monies
has been advantageous for the research universities with their strong
research productivity and disadvantageous for the non-research
universities as well as for the teaching-oriented universities and colleges.
This trend has differentiated institutions into “haves” and “have-nots.”
The former are found in the natural sciences while the latter arecommonly located in the fields of humanities and social sciences less able
to attract such funding.
In this respect, it is worth noting that countries devoting a higher
proportion of GDP to support universities provide a better environment
for academic work through better facilities and equipment, according to
the results of the CAP survey. Countries such as Finland, Hong Kong,
and Norway are countries that show the benefits of such a better
environment; Argentina and Japan lack these benefits. Japan’s poor
environment needs to be improved urgently up to at least the average levelof OECD countries.
Inferior environments seen at the national
universities in the 1980s were mocked as the “coffin of knowledge”; byextension, today’s situation can be considered to be the “grave ofknowledge” (Arimoto, Ed., 2011).
From the middle and long term perspective, devastation of facilities
and decreases of support must invite quite a few negative aftereffects tothe nation’s development because deterioration will result in worsening
effects upon not only academia but also directly on individual
academics.
(iii) The weekly work time allocation reported by respondents in the eighteen

48International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

countries of the CAP survey indicates that they are working more than 40hours per week. On average, they spend 20 hours on each of researchand teaching during semester periods, and 30 hours for research and 5hours for teaching during vacations. During the past fifteen years, thetime allocation has increased in the areas of administration andmanagement, service, and teaching, but decreased in research in somecountries, especially in the U.S., the U.K. Mexico, Malaysia, and Japan.
Such a reduction of research time is apparent across sectors, disciplines,
and academic ranks.
The reduction in time for research seems to have caused analienation in Japanese academics in the face of their strong researchorientation; and, in fact, it largely accounts for one of the highest reported
levels of psychological strain among academics worldwide.
(iv) Academic salaries and income show great differences across countries.
Internationally, the level of salary is substantially determined by researchrather than teaching performance, even though salaries are nominally paid
for teaching. Salary and income tend to be high in countries with highresearch productivity. The average income of academics in the eighteen
CAP countries is $51,050, or ¥4,339,000 Yen (1$= 85Yen, 2011). The
amount of income is higher in Hong Kong, Japan, and Canada, but lower
in Mexico, China, Argentina, South Africa, Malaysia, and Brazil.
However, there are many countries that report a diminution of researchtime regardless of their salary and income levels.
(d) Fourth, with regard to the social function, there is a problem ofacademic productivity including both research and teaching productivity. As
the social contribution of academics and academia may be considered to take theform of their research and teaching, enhancement of academic productivity is
substantially important. Accordingly, examination is necessary of all aspects ofproductivity including the quality of research productivity, the conflicts between
research and teaching, and its evaluation. Japanese academics’ research
productivity achieved the top ranking in the Carnegie survey fifteen years ago
and in the current survey it retained a high ranking position at least in terms ofquantitative indicators. Other countries such as Korea, Italy, Germany, Hong
Kong, and China also occupy the upper levels in the ranking.
Of course high research productivity can be affected by many individual
factors: discipline; gender; age; institutional type; amount of research money; theenvironment for research, provision of facilities and equipment; student quality;

Akira Arimoto49

the level of participation in academic societies; interest in research and teachingorientation. In general, high research productivity has a positive relationshipwith the following factors: the disciplines of natural science and engineering; amale gender; an age of more than 45-years old but less than 55-years old; aresearch university setting; abundant research money and privileged researchfacilities and equipment; students of high scholastic achievement; a highparticipation ratio in academic societies; much research time; a high researchorientation.
It is also true that differences in research productivity can be attributable tovarious social or supra-individual factors. It is defined socially, in addition topersonal ascription including age, gender, and ability, by factors such as
discipline (differences among disciplines and activities in academic
communities), higher education policy (differences of universities and colleges,
gender bias, competitive allocation of research money, deterioration of researchtime, decline of student achievement), and institutions (national, public, andprivate sectors, research and non-research institutions, research facilities andequipment).
In order to enhance research productivity, it is necessary to identify a clusterof COE institutions sitting on the top of a country’s ranking by introduction of
the “selection and concentration” policy, which has become popular among
many countries. At the same time, it is necessary to raise many institutions
sitting at the bottom of the ranking by the investment of monies and resources
through lifting the proportion of GDP spent on higher education, which in Japan
is known to be particularly low.
The importance of teaching, which is one of the two components ofacademic productivity is expected to acquire even greater significance in the 21st
century when universalization of accesses predicted to increasingly develop.
The fact that teaching time is increasing internationally may well imply thatteaching is perceived to be of increasing importance, though the decrease inresearch time accompanies an increasing research orientation internationally.
Among three orientational types (research, equally research and teaching, andteaching) only the research orientation expands. In accordance with thepromotion of globalization, the knowledge economy, and marketization, theresearch paradigm, the reward system, and a competitive orientation are
dominant.
This trend is related to the form of the university world rankings. In thisregard, the fact that the research paradigm is working explicitly in the university
world ranking explains that France has not been ranked in the upper levels

50International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

despite its Napoleonic teaching heritage. Ideally, indicators used in a world
university ranking ought to be elaborated carefully to identify components thatwill become critical in the 21st century, such as the compatibility between
research and teaching, rather than those related to the economic development
criteria of the 20th century. For example, quality assurance of the teaching andlearning process including admission, curriculum, and diploma policies ofundergraduate and graduate courses.
There is a paradox that a research orientation is an inevitable component ofa knowledge-based society but one which precipitates a fragmentation between
research and teaching; yet a knowledge-based society requires more and better
equipped graduates who can only be produced by an increased teachingorientation to educate the super-diversified students at a time of universalizationof higher education. It appears that this paradox can only be resolved byintegration of teaching and research. The alternative appears to envisage
academia and the academic profession becoming reconciled to academic staff
and academia being swallowed by the expanding tide of “tertiary education”.
The rejection of such a solution is needed if the academic profession is to rebuild
itself. In this respect, achieving compatibility between research and teaching ismore difficult for academics in Japan than for their counterparts in Westerncountries. This constitutes a fundamental structural fault in the Japanese
academic profession and academia. At the policy level, it is urgently necessary
to review FD policy emphasizing teaching from a perspective of constructing
R-T-S nexus.

Concluding remarks
Based on the previous arguments, some conclusions can be drawn. The
following reforms are needed to enable the academic profession to betransformed from a closed structure to an open structure.
(i)Control of the proportion of full-professorships is necessary to transformthe inverse pyramid type of professional structure in Japan to a pyramidal
type.
(ii) The contract system has to be introduced to all stages of academic careers
from assistant professor to full professor in order to break through thepresent closed situation.
(iii) Inbreeding at the prestigious universities should become out-breeding topromote a more open structure of the academic marketplace.

Akira Arimoto

51(iv) The retirement system should be reviewed in addition to the seniority andpermanent employment system – an issue to be discussed in greater detailin future articles.
(1) The following reforms are necessary to deal with problems of academic
policy.
(i) Increase public expenditure on higher education to at least one percent of
GDP to equal the OECD’s average.
(ii) Seek compatibility between research and teaching rather than theirseparation.
(iii) First raise the budget allocation to increase its minimum level and thenuse “selection and concentration” to provide meaningful maximum levels
to promote upward movement in the international rankings.
(iv) Aim to achieve a ratio of not less than 30 percent of female academics toat least equal the average level in OECD countries.
(2) Counteract the current tendency to increasing bureaucratization with the
top-down pattern of management in order to build an effective
knowledge-based community with a bottom-up pattern.
(3) Construct a new type of profession by creatively introducing a student-based
viewpoint to accord with universalization of higher education and thedevelopment of tertiary education.
(4) Increase recruitment and training of younger academics so as to better
prepare the next generation of the academic profession for the needs of the
future.
(5) Reform of the academic organization is required in the following areas.
(i) Replace administration and management of the top-down type, which wasintroduced to the national universities in 2004, with a bottom-up type.
(ii) Secure an adequate provision of research time especially for younger
academics to enhance their internationally competitive research ability.
(6) The following reforms are demanded from a perspective of academic
productivity and evaluation.
(i) Seek an integration of research and teaching so that the core componentsof academic work can function optimally.
(ii) Establish a viewpoint of scholarship for a 21st century type of academic
profession through an R-T-S nexus.

52International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective(iii) Systematically enhance graduate education so as to construct a fully
effective academic profession.

References
Altbach, P.G., (Ed.) (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen
Countries, Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Altbach, P.G., & Umakoshi, T. (Eds.). (2004). Asian Universities: Historical Perspectives andContemporary Challenges. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Arimoto, A. (1987). A Study of Merton's Sociology of Science: Formation and Development of
Its Paradigm (in Japanese). Tokyo: Fukumura Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (1994). Academic Discipline and Academic Productivity: A Case Study based on
A Survey of Department Chairpersons in Research University in the U.S.A. In Researchin Higher Education (No.23, pp.27-47). Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE),
Hiroshima University.
Arimoto, A. (Ed.) (1996). A Study of Centers of Learning: Academic productivity and its
conditions in the world and Japan (in Japanese). Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (2004a). Beginning and development of the institutionalization of FD (inJapanese). In Study of the institutionalization of FD (1) (COE Research Series 9,
pp.1-14). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Arimoto, A. (2004b). Typologies of the institutionalization of FD and conflicts (in Japanese).
In Study of the institutionalization of FD (2) (COE Research Series 10, pp.1-14).
Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Arimoto, A. (2005). Academic Profession and FD: the U.S. and Japan (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Toshindo Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (Ed.) (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in Japan (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Tamagawa University Press.
Arimoto, A. (2008). International Implications of the Changing Academic Profession in Japan.
In The Changing Academic Profession in International, Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives (RIHE International Report 12, pp.1-31). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima
University.
Arimoto, A. (2008). Inbreeding in the Research University and Its Implications; The
Formation and Development of a Differentiated Society in Japanese Higher Education
System. In B.M. Kehm (Ed.), Hochshule im Wandel: Forschungsgegenstand; Festschrift
fur Ulrich Teichler (pp.335-348). Frakfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.
Arimoto, A. (2009a). Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992-2007. In The
Changing Academic Profession Over 1992-2007: International, Comparative andAkira Arimoto

53

Quantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Report 13, pp.1-37). Hiroshima: 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. (2010a). Japan. In D. Dill, & F.A. van Vught, (Eds.), National Innovation and theAcademic Research Enterprise (pp.115-147). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Arimoto, A. (2010d). The Academic Profession and the Managerial University: An
International Comparative Study from Japan. European Review, 18 (1), 117-139.
Arimoto, A. (Ed.), (2011). The Changing Academic Profession in the World. Tokyo:
Tamagawa University Press.
Arimoto, A., & Ehara, T. (Eds.), (1996). International Comparison of Academic Profession (inJapanese), Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Asahi Shinbun. (2010). Inward-direction of students (2010, August 1). The Asahi News Paper.
(in Japanese)
Becher, T. & Trowler, P.R. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry andthe Culture of Disciplines. Milton Keynes, England / Bristol, PA: Society for Research
into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of Learning: Britain, France, Germany, United States: An
Essay. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boyer, E.L., (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Central Council of Education. (CCE) (2005). Future Vision of Higher Education in Japan.
Tokyo: Central Education Council. (in Japanese)
Central Council of Education. (CCE) (2008). Towards Construction of Undergraduate
Education. Tokyo: Central Education Council. (in Japanese)
Clark, B.R. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National
Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, B.R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. Princeton: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Clark, B.R. (1997). The Modern Integration of Research Activities with Teaching and
Learning. Journal of Higher Education, 68 (3), 241-55.
Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways ofTransformation. Oxford: International Association of Universities and Elsevier ScienceLtd.
Cook, C.E. (2002). Faculty Development. In J.JF. Forest, & K. Kinser (Eds.), Higher
Education in the United States: An Encyclopedia (Volume 1, pp.211-214). Santa

54

International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective

Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc,.
Daizen, T. (2011). International Comparison of Research Productivity. [Data file]
Ehara, T., & Sugimoto, H., (2005). Reforms of University Asministration and Management:
Future of Japan and Trends of Foreign Countries. Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing Co.
Finkelstein, M.J. (2010). Diversification in the Academic Workforce: The Case of the US and
Implications for Europe. European Review, 18 (1), 141-156.
Gibbons, M., Nowotony, C., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New
Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary
Societies. London: Sage Publications.
Horta, H., Sato, M., & Yonezawa, A. (2010). Academic Inbreeding: exploring its
characteristics and rationale in Japanese universities using a qualitative perspective. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 12 (1), 35-44.
INCHR-Kassel. (2009). The Changing Academic Profession (CAP): Tables by Country. July,
2009.
Kobayshi, M. (2005). Comparison of Academic Ranking of World Universities. Shigaku Koto
Kyouiku Kenkyu Sosho (pp.1-50). Tokyo: Shigaku Koto Kyoiku Kenkyusho [ResearchInstitute for Private Higher Education].
Merton, R.K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Naikakuhu. (2009). Equall Participation Society for Men and Women (in Japanese).
OECD. (2008). Zuhyodemiru Kyoiku: OECD Indiketa 2008 [Education at a Glance: OECD
Indicators 2008]. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.
RIHE. (Ed.) (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in International, Comparative andQuantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Reports No.12). Hiroshima:
RIHE, Hiroshima University.
RIHE. (Ed.) (2009). The Changing Academic Profession Over 1992-2007: International,
Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Reports
No.13). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
RIHE (Ed.) (2010). The Changing Academic Profession in International and Quantitative
Perspectives: A Focus on Teaching & Research Activities (RIHE International Seminar
Reports No.15). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Shills, E. (1979). The Order of Leaning in the United States: The Ascendancy of the
University. In A. Oleson, & J. Voss (Eds.), The Organization of Knowledge in Modern
America, 1860-1920. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Shinbori, M. (1965). Academic Marketplace in Japan. Tokyo: Toyokan Publishing Co. (inJapanese)
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and theEntrepreneurial University. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Akira Arimoto

55

THES, London Times. (2009). QS Quacquarelli Symonds. (www.topuniversities.com)
Thomson Leuters. (Ed.) (2010). The World University Rankings 2010.
Ushiogi, M. (2008). The End of Humboldtian Ideal: New Dimension of Modern University.
Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing Co. (in Japanese)
Ushiogi, M. (2009). Professor as Profession. Tokyo: Chououkouron Publishing Co. (inJapanese)
Von Humboldt, W. (1910). On the Spirit and the Organizational Framework of Intellectual
Institutions in Berlin. (E. Shills Trans.). Minerva, 8, 242-50.

56

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 201157

The Rise of Asian Research Universities: Focus on
the context

William K. Cummings

Introduction: The tilting earth hypothesis
The West, and most recently the U.S., has provided the leadership in thescientific and technological revolution(s) of the last two centuries; and many
expect that to continue. But there are new challenges to Western supremacy.
Perhaps the most newsworthy are those relating to national security, nuclear
proliferation and internet security. But also there is the possibility that the West,and especially the U.S., may be “slipping” across the board, relative specificallyto new Asian players.
The popular version of recent trends is the Flat Earth perspective (Friedman,2005), i.e., that increasing amounts of U.S. secondary science and technology arebeing shipped off-shore. Friedman argues that this trend was eased by the
reduction of trade barriers of the 1990s; but the internet revolution of the late
1990s enabled a significant acceleration. General Motors has an India branch
for its car design. IBM has major research laboratories in India, China, andJapan. Following on the export of secondary science and technology, the new
beneficiaries are projected to increase their capability in primary science andtechnology. And thus the primary (as well as secondary) science andtechnology world will become flat, or at least there will be a more equitable
distribution of peaks and valleys in science and technology across the more orless flat earth.
While it may be that the earth is becoming flat, the particular variant I wish

Professor of International Education and International Affairs, The Elliott School ofInternational Affairs, The George Washington University, USA, e-mail: wkcum@gwu.edu

58

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

to explore today is the Tilting to Asia hypothesis1. For a variety of reasons,Asia is beginning to catch up in science and technology í and if forward
projections can be trusted, Asia could easily surpass the U.S. in 15 years. And
as science and technology wages in most parts of Asia are relatively modest,
Asian firms may be less inclined to off-shore their research and development
work. Thus, as a consequence, the world may gradually tilt upwards to Asia.

The beginnings of Asian higher education
Before considering the tilt toward Asia, it will be useful to review thestructure of education and higher education systems. In comparative education,
the classic debate focuses on the extent to which educational systems became
more similar or retain their distinctive structural differences in the course ofmodernization/globalization. I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in favorof the differences position (Cummings, 2003). Modern education was notcreated overnight in similar contexts but rather emerged over an extended
historical period of 150 years in highly diverse ideological, political, andeconomic contexts. Thus rather than a single form of modern education
emerging, I argue that there are at least six distinctive models: the French,
German, British, American, Japanese, and Soviet models.
These variants were planted in Asia from the mid-nineteenth to the
mid-twentieth century: Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan followed theGerman-Japanese model, China followed the Russian model, Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia followed the French model, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong,
Australia followed the British model, and the Philippines followed the Americanmodel. But with the colonial era long past, to what extent do these legacies still
persist – or to what extent are there converging tendencies? We will keep thesequestions in mind as we look at recent Asian experience.
Japan is one Asian system that avoided colonial dominance, and it was thefirst to take major steps towards a distinctive higher education system. Withina few short years of the Meiji Restoration (1868), a new leadership emerged inJapan that declared its determination “to seek knowledge throughout the world”
and to accept Western Science at the same time as they reaffirmed Eastern
Morality (Bartholomew, 1989). At first, the Japanese focus was on knowledge
1

An alternate scenario is, according to OECD, Education at a Glance 2005, that there may be
a current tilt towards Europe. European OECD countries aspire to surpass the U.S. But theEuropean tilt is nowhere near as prominent at the Asia tilt, at least in a number of indicators wewill discuss.

William K. Cummings

59

imitation. A new institute was established to translate foreign knowledge andother new institutes specialized in engineering, ship-building, armaments andother technological areas; subsequently several were consolidated in Tokyo
University which was in 1886 re-christened as the first Imperial University.
Over the next decades, numerous other public and private higher educational
institutions were founded, most with a focus on Western science, technology, law,and languages. By the 1920s, increasing emphasis was placed on knowledge
innovation, and from the 1970s onward, Japan began to place a stronger
emphasis on knowledge creation (Cummings, 1990). Some of the themes
underlying this shift were drawn from the West, and especially from the UnitedStates. But as we argue below, Japan has also fostered some new strategic
directions (Kodama, 1991).
Over time, and especially over the past three decades, other Asian societies
have, like Japan, taken bold steps to accelerate the processes of knowledge
innovation and creation. S. Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are most notable for
their bold steps over the past decade or so, but the trend is evident throughout theregion. Each nation faces its unique set of opportunities and obstacles that we
also acknowledge. One obstacle frequently cited is the supposed Western andespecially U.S. dominance of global knowledge production. According to thisview, the West usually makes discoveries first and similarly is more efficient intranslating its basic discoveries into applications. Thus Asia is said to belocked in a peripheral or semi-core position in global knowledge production(Marginson, 2004; Altbach & Umakoshi, Eds., 2004). While recognizing the
obstacles, we will argue that the region has much more potential than isgenerally appreciated í investment, talent, unique biosphere, humanistic
objectives, and a collaborative spirit í and an impressive array of recent
accomplishments. This suggests the prospect that the Asian region may be
emerging as a new global power-house of knowledge production.

The context
Before considering recent trends in development strategies, it will be useful
to highlight several relevant characteristics of the region.
A rich and distinctive intellectual tradition
The Asian region is the site of some of the world’s greatest civilizations thathave added immensely to the world’s stock of knowledge and, at the same time,
the site of some of the world’s most primitive peoples. India has given birth to

60

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

the great religions and philosophies of Hinduism and Buddhism that include
profound insights into the nature of the cosmos; and China is the home of the
Confucian political and social philosophy as well as an extraordinary tradition ofscientific and technological discovery that superceded the accomplishments of
the West at least through the sixteenth century (Needham, 1956).
The strong intellectual traditions of these two civilizations provide animportant part of the base for contemporary developments. As Shigeru
Nakayama (1984) observes, Asia in these early times developed a distinct modeof inquiry, the documentary tradition, which stands in sharp contrast to theWestern rhetorical tradition. The documentary tradition trains the mind to build
a strong foundation in basic principles, to carefully assemble all of the relevant
information, and to take small first steps in discovery as the foundation for alater stage of boldness. The subsequent exposure to Western rhetorical modes
of inquiry complemented the Asian documentary tradition.
Colonialism stunted the development of educational development andknowledge production
Whereas major civilizations and large societies prevailed in India and China,
in other parts of the Asian region, notably Oceania and to a lesser degree in theareas now known as the Philippines and Indonesia, human settlement was sparse,social organization simpler, and the practices of writing and recording very
limited. For example, the major empires of Indonesia and mainland Southeast
Asia largely borrowed their social and political theories from the cultures ofIndia and China.
The cultural and scientific development of much of the Asian region was
punctuated by the arrival of Western colonizers and settlers who set about
introducing a new layer of externally oriented institutions on old societies. The
primary focus of the Western invaders was on the exploitation of agricultural
resources í silk from China, tea from India, spices from Polynesia andMicronesia.
In order to advance these extractive goals, the colonizers and pioneers set
up minimal educational systems leading in most cases to a handful of higher
educational institutions focused primarily on law and the humanities, fields
believed appropriate for the development of civil servants. In some locations,fledgling institutes for the study of agriculture and the biosphere were also begun
í e.g. Raffles initiated the Botanical Gardens of Bogor í but in generalknowledge production was not given much consideration.

William K. Cummings

61

Asian states treasure their autonomy
With the conclusion of World War II, the colonial powers began to departfrom the Asian region and there ensued a period of political consolidation. The
Maoist victory in China was the first step with the Kuomintang government
exiting to Taiwan. From the early 1950s, nationalist guerillas began to mounttheir struggle against the French and later against the Americans in Southeast
Asia.
The process of state formation led to the emergence of societies that varied
widely in terms of ethnic-cultural diversity. For example, India and Indonesia
both include many religious and national-ethnic groups whereas Japan and S.
Korea are more homogeneous. In between are nations such as Thailand andMalaysia that favor one group by stressing the cultural assimilation of theirminority groups. Occasionally the cultural differences within particular Asian
nations become a source of conflict as in the recent protest of the Muslim
minority in southern Thailand. When domestic tensions appear in an Asian
nation, most Asian nations view this as an internal matter and restrict theircriticism. Myanmar’s neighbors, for example, have tolerated its repressive
system for decades without exerting notable pressure for reform.
During the late 1950s and early 1960s, tensions flared between Indonesia
and its neighbors and Malaysia also experienced a communist incursion. Thus
the region has experienced considerable tension and periodic conflict. As mostof the Asian states have, in relatively recent times, had to defend their boundaries
against outside incursions, they are wary of foreign penetration.
This wariness about foreign political penetration extends to the economy aswell. Most of the states of the region have a history of setting up barriers to
unwanted domination of their economies by foreign investment or imports.
While S. Korea accepted large loans from the World Bank in the early decades of
its development, it later placed high priority on closing these loans out andobserving clear limits on foreign indebtedness (Stallings, 1990). China until
recently did not accept World Bank loans or foreign investment. While China’s
policy appears to have radically changed over the past decade, it is neverthelessthe case that Chinese firms usually maintain a controlling interest in partnershipsthat involve foreign investment. Looking across the Asian landscape, perhaps
only Indonesia has allowed itself to be seriously over-exposed to foreign
investment.
Asian states place a high priority on economic and social development
Partly as a result of the post-colonial history of political struggle, many of

62

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

the Asian nations emerged with strong states that were accustomed to making the
major decisions on the future directions for national development. Someobservers refer to the Asian pattern of politico-economic organization as thedevelopment state (Johnson, 1982), implying strong leaders, a single party, ahigh commitment to economic development, and a minimal commitment todemocracy. While it cannot be said that the structure of the Asian development
state provides the sole explanation, it nevertheless is noteworthy that several of
the Asian countries have been exceptionally successful in promoting economic
development with social equity. A recent World Bank study (1992) highlighted
the success of S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong referring to these as“miracle” economies. The study also suggested that China, Indonesia, Thailand,and Malaysia were near miracles. Since that time Vietnam has begun to showpromise, as have parts of India.
Overtime, several of the Asian states have become more politically
inclusive, though usually within a framework of firm political leadership focusedon economic development.
Increasingly, these states have focused on
knowledge production as an important key towards furthering national
development. Of course, the differences in context outlined above haveinfluenced their respective approaches to knowledge production.
Asian states view human resources as the foundation of development
Most Asian states recognize the importance of a well-educated population
for the realization of development goals, and thus stress universal basic
education of high-quality with considerable opportunities for further education
up through graduate studies. In most Asian school curricula, science andmathematics is featured from the earliest grades, and as demonstrated repeatedly
in international studies of academic achievement, Asian young people doexceptionally well. For example, in the Third International Mathematics andScience Achievement Survey, the average achievement scores of young people
from Singapore, S. Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and China were ranked at the very
top among some forty countries (IEA in NSB, 2004, chap.1, p.13). Science andmathematics is featured in the secondary and tertiary levels of Asian education
with the result that China, India, and Japan graduate a larger number of first
degree holders in science and engineering than does the United States or Russia,
let alone the Western European countries. The strong foundation in humanresources means that the Asian research and development enterprises have asubstantial reserve of candidates when they seek to staff new entities.

William K. Cummings

63

Asian states vary in their development priorities
Virtually all of the Asian nations place a high priority on self-sufficiency
and thus have, at least in the past, placed much emphasis on improving thequality and efficiency of their agricultural production. Several nations continue
to emphasize agricultural exports as a major component of their national
revenues. However, many Asian states have high population densities andlabor costs which strain their potential for further gains in agricultural
productivity, and thus they have elected to emphasize manufacturing and theservice sector as current and future areas of economic growth. With the stresson manufacturing and service, each nation has choices concerning particularindustries to emphasize and whether the focus should be on world-class cuttingedge products or the more efficient production of familiar products. The
respective choices have clear implications for national science and technology
policies.
Defense-related knowledge production is not a priority
While the region has a history of conflict, the level of conflict has
considerably subsided, especially over the past two decades. Regional
tranquility has been realized, at least in part, because of regional dialogues
fostered by organizations such as ASEAN, APEC, and ESCAFE. Thanks toregional tranquility, most Asian countries devote relatively modest amounts of
their national budgets to defense as well as to defense-related research anddevelopment. Whereas in the U.S. and Western Europe, upwards of one-thirdof a nation’s R&D expenditures might focus on defense, the typical proportion in
the Asian region is one-tenth, leaving much greater portions for commercial andacademic R&D.
The scale of Asian nations varies
Asian nations vary immensely in geographic scale from massive China andAustralia, on the one hand, to tiny Singapore, on the other. Of even greater
importance for the execution of research and development programs are the wide
differences in population size. Without a critical density of researchers in aparticular area of inquiry, it is difficult for a nation, on its own, to foster major
discoveries in research and development. To a certain degree, a high allocationof resources can compensate for small size as is demonstrated by Finland andSwitzerland and possibly by Singapore. Also, small size leads a nation to buy
brains (expatriate researchers) and ideas (technology licensing) alongsideenergetic efforts at home-grown science and technology. Even so, large nations

64

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

such as China and India have a natural advantage, as the sheer human scale oftheir research and development enterprise enhances the probability of identifying
native talent and nurturing home-grown discoveries.

A new focus on knowledge creation
Insofar as knowledge production was centered in the West for most of thepast century, other regions of the world, including Asia, sought to draw on
Western knowledge to catch-up. Into the 1970s, this strategy was clearly
evident even in the case of Japan, the region’s most technologically advanced
society. For example, Japan’s early successes in textiles, steel, automobiles,
electrical and electronic goods were largely based on the application andrefinement of imported technologies.
However, from at least the late 1960s, Japanese policy-makers came torecognize that Japan was pressing on the upper edge of imported technology
utilization and thus that the future prospect for low-cost borrowing of technology
was bleak. Thus it would be necessary for Japan to place increasing emphasison the autonomous development of technology. Just as Japan began to makethis policy shift, other Asian nations came to the same conclusion: S. Korea andTaiwan in the mid-80s; Singapore, Malaysia, and Australia in the early 1990s.
An example is Malaysia’s vision 20-20 (Sarji, 1993) which, among other
innovative concepts, proposes the development of a new information highway
and to that end a range of new programs aimed at fostering a wide range ofhome-grown information technologies.
The new focus on knowledge creation is accompanied by increased funding
for research and development. Whereas in the 1960s, Japan was devoting only
about 1 percent of its GDP to R&D, this was doubled by the early 1980s and has
continued to rise since then. In 2007, it was 3.4 percent or 4th in world. Inthat same year, the average expenditure for R&D of EU countries was 2.3
percent, and that in the U.S. was 2.7 percent. Among other countries in the
Asian region, S. Korea’s expenditure for R&D had risen to 3.5 percent,Singapore’s to 2.6 percent, Taiwan’s to 2.6 percent (only civilian R&D), andAustralia’s to 2.0 percent. Several other countries in the region devote upwardsof 1 percent of GDP to research and development (NSB, 2010, pp.4-34).

The purpose of science and technology
From the earliest days of Japan’s Meiji era (1868-1912), increased

William K. Cummings

65

knowledge of Western science was seen as a means towards increasing national
strength in the face of possible Western domination. Japan, avoidingcolonization, rapidly became a significant world power and increasingly anaggressive one taking on China in 1894 and tsarist Russia in 1904. While
Japan assumed a minor role in World War I, in the ensuing years it declared a
Greater East Asia Prosperity Sphere and proceeded to conquer much of East andSoutheast Asia. Science, including academic science, was mobilized forJapan’s militaristic expansion, but this aggressive push was ultimately concluded
by a science-based response: the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
leading to Japan’s unconditional surrender. With Japan’s defeat, the Japanesepeople concluded – and wrote into their new Constitution – that they wished tohave no more involvement in war. And Japan’s academic establishment
expressed its shame that it had contributed to the wartime effort. Hence, for the
future, Japan declared that science should be for peace and not war, for thepeople and not the leaders.
Out of this sober reflection, Japan began to envision a new role for science
involving not only the economic prosperity of the nation but also theimprovement of the natural and social environment. This vision has beenreflected in the subsequent development of Japanese science and technology
policy. Official descriptions of Japanese science and technology policy arenotable for their humanistic emphasis on such topics as environmental
preservation, improving the quality of urban life, and creating a more
comfortable setting for older people.2 The allocation of government scienceand technology resources by purpose in Japan places far less emphasis on
defense-oriented science than does the U.S. or the UK and far more on otherareas such as energy, industrial applications, planning of land use, and university
research. The allocations in S. Korea, the only other Asian nation for which
comparable data is available, tend to follow the same pattern as Japan í
relatively small allocations on defense, more on civilian priorities (including
agriculture and land use) and university research.

A distinctive strategy for knowledge production?
While science and technology have played a major role in the development
2

As noted below, public funding of research is substantial in all countries tending to average
about one-third of all funding but the government’s proportion of funding is largest in the U.S.
primarily due to the U.S. government’s substantial commitments for defense-related research.
Government’s share is somewhat less in the Asian region.

66

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

of nations for several centuries, it is only after World War II that the majorindustrial nations, led by the United States, began to develop coherent scienceand technology policies. Vannevar Bush, then President of MIT and scienceadvisor to the President of the United States, observed that:… there is a perverse law governing research: Under the pressure for
immediate results, and unless deliberate policies are set up to guard
against this, applied research inevitably drives out pure.
The moral is clear: It is pure research which deserves and requires
special protection and specially assured support. (Bush, 1945, p.103)
Bush and his colleagues depicted a linear model of knowledge production
with basic research as the foundation generating fundamental breakthroughs thatwould foster applications that could then be developed into new products andservices. One outcome in the U.S. was the establishment of the National
Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health as federal government
agencies to distribute basic research funds to capable scientists on the basis ofpeer reviewed evaluations of their research proposals. In the years that were tofollow, basic science was strengthened in the U.S., especially in the top strata ofhigher educational institutions that came to be known as research universities.
Additionally, the U.S. federal government came to play a prominent role in the
support of applied research in laboratories of private industrial firms. Thus thescience and technology model pioneered by the U.S. stressed strong support forbasic research and a substantial role for the federal government in the support ofboth basic and applied research.
While the U.S. model was able to leapfrog American science into a global
leadership position in basic science in the postwar period, few othergovernments had an equivalent level of resources for the actual funding ofresearch. Rather in other national settings, the government limited its role toserving primarily as a facilitator of research through providing information andoffering tax and tariff incentives while looking to other sources, notably theprivate sector, for funding. This pattern was particularly noticeable in Japan;
and since then in many of the other Asian nations. For example, whereas in the
U.S. in 1985 nearly 40 percent of all research and development was supported by
the federal government, the Japanese government only funded 22 percent of all
Japanese R&D. Over the last two decades, there has been a modest
convergence – with the U.S. government’s share of R&D funding decreasing to35 percent and the Japanese government’s share increasing to 25 percent. But
the basic contrast persists. The Japanese pattern of a greater reliance oncommercially funded research is also found in S. Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore.

William K. Cummings

67

The Asian emphasis on applied research and a larger role for thecommercial sector in research and development implies a distinctive approach,sometimes referred to as the interactive model of knowledge production. In theinteractive model, each sector has a substantial role in research and development,
and, moreover, each sector devotes at least some effort to all phases of the R&D
continuum from basic to developmental research. Also, whereas the linear
model assumes that basic research is the source of new research directions, in theinteractive model it is acknowledged that important new research directions may
be suggested as researchers discover shortcomings in their applied anddevelopmental research. Rather than a uni-directional conception of the
trajectory of the R&D endeavor, the interactive model makes no assumptions
about directionality.

The role of the universities
Depending on the model of knowledge production a nation adopts, the roleof the university differs. In the linear model, the university has a prominentrole in basic research and human resource development. Because of theuniversity’s considerable funding for basic research, it is able to employ a large
army of research assistants to facilitate the research mission. Because of thegenerous research funding, the university is able to recruit this assistance fromaround the world and thus is not so dependent on its own efforts for humanresource development.
In the interactive model that tends to characterize the approach of several
Asian nations, the university shares the responsibility for basic research with theother sectors and thus has relatively less funds to support research and recruit
research assistants. However, the universities, especially those in the public
sector, have a critical role in the development of human resources for the othersectors. The overall levels of access to higher education in Asia are higher thanin other regions of the world (NSB, 2004, pp.1-46), and for those young people
pursuing higher education the 1st and 2nd degree training is heavily skewed toscience and engineering. For example, in Japan and S. Korea’s public sector,
approximately 40 percent of all first degrees are in science and engineering. In
China, over 50 percent are in these fields. By virtue of this science andengineering emphasis, the university systems of Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan
each graduate a larger proportion of their college age cohort in the naturalsciences and engineering than does the U.S (NSB, p.2-35 - p.2-39). In terms ofthe total number of first degree science and engineering graduates, China, Japan,

68

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

and India produce about the same number annually as does the U.S. – with S.
Korea not far behind.

Recent efforts to stimulate creative research in the academy andelsewhere
In the interactive model, universities share many research functions withother sectors. But especially in recent years, steps have been taken to improve
the research environment, especially at the universities.
x Increased funding for research, including basic research. As indicatedabove, most of the Asian nations are steadily increasing the resources they
are devoting to research and development. Parallel with the overall
increase in R&D funds, increasing resources are being channeled to theacademic sector.
x Science cities with universities as the core. In the mid-1970s following on
Russian and American models, Japan launched Tsukuba as its first “sciencecity.” The new and well-funded Tsukuba University was placed in thecenter of the city and many government laboratories were moved to thisnew site. Tax incentives were set up to encourage industrial firms tolocate there. Similar developments followed with the relocation of Osaka
University and the upgrading of Tohoku University and Kyushu University.
Taiwan has established several new science cities, and Singapore has
established a Science Park adjacent to the National University of Singapore.
x Greater autonomy for the universities. In the imitation phases of higher
educational development, leading public universities in the Asian regions
tended to be outposts of national policy and subject to extensive regulation
by national authorities. With the new push for innovation, the pervasive
public regulations including line-item budgets have come to be perceived as
obstacles. To erase the bureaucratic feel of these universities, the Japanese,Thai, and Indonesian governments have sought to make universities
autonomous statutory entities with “full” authority over their resources andoperations. These initiatives are being carefully followed by other nationsin the region.
x Ranking universities, and/or ranking academic units. With the shift togreater university autonomy, Asian governments have begun the search for
new criteria on which to base public allocations to universities. One
possibility is to rank universities and to distribute funds through block

William K. Cummings

69

grants adjusted by ranking (and other criteria such as total number ofstudents or faculty). China several years ago spoke of focusing central
funding on the top 100 universities. In 2001, Minister Toyama of Japan
spoke of focusing funding on the top 30 Japanese universities. In fact, nogovernment has actually implemented these proposals. However, a related
principle has been to rank the component units of the many universities in asystem and use these unit rankings for preferential funding. Over the past
several years, Japan has experimented along these lines with its “Centers of
Excellence” program.
x Peer review of research proposals. In the state-regulated university it wascustomary to allocate research funds on an equal basis to each academic
unit regardless of their productivity or potential. A “new” approach is torequire those units and individual professors who desire research funds toprepare a research proposal for anonymous review by a committee of peers.
This approach is presumed to elicit more careful development of research
programs and to channel funds to those researchers most likely to realize
innovative results.
x Increased support of large and medium-scale projects of longer duration.
When research funds were limited, there was a tendency to annuallydistribute small allocations across the university system. As units could
expect to get the same modest amount year after year, this approach did
facilitate multi-year research agendas. In keeping with the modest funding,these agendas tended to focus on small problems. But in recent years,
R&D policy makers have come to understand that big researchbreakthroughs require big efforts. Thus in several of the Asian systems
new funding opportunities are emerging which encourage large ambitious
multi-year projects. In some instances, these are awarded to individuals orgroups who work in the conventional academic units. Parallel to theseconventional awards, many new and generously funded research institutes
are also being established.
x Trial periods for prospective researchers. In many Asian systems,
universities were inclined to recruit new staff from among the top studentsof their recent graduating classes and, in keeping with the spirit of “civil
service” appointments, to offer these new employees the equivalent oflifetime tenure. While this personnel policy guaranteed the loyalty of new
recruits, it did not always result in the best choices. As many candles
burned out as continued to shine brightly. Recognizing the weight ofdeadwood, many systems (or particular universities within the respective

70

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

systems) have introduced a trial period for initial appointments.
x Efforts to reclaim drained brains. Asian universities “lose” many
graduates to the research and development entities of the U.S. & Western
Europe. (NSB, 2010, pp.3-52). The quality of first-degree training in
Asian universities, especially in the sciences and engineering at the
top-ranked universities, is quite high.
Thus graduates from these
institutions tend to be successful when they apply for graduate education in
the West. And many who complete graduate education in the West tend tostay on for post-doctoral and other employment opportunities. China andIndia are numerically the largest suppliers of foreign talent to theknowledge industries of the West, though not an inconsiderable number ofyoung knowledge workers migrate from other Asian countries such as
Japan, S. Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore. But in recent years, as theresearch conditions in the Asian region improve, this trend may be changing.
There is evidence that more Asian students are electing to stay home forgraduate studies and post-doctoral opportunities. After two decades ofsteady growth in the number of Chinese young people seeking overseas
graduate education, their numbers appear to be leveling off since 2001.
x Opening the doors to foreign talent. Additionally, Asian universities areexperiencing greater success in recruiting foreign students for their graduate
school and postgraduate fellowship opportunities. For example, in Japan
in 2001, foreign students make up 8 percent of all Japanese graduate
student enrollments in engineering, 10 percent in the natural sciences, and20 percent in the social sciences (NSB, 2004, pp.2-38). Asian universities,
especially those in the smaller countries that have limited indigenous poolsof knowledge workers, are increasing their efforts to attract establishedprofessionals from other countries. Most Japanese and S. Korean
universities now have numerous positions available for overseas visiting
professors and researchers, and in Singapore, higher education institutions
advertise internationally for virtually every academic opening. According
to a recent study, Japan in 1999 attracted 240,936 high skill immigrants, anincrease of 75 percent over the 1992 figure (Fuess Jr., 2001). Singapore
has been able to attract many outstanding researchers to its laboratories,
including recently a noted biochemist who is a Nobel laureate.

Asian science and technology is gaining international prominence
The Asian region’s new commitment to research and development isWilliam K. Cummings

71

beginning to show results. The most obvious indications are in the applicationof science and technology for commercial purposes:x Asian countries, most notably Japan and S. Korea, have steadily increased
their numbers of domestic patents over the past two decades as well as theirapplications for patents in foreign markets.
x Asian countries, especially Japan, S. Korea, and China, have shifted
substantial proportions of their industrial production towards high-tech
products. Currently, S. Korea reports a higher proportion of its industrial
production is in high-tech areas than is the case for the U.S.
x Asian nations are also beginning to increase their share of high-tech
production in the service industries, a market formally monopolized by theU.S.
x Finally, over the past two decades China and the Asia-9 (S. Korea, Malaysia,
Singapore, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, andVietnam) have been expanding their share of the global market for
high-tech products. This combination of countries was supplying less than
8 percent of global high-technology exports in 1980 compared to 30 percent
for the U.S. By 2008, China and Asia-9’s share had increased their shareto 48 percent and the U.S. share had dropped to 14 percent. During thisperiod, Japan’s share dropped from 25 to 8 percent.3
Asian knowledge products, it is often said, are based on foreign technology;
but in recent years, as noted above, Asia has an impressive record in theindigenous development of patents. Japan currently generates twice as much inrevenue from the sale of its patents to foreign entities as it spends on theacquisition of foreign technology, and the balance sheet for S. Korea and Taiwan
are about equal.
Related to the emerging strength of the Asian region in knowledge products
is the parallel emergence of a more active and creative academy. One
illustration of this new creativity is the increasing prominence of articles written
by Asian scholars in internationally refereed journals. Focusing on articles inthe science and engineering fields, both Japan and other Asian countries haveshown rapid gains in the number of referred articles over the past twenty years, adoubling in the case of Japan and a quadrupling in the case of other Asian
countries. By way of comparison, the volume of articles written by U.S.
3
This percentage drop is in the context of a major global increase in the volume (as measured
by the value of sales) of high tech products. Japan’s actual volume of high-tech productsslightly increased.

72

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

researchers has been stable over this 20 year period and the volume written byWestern European scholars has increased about 65 percent. As a result, in 2007,
Japanese scholars alone were publishing 7 percent of the world’s total, China(including Hong Kong) 7.5 percent, and Asia-9 an additional 7.3 percent.
While the Asian region total of 22 percent is less than the U.S. share of 27.7
percent, the Asian proportion has steadily gained in recent years and shows every
sign of maintaining that trajectory. While growth in Japan and S. Korea may
slow down, other countries in the region are likely to surge forward.
A noticeable trend in recent scientific publications is the tendency forarticles to have multiple authors reflecting collaboration in research projects.
Much of the collaboration is between researchers in the same country, but by
2001, the percentage of article co-authored by researchers in two or morecountries had risen to 33 percent. (NSB, 2004, pp.5-47) One factor influencing
cross-national co-authorship is the location of graduate study: young researchers
who have studied in another country are likely to co-author with their former
professors. Given the numerical prominence of the U.S. in graduate education,nearly half of the world’s co-authored articles involve a U.S. author. However,
over the period of 1988 to 2001, the number of co-authored articles with an
Asian author steadily increased. Of special interest is an apparent trend for an
increasing proportion of cross-nationally co-authored articles with an Asianpartner to involve another Asian partner while the proportion with a Westernco-author has remained stable (NSB, pp.5-48). This implies that a new Asian
science community may be emerging. It might be noted that bodies such as
UNESCO and ASEAN are devoting substantial resources to foster this very
outcome.
An indication of the relative quality of academic research is the frequency
with which it is cited by other scholars, including citations by scholars in othercountries. For the advanced countries, the relative frequency of citation isroughly in line with the relative frequency of publishing articles. Citations for
U.S. authored articles (first author from the U.S.) made up 43.6 percent of all
citations in 2001 followed by UK articles with 8.2 percent and Japanese articles
with 7.3 percent of all citations. Relative to the above science and engineering
giants, articles authored by researchers in other Asian countries were notnumerous nor frequently cited. However, their likelihood of being cited had
sharply increased between 1992 and 2001: “citation of literature from East Asianauthors in China, Singapore, S. Korea, and Taiwan more than quadrupled involume during this period, with the collective share of these countries risingfrom 0.7 percent of the world’s cited literature in 1992 to 2.1 percent in 2001.”

William K. Cummings

73(NSB, 2004, pp.5-49)
Clearly Asian research is becoming progressively more prominent in theinternational arena. If one were to think back to the time of Sputnik or someother distant scientific splash, no one would have thought of Asian research ascapable of making similar breakthroughs. Nor would most researchers outsideof particular Asian countries know much about Asian universities and research
centers. In contrast, Asia is increasingly in the spotlight. China routinely
sends up rockets to launch satellites for commercial and academic purposes,
having a reliability record that is superior to that of most Western nations.
Japan is viewed as the center of research on earthquakes and volcanoes and also
is highly regarded for its work in biotechnology. Scientists in S. Korea recently
announced pioneering work in the cloning of human beings that shocked theworld. Asian research, while still more modest in scale than Western research,is “hot.”
Recently, a Chinese research institution sought to rank the universities of
the world using as its major ranking criterion the relative contribution in terms ofabsolute number of articles that each university made to the world’s corpus ofscientific and engineering research (SJTUIHE, 2003). Not surprisingly, given
the prominence of Western science, the top universities in the world were in theWest. But approximately 15 percent of the institutions identified in this survey
were from the Asian region, including ten in Japan, two in S. Korea, two in
China, two in Australia, and one in Hong Kong. If the focus were on particularfields, in all likelihood the Asian regions, would fare better. Engineering is
prominently emphasized in many Asian universities and in the sciences,chemistry receives relatively more emphasis and physics and biology less.
Similarly in that the science departments of many Asian-Pacific universities have
only a few professors (whereas the engineering departments have many) if themethodology divided the absolute number of published articles by the number ofscientists, the faculties of several Asian Universities might be ranked at the top.
For example, according to one study, the University of Tokyo’s department ofchemistry is the most productive chemistry department per capita in the world.

Obstacles to academic knowledge production
While we have suggested thus far that Asian knowledge production has
much promise and that academic research is an important component of thispromise, it would be remiss to ignore the obstacles that remain to realizing thispromise.

74

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

Practical bias
Globalization is pushing economies around the world to place increasingemphasis on the commercialization of knowledge. Asian higher education
systems from their inception placed an exceptional emphasis on the practicalfields of agriculture, engineering, and medicine. At the same time, influenced
by the example of German science, many researchers in Asian higher educational
institutions urged a greater focus on seeking scientific breakthroughs; however,they were a minority in the policy circles. The legacy of a practical focus has
made it difficult, despite the recent recognition of the need for greater creativity,
to shift resources towards increased support for basic research. In a sense,
Asian science was “globalized” long before this concept became prominent ininternational discourse.
Difficult to change academic field coverage of academic sector
The academic structure in the more established Asian universities is likely
to have been established several decades in the past taking into account the hot
research fields of that era. Over time, science and technology has shifted its
focus. Recent examples include the explosion of the information sciences andthe biological sciences as well as biotechnology. But given past commitments
to the traditional disciplines of physics and chemistry and a reluctance to simply
add on new academic appointments before closing down old ones, many Asianuniversities have difficulty in adjusting to the times. They may be overstaffedin the traditional fields and short-handed in the new ones. For example, inJapan much of the interesting biotechnology research is carried out in thefaculties of agriculture rather than in faculties of engineering or the departmentsof biology.
Legalism
Most Asian academic systems have their origins in state-sponsorship.
These systems were initially under the tight control of a central Ministry of
Education that imposed rules on academic life not that distinct from those in thecivil service sector. Thus, for example, professors even today are expected tosign in daily to indicate that they are on the job, and in at least one system are
expected to be on site at their desks from 9 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon.
Annual vacation days are specified and monitored as are trips to attend academic
conferences and both local and overseas research sites; professors who fail toconform to these regulations may be penalized. Other regulations place
unusual restrictions on the use of available resources. For example, in Japan itWilliam K. Cummings

75

is difficult to use research funds to pay for salaries or certain types of equipment.
These legalistic restrictions are always under review and in many instances are
becoming liberalized. Even so, legalism continues to frustrate many of thegood intentions of academic researchers.
Difficult to build relations between academia and the private sector
The original purpose of many Asian universities was to train humanresources for the modern business and public sector, not to advancepublic-private collaboration in the pursuit of knowledge production fordevelopment. Due to the public status of many universities, regulations were
established to protect the institutions against undue influence from the outside.
Thus grants from private organizations were to be monitored to insure they did
not induce favoritism or corruption by the professor as public servant.
Moreover, under the national tax laws, these grants were to be considered as aroutine expense of the private firm rather than as a tax deductible act of charity,
hardly an incentive for generous private sector support of uncertain academic
research. When professors considered visiting private sector laboratories tocarry out aspects of their research agenda, they also encountered obstacles.
Formally they were expected to report these excursions and limit them to acertain number of days each year. Additionally strict regulations were
established in relation to any “personal” benefit they might receive such as
honoraria or travel funds. Barriers of this kind have not made it easy foruniversities to cooperate with the corporate sector in knowledge production. Of
course, these barriers are always under review and have, in many instances, beenliberalized in recent years.
Shortage of qualified researchers
Insofar as many universities are public institutions, most of theappointments to university posts are guided by civil service regulations or
special adaptations of those regulations designed for “independent” universities.
But the adaptations tend to be minor, and often place serious obstacles in the wayof professors who seek to hire research assistants or other support staff for theirwork. Often for staff to be hired a new position has to be created and long-term
resource streams have to be specified, but as research funds are time-restricted
the fulfillment of these conditions is difficult. Thus the Asian university
researcher is likely to be short-handed in terms of support staff for their research
projects.
Obstacles of these kinds can be found in any academic system, and as their

76

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

effects come to be spotlighted steps can be taken to remove them. It is certainly
the case that many of these obstacles have been reduced in recent years.
Nevertheless they still seem to loom larger in the lives of Asian academics thanis the case in other parts of the world.

Conclusion
Regardless of where one comes out in the numbers game, there is little
question that the Asian region is steadily expanding its presence in the global
platform for knowledge production. The region for nearly three decades has
been acknowledged as a leader in knowledge utilization, especially the
manufacture of high quality high-technology products. Over the last decade orso, the quality of basic research carried out in the region has also gained
recognition. As one illustration, over the last decade, ten Nobel prizes havebeen awarded to Japanese scientists. Of equal note, two have been awarded toJapanese novelists.
The academy plays an important role in Asian knowledge production but so
do other sectors of society. A relatively greater proportion of Asian researchand development funds comes from the corporate sector than is the case in theWest and a smaller proportion comes from government. We have suggested
that the more even distribution of R&D funding across sectors in the Asian
region suggests a distinctive interaction model of knowledge production.
Nakayama (1991) adds that civil society might be added as another componentof the Asian model along with the universities, the corporate world, andgovernment. He notes, for example, that civic groups have provided theleadership in promoting environmental research and halting defense-related
research. In a sense, the civic groups are encouraging a humanistic dimension
in Asian knowledge production that may be more muted in the West.
While many generalizations about Asian knowledge production have been
advanced in this paper, it is important to stress that each of the countries includedin this study (Japan, S. Korea, China, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Indonesia, Oceania and India) is unique: they have different contexts, traditions,and resources. It does appear that there is an overarching sentiment in theregion to enhance intra-regional collaboration, and that there has been muchprogress in this regard. Thus it is possible to point to a common direction in thestrategies for academic sector knowledge production in the region. At the sametime, there are distinctive national visions and achievements.
The role of the universities in increasing the prominence of AsianWilliam K. Cummings

77

knowledge production has different explanations by country. In the moreestablished university systems such as Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan, the newcreativity seems to be a function of increased resources and their more effective
distribution as the actual size of the academy has been relatively stable. By
contrast, in other settings, notably China, Singapore, and Australia, there has
been a combination of increasing scale and increasing resources
An interesting line of speculation would be to propose that the different
academic systems of the Asian region might develop distinctive directions of
excellence in the decades ahead. Japan appears to have strength across theboard. China is notable for its achievements in space and in computer-relatedareas. The Philippines is notable for its training of doctors and other healthpersonnel, and with an infusion of increased resources might show promise in
the health-related sciences. Agriculture and horticulture are strong throughout
the region and lend support to future breakthroughs in biotechnology. This is aregion of great academic promise and it is destined to claim an increasingly
central position on the world’s stage.

References
Altbach, P.G., & Umakoshi T. (Eds.) (2004). Asian Universities: Historical Perspectives andContemporary Challenges. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Bartholomew, J.R. (1989). The Formation of Science in Japan. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176, 101-108.
Cummings, W.K. (1990). The Culture of Effective Science: Japan and the United States.
Minerva, 28 (4), 426-445.
Cummings, W.K. (2003). The Institutions of Education. Oxford: Symposium Books.
Friedman, T.L. (2005). The World is Flat. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
Fuess Jr., S. (2001). Highly Skilled Workers and Japan: Is There International Mobility?
Workshop paper presented at Institute for the Study of Labor. Bonn: Germany.
Hicks, F.B. et al. (2001). US-Japan Dialogue on the Role of Science and Technology Into The
New Millennium. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese Miracle. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kimura, S. (1995). Japan’s Science Edge. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
Kodama, F. (1991). Analyzing Japanese High Technologies: the Techno-Paradigm Shift.
London: Pinter Publishers.
Low, M., Nakayama, S., & Yoshioka H. (1999). Science, Technology and Society in

78

The Rise of Asian Research Universities

Contemporary Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mack, G., & Postiglione, G. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of Asian Higher Education. New York:
Garland.
Marginson, S. (2004). National and Global Competition in Higher Education: Towards a
Synthesis (Theoretical Reflections). Paper presented at ASHE Annual Meetings, Kansas
City, Missouri, Nov. 22-24, 2004.
Nakayama, S. (1984). Academic and Scientific Traditions in China, Japan, and the West.
Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Nakayama, S. (1991). Science, Technology and Society in Postwar Japan. London: KeganPaul International.
National Science Board (NSB). (2004). Science and Engineering Indicators 2004.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
NSB. (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Needham, J. (1956). Science and Civilization in China Vol.2: History of scientific thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sarji, A. (Ed.) (1993). Malaysia’s Vision 2020: Understanding the Concept, Implications &Challenges. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publications.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University Institute of Higher Education (SJTUIHE). (2003). Academic
Ranking of World Universities – 2003. (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm)
Stallings, B. (1990). The Role of Foreign Capital in Economic Development. In G. Gereffi, &D. Wyman (Eds.) Manufacturing Miracles-Paths of Industrialization in Latin America
and East Asia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
World Bank. (1992). The East Asian Economic Miracle. New York: Oxford University Press.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011

79

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?
Common and Diverse Features in Comparative
Perspective

Ester Ava Höhle and Ulrich Teichler

1. Introduction
Many comparative projects in the social sciences take for granted that thepolitical entity “country” is the appropriate unit of analysis for a “society” or fora “system”. This holds true for most analyses in the area of higher education
research, where we talk about the “Japanese higher education system” and – inthe case of the theme of this conference – about the “academic profession in
Japan”.
As a consequence, most publications on the results of the research project“The Changing Academic Profession” (CAP) hitherto have addressed either
individual countries or drawn comparisons between various countries. Actually,
the CAP project was undertaken by a consortium of scholars from 18 countries
who raised funds for their country-specific project nationally. To be precise,Hong Kong is participating in the study as one entity – an entity which can be
described as a “society” of its own without the status of an independent country.
At times of increasing supra-international interaction the global reach ofconcepts, it is natural to raise the question in this project whether the academic
profession in certain supra-national entities has so much in common that this is amore salient level of analysis than that provided by specific national features.
In the search for supra-national commonalities, we have various options for
M.A., International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel), University ofKassel, Germany, e-mail: hoehle@incher.uni-kassel.de
Professor, INCHER-Kassel, University of Kassel, Germany, e-mail:teichler@incher.uni-kassel.de80

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?

sub-dividing the globe:x A cultural distinction between “West” and “East” has often been applied in
distinguishing the cultures of Europe and economically advanced countries
as closely linked on the one hand from the cultures of China, Japan andneighbour countries on the other hand.
x The same words, i.e. “West” and “East” have served as a politicaldistinction for some decades. From about 1950 to 1990, market-oriented
economically advanced countries were called the “West”, while the Soviet
Union and the countries politically linked to the USSR were called the“East”.
x A primarily economic distinction has been drawn between the “North”(economically advanced countries) and the “South” (middle-income
countries and low-income countries). Often, the member states of theOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) areseen as synonymous with economically advanced countries, though not all
experts would agree.
x Countries can be sorted as well by geographic region, i.e. Africa, America,
Asia, Australia and Europe. One has to bear in mind, though, that somecountries are partly located in Europe and partly in Asia (e.g., Russia andTurkey). Moreover, often sub-divisions are made between the Northernpart of America and either “South America” or “Latin America”.
x In the framework of international organisations, we often observe a
geo-political grouping of countries. For example, UNESCO divides theglobe into Europe and North America, Latin America and the Caribbean,
Sub-Saharan Africa, the Arab States as well as Asia and the Pacific.
x Finally, we could group national higher education systems according tosimilar “concepts” and “models” of higher education, e.g. the Napoleonic
University, the Humboldtian University, the Anglo-Saxon University, theU.S. model or similarly.
In looking at higher education systems or, as in our example, at theacademic profession in neighbor countries, one does not necessarily havepredominantly common features in mind. For example, in the invitation to thisconference on the academic profession in Asia, distinct features of the academic
profession in Asian countries are more strongly underscored than similarities.
Similarly, the cooperation of scholars from European countries in analyzing theacademic profession “in Europe” is not based on the assumption of prevailingcommonalities; rather, student mobility in Europe became so much a popularEster Ava Höhle & Ulrich Teichler

81

feature in this region because it is seen as a valuable means to “learn fromcontrasts” in the geographic and political neighbourhood.
Yet, nobody would convene a discussion of the “academic profession in
Asian countries”, if one wanted to demonstrate merely thee differences between
a few of the Asian countries. At least, it seems worthwhile to examine theextent and nature of similarities in this geographic neighbourhood. Therefore,
this presentation will concentrate on the similarities among Asian countries inaddressing the basic question: Is there an Asian academic profession? Thispossibility will be considered in comparison to all other economically advanced
countries (Canada, US, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, the UK andAustralia) and to all other “emerging countries” (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico andSouth Africa) included in the CAP project.
We should bear in mind, though, that Asia is represented in the comparative
study “The Changing Academic Profession” only through Japan, Korea, Hong
Kong, Malaysia and China, i.e. primarily through East Asian countries andadditionally through a single South East Asian country; South Asian countries,
Central Asian countries and Mid-East countries are not represented in the CAP
study.
The CAP study also has to consider the extent to which it is appropriate totreat academics active at institutions of higher education in a country as a single
entity. We know that there is a substantial divide between senior academics andjunior academic staff in many countries, and we know that academic life isdifferent at institutions more or less oriented equally to research and teaching, on
the one hand, from that at institutions primarily oriented to teaching, on the other.
Therefore, in the subsequent analysis, the academic profession is sub-divided
into four groups: (a) senior academics (“professors”, in the CAP study, i.e.
persons equivalent to “full professors” and “associate professors” in the U.S.) at“universities” (i.e. institutions both more or less equally in charge of researchand teaching, in some countries informally called “research universities”), (b)junior academics (or “academic staff”) at “universities”, (c) senior academics(“professors”) at other institutions of higher education (i.e. institutions primarilyoriented to teaching no matter whether they are officially called “universities” ornot), and (d) junior academics at other institutions of higher education.
The proportions of these four subgroups among all countries surveyed (i.e.
full-time academics at institutions offering study programs leading to at least abachelor degree) vary dramatically. In Table 1 the five Asian cases arecompared to the U.S. and Germany. Obviously, junior staff at universities andother institutions of higher education in Korea and Japan are scarce. Moreover,82

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?

according to definitions chosen in the individual countries, the sector of “otherinstitutions of higher education” is relatively small in China and Malaysia.
Table1. Percent respondents in Asian vs. other countries by rank andinstitutional type
Institution

Rank

Universities

Asian countries

Other countries

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

US

DE

Seniors

36

23

34

14

17

18

12

Universities

Juniors

48

57

66

4

4

50

68

Other HEIs

Seniors

5

16

.

55

62

17

17

Other HEIs

Juniors

11

4

.

27

23

15

3

Source: CAP Survey (May 2010 data set)

The differences in the ratios of junior academics to senior academics can be
explained by the fact that higher education institutions in some countries employ
many young academics for research and teaching, while in other countries either
few young academics are active at universities or are counted as doctoral
students, auxiliary staff or staff directly paid via research funds without any
employment status in the university. The differences in the ratio of academics
at “universities” to those at “other institutions of higher education” are partly due
to real different ratios of the research and teaching-oriented sector versus theteaching-oriented sector; unfortunately, however, some of the differences are
explained by the fact that the researchers of the different countries involved in
the CAP project did not always choose the same dividing line between the two
sectors. For example, “universities” in Japan and Korea in the CAP data set are
only those institutions with a strong research role, whereas moreteaching-oriented universities are included in the group “other institutions ofhigher education”; in the Chinese CAP data, however, “universities” comprise all
institutions officially called universities, even if their research role is limited.
In sum, the data set is not ideal in terms of the comparable distribution ofacademic subgroups across countries. This notwithstanding, the subsequent
analysis does not compare the academic profession as a whole across the five
Asian societies included in the CAP data set, but rather four categories ofacademics sub-divided by rank and by type of higher education institution.

2. Socio-biographic background
The Changing Academic Profession included few questions related to thesocio-biographic background of the academic profession. Rather, just a single

Ester Ava Höhle & Ulrich Teichler

83

question was asked across all countries: the percentage of women.
Actually, Japan, Korea and Hong Kong are three of the four cases in the
CAP study in which the share of women among university and non-university
professors is exceptionally low. While this share is low both among senior andjunior academics in Japan and Korea, the respective proportion is higher among
junior staff in Hong Kong thus indicating an opportunity for change over time.
In contrast, the share of women among academics in China and Malaysia is close
to the average of emerging countries in most of the four categories displayed inTable 2. Indeed, among junior academics at other institutions of higher
education in China, the percentage of women is one of the highest of all thecountries addressed in the CAP study.

Table 2. Percent women among academics in Asian vs. other countries
Asian countries

Other countries

Institution

Rank

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging

Universities

Seniors

38

38

20

13

13

29 (18-39)

39 (33-46)

Universities

Juniors

52

49

43

20

14

48 (38-63)

49 (46-54)

Other HEIs

Seniors

35

21

.

19

17

37 (20-47)

39 (34-48)

Other HEIs

Juniors

55

47

.

17

23

44 (19-60)

44 (40-49)

Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

3. The employment situation
Part-time employment is a rare exception among professors not only in the
Asian countries, but in all countries surveyed except for those in Latin America.
In the latter countries, we observe a long tradition of concurrent academic andother professional work (for example as a professor and a lawyer).
Among junior academic staff, part-time employment is also consistently
very low or at least clearly below average in Asian countries. In contrast to a
substantial number of countries participating in the CAP study, where the earlyyears of an academic career are often not fully funded, embarking on an
academic career in the Asian countries appears to be linked to full-time work.
Limited or fixed term contract employment among professors was a rare
exception until recently in many countries of the world. The recent trend
towards a policy even for professors of short-term appointments contingent upon
performance or continued need – is also visible in Asian countries, as Table 4shows.

84

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?

g
Table 3. Percent academics employed part-time in Asian vs. other countries
Institution

Rank

Universities

Asian countries

Other countries

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging

Seniors

3

0

1

0

0

4 (1-6)25 (3-75)

Universities

Juniors

2

1

10

0

7

22 (2-31)

30 (3-88)

Other HEIs

Seniors

2

2

.

0

0

6 (2-14)25 (0-65)

Other HEIs

Juniors

2

0

.

0

1

11 (6-14)

51(16-86)

Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

Table 4. Percent academics employed in limited or fixed term contracts in
Asian vs. other countries
Institution

Rank

Universities

Asian countries

Other countries

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging

Seniors

21

10

27

23

13

11 (2-34)

23 (2-62)

Universities

Juniors

23

6

82

86

39

61 (29-82)

32 (6-68)

Other HEIs

Seniors

24

29

.

19

9

11 (2-16)

4 (*)

Other HEIs

Juniors

29

12

.

79

22

47 (12-75)

12 (5-20)* Information available only for a single country
Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

Table 5. Percent academics earning additional income in Asian vs. othercountries
Institution

Rank

Universities

Asian countries

Other countries

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging

Seniors

2

1

2

7

8

9 (5-17)14 (0-38)

Universities

Juniors

6

45

7

1

17

9 (5-24)

25 (0-45)

Other HEIs

Seniors

1

32

.

2

6

8 (2-22)16 (0-32)

Other HEIs

Juniors

1

2

.

9

13

7 (3-20)

18 (0-37)

Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

Fixed term employment among junior staff differs strikingly by countries.
While in some countries, entry to an academic career almost guarantees
persistence, entry to academic work is highly selective and risky in othercountries. Korea and Hong Kong are among those cases with the highest
proportions of fixed-term employment of junior academic staff, while therespective figures for the other Asian countries are below average.
The percentage of academics earning additional income – i.e. income fromsources beyond the primary university employer – is presented in Table 5.
Accordingly, an exceptionally high proportion of junior staff at universities andprofessors at other institutions of higher education have additional income. A
sizeable percentage of junior staff both at universities and other higher education

Ester Ava Höhle & Ulrich Teichler85

institutions in Japan have report additional income but roughly on a par with
their peers in the countries included in the CAP survey. Very small proportionsof academics of all other categories from Asian countries report on average
additional income beyond their institutional income salary.
We know that the causes for relatively high proportions of academics
earning additional income are manifold: part-time employment, relatively low
remuneration of the academic profession, and specific opportunities for side
income in select fields and occupational areas. Certainly, we do not observe
here any consistent “Asian” regional pattern.

4. The work situation
Academics in advanced countries rate their facilities for academic work (e.g.
classrooms, office space, research equipment, etc.) on average more positively
than academics in emerging countries. Surprisingly, though, academics atuniversities do not rate their work environment more positively than academics
at other institutions of higher education. Table 6, first, shows that academics atuniversities in China have slightly more positive views of the facilities foracademic work than the average of their peers in emerging countries. Table 6
also shows that academics at other institutions of higher education both, in Japanand Korea, rate their facilities quite negatively.
Table 6. Academics’ mean* assessment of eight dimensions/aspects** of theirwork facilities in Asian vs. other countries
Asian countries

Other countries

Institution

Rank

Universities

Seniors

2.8

2.9

2.2

2.7

2.7

2.6 (2.3-2.9)

2.9 (2.7-3.1)

Universities

Juniors

2.7

2.8

2.4

2.6

2.6

2.6 (2.2-3.0)

3.0 (2.8-3.5)

Other HEIs

Seniors

2.9

2.6

.

2.9

3.3

2.5 (2.3-2.7)

2.8 (2.5-3.0)

Other HEIs

Juniors

2.9

2.9

.

3.1

3.3

2.6 (2.3-2.9)

2.7 (2.5-2.9)

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging* Scale from 1 = Excellent to 5 = Poor** Classrooms, technology for teaching, laboratories, research equipment and instruments,
computer facilities, library facilities and services, office space, telecommunications
Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)In response to the question how many hours they work per week – the data
presented in Table 7 are weighed on the basis of estimates both for during theacademic term and when classes are not in session – Korean professors fromboth types of higher education institutions report the highest numbers of working
hours, and Korean junior staff seem to work more on average than their peers

86

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?

from other countries. Also academics from Hong Kong and Japan belong tothose with relatively high numbers of working hours. In contrast the mean
working time of academics in China and Malaysia is only moderately above theaverage of emerging countries and below the average of advanced countries.
Table 7. Academics’ average weekly working hours in Asian vs. othercountries*
Asian countries

Other countries

Institution

Rank

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging

Universities

Seniors

42

43

53

52

48

47 (41-54)

39 (33-43)

Universities

Juniors

38

37

46

56

45

42 (33-49)

38 (29-46)

Other HEIs

Seniors

38

37

.

49

48

42 (38-50)

34 (34-34)

Other HEIs

Juniors

35

36

.

53

45

37 (32-45)

33 (**)* Based on weighed responses: 60 percent for hours when classes are in session and 40
percent when classes are not in session** Information available only for a single country
Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

Table 8. Average percentage of work-time spent on teaching, research andother functions by academics in Asian countries
Institution

Rank

Universities

Seniors

Asian countries

Other countries

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging

Teaching

38

31

26

25

30

30 (23-35)

40 (33-46)

Research

43

28

39

46

44

39 (34-46)

35 (27-42)

Other

19

41

35

29

26

31 (22-37)

25 (25-27)

Universities
Juniors
Teaching

41

43

40

24

18

30 (21-41)

41 (35-44)

Research

35

24

36

51

42

45 (33-65)

34 (26-43)

Other

26

33

24

25

40

25 (14-31)

25 (22-31)

Other HEIs
Seniors
Teaching

46

46

.

31

34

37 (26-51)

55 (*)

Research

27

28

.

42

40

31 (23-40)

23 (*)

Other

27

26

.

27

26

32 (24-38)

22 (*)

Teaching

44

44

.

39

28

40 (12-57)

46 (*)

Research

31

18

.

40

38

34 (21-69)

21 (*)

Other

25

38

.

21

34

26 (19-39)

33 (*)

Other HEIs

Juniors* Information available only for a single country
Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)Ester Ava Höhle & Ulrich Teichler

87

Table 8 shows that the proportion of work time spent on research on
average is higher in advanced countries than in emerging countries. But evenin comparison to other advanced countries, academics notably in Korea and alsoin Japan stand out with an especially high share of working time spent on
research; this even holds true for academics at other higher education institutionsin these two countries.
There are striking differences in the time spent on other activities (e.g.
services and administration). University professors and junior staff from otherinstitutions of higher education in Malaysia as well as junior academic staff fromuniversities in Japan report especially large amounts of time spent in service andadministration?.
Table 9. Preferences for teaching and research by academics in Asian vs. othercountries (percentage of respondents)
Institution

Asian countries

Rank
CH

Universities

MY

HK

KR

Other countries
JP

Advanced

Emerging

Seniors

Primarily in teaching

9

5

3

2

3

5 (1-13)

11 (3-14)

In both, leaning to teaching

41

39

22

23

13

23 (12-36)

36 (31-42)

In both, leaning to research

44

49

65

61

63

54 (40-67)

45 (37-53)

Primarily in research

5

6

10

14

22

18 (10-38)

8 (3-12)

Universities

Juniors

Primarily in teaching

12

7

14

0

4

9 (2-33)

11 (5-18)

In both, leaning to teaching

43

52

31

17

13

23 (12-41)

36 (33-39)

In both, leaning to research

40

39

41

75

64

43 (34-60)

45 (38-51)

Primarily in research

5

2

13

8

19

25 (6-42)

8 (5-11)

Other HEIs

Seniors

Primarily in teaching

19

2

.

4

6

20 (3-42)

13 (0-26)

In both, leaning to teaching

58

47

.

23

26

33 (16-49)

40 (33-48)

In both, leaning to research

22

48

.

59

55

36 (16-58)

23 (2-62)

Primarily in research

1

2

.

6

12

11 (0-26)

25 (4-67)

Primarily in teaching

19

14

.

3

8

20 (5-49)

11 (0-21)

In both, leaning to teaching

47

42

.

28

24

27 (8-44)

65 (44-100)

In both, leaning to research

28

39

.

61

56

34 (11-51)

21 (0-32)

Primarily in research

6

4

.

8

12

19 (1-48)

3 (0-5)

Other HEIs

Juniors

Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

88

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?

Table 10. Commitment discipline, academic unit, and institution among
academics in Asian vs. other countries*
Institution

Asian countries

Rank

Other countries

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging

My academic field/discipline

1.7

1.2

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.5 (1.3-1.8)

1.4 (1.2-1.5)

My department

2.0

1.5

2.1

1.7

2.3

2.3 (2.0-2.6)

1.8 (1.6-2.0)

My institution

2.0

1.4

2.3

2.0

2.3

2.4 (1.8-2.9)

1.7 (1.4-2.3)

My academic field/discipline

1.8

1.3

1.6

1.5

1.7

1.5 (1.3-1.9)

1.4 (1.2-1.5)

My department

1.9

1.5

2.0

1.4

2.4

2.2 (1.8-2.6)

1.8 (1.6-2.0)

My institution

2.1

1.5

2.4

1.8

2.6

2.4 (2.1-2.8)

1.8 (1.3-2.4)

My academic field/discipline

1.8

1.3

.

1.7

1.5

1.6 (1.4-1.9)

1.3 (1.2-1.5)

My department

2.0

1.7

.

1.7

2.3

2.2 (1.7-2.6)

1.8 (1.4-2.0)

My institution

2.2

1.6

.

2.1

2.3

2.4 (1.9-2.9)

1.5 (1.3-1.8)

My academic field/discipline

1.8

1.4

.

1.7

1.6

1.7 (1.5-2.1)

1.2 (1.0-1.4)

My department

1.9

1.7

.

1.7

2.3

2.1 (1.8-2.4)

1.8 (1.4-2.0)

Universities

Universities

Other HEIs

Other HEIs

Seniors

Juniors

Seniors

Juniors

1.6 (1.3-2.0)
My institution* Mean of a scale of responses from 1 = Very important to 5 = Not at all important
Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)
2.1

1.8

.

2.1

2.4

2.4 (2.2-2.8)

5. Academic values
Two examples are presented here of the values of academics surveyed in the
study “The Changing Academic Profession”: their preferences as regards
teaching vs. research as well as their level of commitment or loyalty to theirdiscipline and to their institution – the latter at the level of their particular
academic subunit and the higher education institution as a whole.
With respect to preferences for teaching and research, Table 9 shows that
academics of all four categories both in Korea and Japan are among thoseleaning relatively heavily to research; the same holds true only for university
professors in Hong Kong. It should be noted, however, that the proportion of
those clearly putting a prime emphasis on research is not high in these countries,
but rather the proportion of those appreciating both, teaching and research, butleaning more strongly to research. In contrast, respondents from China andMalaysia lean more than average to teaching.

Ester Ava Höhle & Ulrich Teichler89

In response to a question about the importance of their discipline,
department and institution, academics from emerging countries express asomewhat higher commitment or loyalty to their discipline and additionally aclearly higher commitment to their department and their institution thanrespondents from advanced countries. Table 10 shows that academics in
Malaysia are among those with the strongest sense of commitment to theirdepartment and their institution. Also Korean academics have a stronger senseof affiliation to their department and their institutions than typical of academics
from advanced countries; they are in this respect more similar to the average ofacademics from emerging countries.

6. Select issues of teaching and research
The academics surveyed in the CAP study were asked whether they wereinvolved in various types of teaching activities: not only in classroom lecturing,
but also in individualized instruction, practice instruction, distance education,
electronic communication, etc., and whether they played a role in curriculum
development and the development of course material. Table 11 shows theaverage number of teaching-related activities beyond classroom instruction
among nine listed in which academics reported involvement. Obviously,
academics from China and Japan report being among the least involved in varied
teaching activities. In both countries, junior academic staff are less involved invarious non-classroom teaching activities than senior academic staff – aphenomenon holding true also for countries where involvement in varied
non-classroom teaching activities is more widespread than in China and Japan.
The research orientations of academics in the Asian countries are extremely
diverse. At one end, university professors in Japan describe themselves on
average as more strongly oriented to basic research than professors in almost allother countries. Conversely, they describe themselves as less relevanceoriented than professors in almost all other countries − whether that be in termsof emphasis on application and practice, commercial and technology transfer
orientation or orientation towards social improvement and betterment of society.
It should be added here that junior staff at Japanese research-oriented
universities are more similar to the staff at other higher education institutions inJapan in putting less emphasis on basic research. However, they consider
themselves as relevance oriented to the same extent as professors of
research-oriented universities.

90

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?

Table 11. Average number of non-classroom teaching activities reported byacademics in Asian vs. other countries
Institution

Asian countries

Rank
CH

MY

HK

Other countries

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging

Universities

Seniors

3.9

5.9

5.7

4.5

3.8

5.3 (3.6-6.2)

5.3 (5.1-5.8)

Universities

Juniors

3.3

5.9

5.0

3.8

2.7

4.8 (2.5-5.8)

4.9 (3.7-5.9)

Other HEIs

Seniors

3.8

5.3

.

4.3

3.9

5.6 (4.3-6.5)

5.2 (4.8-5.9)

Other HEIs

Juniors

3.4

5.7

.

4.5

3.4

5.2 (3.3-6.4)

4.3 (1.0-6.2)

Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

Table 12. Importance attributed by academic to various research orientationsin Asian vs. other countries*
Institution

Asian countries

Rank

Other countries

CH

MY

HK

KR

JP

Advanced

Basically/theoretically oriented

1.8

2.3

2.4

2.2

1.9

2.4 (2.1-2.8) 2.5 (2.4-2.8)

Applied/practically oriented

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.0

2.5

2.3 (2.0-2.5) 2.2 (2.1-2.4)

Commercially/transfer oriented

2.6

3.0

2.3

3.5

4.0

4.0 (3.8-4.3) 3.9 (3.7-4.1)

Socially/improvement oriented

2.2

2.3

2.3

3.5

3.4

3.0 (2.5-3.5) 2.6 (2.3-2.7)

Basically/theoretically oriented

2.0

2.1

2.4

2.1

2.4

2.5 (2.3-2.8) 2.6 (2.5-2.8)

Applied/practically oriented

1.7

2.1

2.3

2.2

2.4

2.3 (2.0-2.5) 2.4 (1.9-2.7)

Commercially/transfer oriented

2.5

3.0

4.2

3.6

4.0

3.9 (3.8-4.2) 4.1 (3.7-4.4)

Socially/improvement oriented

2.3

2.3

2.8

3.6

3.3

3.0 (2.7-3.6) 2.7 (2.2-3.1)

Basically/theoretically oriented

1.7

2.5

.

2.4

2.4

2.9 (1.3-1.8) 2.7 (2.4-3.0)

Applied/practically oriented

1.9

1.8

.

2.3

2.3

1.9 (1.5-2.3) 1.9 (1.5-2.1)

Commercially/transfer oriented

2.9

3.6

.

3.6

3.9

3.7 (2.5-4.4) 3.4 (2.5-3.9)

Socially/improvement oriented

2.1

2.9

.

2.9

3.3

3.0 (2.1-4.0) 2.0 (1.3-2.5)

Basically/theoretically oriented

2.0

2.4

.

2.3

2.5

3.0 (2.3-3.8) 2.7 (2.5-3.0)

Applied/practically oriented

1.8

2.0

.

2.1

2.2

2.0 (1.5-2.5) 2.0 (1.9-2.2)

Commercially/transfer oriented

2.6

3.0

.

3.7

4.1

3.6 (2.5-4.1) 2.9 (1.0-4.0)

Universities

Universities

Other HEIs

Other HEIs

Emerging

Seniors

Juniors

Seniors

Juniors

2.3
2.7
.
3.1
3.6
3.1 (2.3-3.8) 2.3 (2.0-2.5)
Socially/improvement oriented* Mean on a scale of responses from 1 = Very important to 5 = Not at all important
Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)Ester Ava Höhle & Ulrich Teichler

91

Professors at Korean universities emphasize application and practiceorientation more strongly than basic research and theoretical orientation,although they also put emphasis on the latter more strongly than the average forprofessors in the CAP study. Commercial and technology transfer-oriented
research is also more strongly emphasized in Korea than in the average of theother countries.
Altogether, junior staff at Korean research-oriented
universities describe themselves mostly the same as their senior colleagues.
Professors and junior staff at other higher education institutions put somewhat
less emphasis on basic research and theory, but they differ from their colleagues
at research universities to a lesser extent than is the case in most other countries.
Academics in Hong Kong are relatively close to the average on the majorityof dimensions. As regards commercial and technology transfer orientation, wenote a polarized situation. While junior staff at universities in Hong Kong areless oriented that way than their peers in almost all countries surveyed,
university professors in Hong Kong emphasize commercial and technology
transfer oriented research on average more strongly than professors of all othercountries surveyed.
Academics in Malaysia emphasize all four dimensions of researchorientation more strongly than the average for their outside peers. As one
might expect, academics at other higher education institutions are lesstheory-oriented and more application-oriented than their colleagues atuniversities, but this difference is smaller in Malaysia than for all the remaining
countries surveyed.
Finally, academics in China emphasize all these theory-oriented andrelevance-oriented dimensions more strongly than their colleagues in the othercountries surveyed. Thereby, we note on average hardly any difference by rank
and by the type of their higher education institution. The most striking
difference of academics in China from those of other countries is the relatively
strong commercial and technology transfer orientation; one has to add only that asimilarly strong commercial orientation is visible in non-university higher
education in a few other countries.
Table 13 presents an index of the number of publications. In almost all
countries, senior academics publish more than junior academics; also, as one
might expect, academics at universities publish more than academics at otherinstitutions of higher education. These findings are applicable as well for Asian
countries. As Table 13 shows, academics in Korea and Japan belong í
irrespective or rank and type of institution í to the three countries with thehighest numbers of publications. Academics in Hong Kong also publish more

92

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?

than the average. In contrast, academics in China and Malaysia publish lessthan the average for all countries included in the study í however more than theoverall average for emerging countries. One exception has to be noted:
Professors at other institutions of higher education in Malaysian average publish
very much.
Table 13. Publications by academics in Asian vs. other countries (Index*)
Institution

Asian countries

Rank
CH

MY

HK

KR

Other countries
JP

Advanced

Emerging

Universities

Seniors

34

36

46

61

50

39 (27-56)

23 (14-29)

Universities

Juniors

16

17

20

36

45

19 (12-29)

16 (12-18)

Other HEIs

Seniors

25

59

.

30

30

23 (8-42)

14 (11-17)

Other HEIs

Juniors

12

14

.

36

20

11 (7-16)

10 (8-13)* 3 points each for books published and edited, 2 points each for articles published in books
and academic journals as well as research reports, and 1 point each for papers at conferences
and publications in newspapers etc.
Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

7. Overall assessment of the professional situation
Academics in Korea most often and academics in Japan second most often
characterize their job as a “source of considerable personal strain” (See Table 14
below). Also Chinese academics report such personal strain more frequently
than average for all countries and most frequently on average among academics
from emerging countries. Academics in Hong Kong are less likely to perceive
such personal strain than the average, as are academics from Malaysia.
Responses to the question about overall job satisfaction by academics ofAsian countries vary substantially (Table 15). Academics in Korea, irrespectiveof rank and institutional type, express above-average satisfaction. Academics
at research universities in Japan are more satisfied than the average, but
academics at other institutions of higher education in Japan are less satisfied than
the average. Academics in Hong Kong are close to the average in this respect.
Among the two emerging countries in Asia, the ratings are strikingly
different: Academics at other institutions of higher education in Malaysia areamong the most satisfied and at universities in Malaysia the degree ofsatisfaction is slightly above average for the countries included in the CAP study.
In contrast, academics in China are among the least satisfied.

Ester Ava Höhle & Ulrich Teichler

93

Table 14. Percent academics in Asian vs. other countries stating “My job is asource of considerable personal strain.”
Institution

Asian countries

Rank
CH

MY

HK

Other countries

KR

JP

Advanced

Emerging

Universities

Seniors

59

23

39

64

61

44 (27-61)

28 (25-33)

Universities

Juniors

51

19

43

74

72

43 (35-56)

30 (3-88)

Other HEIs

Seniors

51

19

.

65

58

36 (30-45)

24 (21-28)

Other HEIs

Juniors

42

25

.

73

56

39 (27-56)

30 (20-39)

Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

Table 15. Overall job satisfaction of academics in Asian vs. other countries*
Institution

Asian countries

Rank
CH

MY

HK

KR

Other countries
JP

Advanced

Emerging

Universities

Seniors

2.5

2.1

2.2

1.9

2.1

2.2 (2.1-2.6)

2.2 (1.8-2.6)

Universities

Juniors

2.5

2.3

2.5

2.2

2.2

2.4 (2.1-2.8)

2.4 (1.9-2.7)

Other HEIs

Seniors

2.4

1.9

.

2.1

2.4

2.3 (2.2-2.4)

2.0 (1.8-2.3)

Other HEIs

Juniors

2.6

1.8

.

2.1

2.6

2.6 (2.3-2.9)

2.0 (1.8-2.3)* Mean on a scale from 1 = Very satisfied to 5 = Very dissatisfied
Source: CAP survey (May 2010 data set)

8. Concluding observations
The Changing Academic Profession study suggests that the situation ofsenior academics (full professors and associate professors in U.S. terms) in mostof the 18 countries addressed in the study differs strikingly from that of junioracademics. Professors, as compared to junior academic staff,
x are more often men,x are seldom employed on limited term contracts
x work more hours per week,
x are involved in a greater variety of teaching activities,
x publish more, andx are more highly satisfied with their job.
There are differences in most countries, as far as additional income isconcerned and the proportion of time spent on teaching and research, but in thesecases, directions of differences vary: In some countries, the additional income ofprofessors is relatively high; in others, it is that of junior academic staff that is
relatively high. In some countries junior academic staff is more strongly

94

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?

involved in teaching than professors, in other countries less strongly involved.
Moreover, there are many countries as well where junior academic staff are more
often employed part-time than senior staff. In only five of the 14 themes
addressed in this article were differences between senior academics and junioracademics small. In sum, we note that senior academics differ from junioracademics mostly in dimensions linked to career, but hardly in terms ofacademic values.
In some respects, the comparison between junior and senior academics inAsian countries elicits a different result from the typical pattern across all
countries:x In two Asian countries – Korea and Japan – the proportion of womenamong academics is almost equally low in junior ranks as in senior ranks,
while otherwise women are more fully represented in junior ranks.
x Part-time employment is low among junior as well as senior academic staff
in most Asian countries, while it is higher among junior than among senioracademic staff in many other countries.
x There are more often differences in the preferences for teaching andresearch by rank in Asian countries than on average: In Malaysia and Hong
Kong, junior staff lean more strongly to teaching than the senior staff, while
the opposite is true for academics at Korean universities.
The CAP study suggests as well that differences between academics at(research-oriented) universities and other institutions of higher education are
substantial in various respects. Academics at universities, as compared to theircolleagues at other institutions of higher education,
x work more hours per week,
x spend a higher proportion of their work time on research,x have a stronger leaning towards research in their general preferences,x emphasize theory and basic research more strongly and applied researchless strongly,
x publish more, andx consider their job more often as a source of personal strain.
Altogether, the differences are directly or indirectly linked to the researchfunction. In contrast, differences as regards employment and career seem to berelatively small.
Academics from Asian countries do not differ on average from this pattern.

Ester Ava Höhle & Ulrich Teichler

95

There are only a few differences in the case of individual countries: Academics
at other institutions of higher education in Japan work on average as many hours
as their colleagues at universities. Academics from other institutions of higher
education in Malaysia lean as much towards research as their colleagues atuniversities; moreover, they publish even more than their colleagues atuniversities. Academics in China from both types of higher education
institutions are similar on average in their appreciation of theory and applicationin research. Finally, academics in both types of higher education institutions in
China are equally likely to consider their job as a source of considerable personalstrain.
In the search for common elements of the academic profession in Asian
countries, we note only a single theme among the 14 countries addressed in thisanalysis: Academics in the five Asian societies analysed are rarely employed
part-time; this holds true both for senior and junior academics.
If at all, we note substantial similarities of the academic profession in two
Asian countries surveyed: the academics in Japan and Korea differ in somerespects from most other countries (i.e. not only from other Asian countries):
x There are few women among them;x they work many hours weekly;
x they spend a relatively high proportion of their working time on research;x they publish a great deal, andx they often consider their job as a source of personal strain.
Altogether, both, Japanese and Korean scholars view themselves as
long-suffering, hard-working men strongly devoted to research.
In contrast, we note hardly any similarity between Korean and Chinese or
Japanese and Chinese academics. One exception is noteworthy: both Chineseand Japanese academics are not involved in a wide variety of teachingapproaches, but rather seem to adhere more than others to a classic lecturing
approach.
Altogether, there are often differences between China and Malaysia on the
one hand and Korea and Japan on the other hand which reflect differences
between the economically advanced countries and emerging countries ingeneral: Academics in emerging countries both in Asia and elsewhere, incomparison to their colleagues in advanced countries,x assess their facilities less positively,
x spend fewer weekly hours on academic work,

96

Is There an Asian Academic Profession?

x spend a higher proportion of their work time on teaching,x have a stronger preference for teaching,x are more relevance oriented in their research approaches, andx publish less.
Hong Kong is in some instances more similar to economically advanced
countries, and in a few instances similar to emerging countries. In someinstances, Hong Kong does not resemble any of these groups, for example in thevery positive assessment of facilities and in the broad scope of varied teachingactivities in which they engage. In Hong Kong, we note in many respects a
divide between the professors at universities who seem to be quite similar to
those in advanced countries, and the junior academic staff. Altogether, there ishardly any similarity in the responses of academics from Hong Kong and thosefrom Mainland China.
Academics in Malaysia are more similar to other emerging countries insome respects than academics in China: Academics in Malaysia more often
report additional income, they consider their job less often as a source of
personal strain, and those from other higher education institutions are more often
satisfied with their job than their colleagues from economically advanced
countries. In turn: academics in China differ from their colleagues in otheremerging countries strikingly in having hardly any additional income, inconsidering their job often as a source of personal strain and as being lesssatisfied overall with their job. Finally, it is worth mentioning that academics
from China show a strong devotion to all the orientations to research addressed
here: to theory, application, to commercially orientated research and researchintended to contribute to the betterment of society.
In sum, we can observe noteworthy similarities between junior academic
staff as compared to senior academic staff, between academics at
research-oriented universities as compared to academics at other higher
education institutions as well as academics in economically advanced ascompared to academics in emerging societies in various respects. Compared tothese patterns of similarity hardly any similarity can be observed across all Asian
countries as compared to other regions of the world. Obviously, there is no
Asian academic profession. If at all, academics in Korea and Japan are similar
in some respects as compared to those in other economically advanced countries
and to those in other Asian countries as well.

97

Presentations

98

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 201197

The Same Term but Different Connotations: Culturaland historical perspectives on studying the academic
profession in Asia

Fengqiao Yan

I. Perspectives on the study of academic profession in Asia
The academic profession has been a classic topic in higher education
research. Many scholars have explored this topic, and relevant knowledge has
been accumulated. In major encyclopedias and handbooks, the academic
profession has been a topic (Enders, 2006; Rhoades, 2007). A survey ofacademic profession in the United States was sponsored by Carnegie Council on
Policy Studies in Higher Education in 1969. Since then, two international
surveys have been conducted worldwide. One, undertaken by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was in 1992, involving fourteen
countries. The other was in 2007, involving eighteen countries. The study ofacademic profession has mainly focused on developed countries. This point
can be illustrated by the bibliography listed in the book The Changing Academic
Workplace: Comparative Perspectives edited by Philip G. Altbach (2000). In
the 1992 survey, all fourteen countries were either middle-income or
high-income countries. In Asia, Japan, S.Korea and Hong Kong participated in
the project (Altbach, 1996). Another study led by Philip G. Altbach (2002)
focused on the academic profession in developing countries. In The Decline of
the Guru, Altbach highlighted the gap between developed countries anddeveloping countries and identified the special challenges that the academic
profession faced in developing countries. The problems and challenges are real
Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking University, China, e-mail:fqyan@gse.pku.edu.cn

98

The Same Term but Different Connotations

and formidable, if not surprising. Nevertheless, the potential value of studying
the academic profession in developing countries is not fully realized if we justfocus on problems and difficulties. There are “upsides” as well. For example,
the academic profession is highly respected in developing countries, and it canwork effectively even in the deteriorating conditions.
In the survey conducted in 2007, five of the eighteen participating countries
were in Asia. In addition to Japan, S.Korea and Hong Kong which also
participated in the previous survey, Malaysia and the People’s Republic of China(Mainland) were new participants. For purposes of comparison, almost
identical questionnaires was employed across all countries, and about 24,000
questionnaires have been collected.
Between 2005 and 2009, a few
conferences were organized, and publications were made available from thestudy.1234
From the survey in 1969 to the surveys in 1992 and 2007, a pattern has
emerged for the study of academic profession. It has both strengths andweaknesses.
The proposed new project is entitled The Changing Academic Profession in
Asia, headed by Hiroshima University and involves several countries in the Asia
region. It is the first research initiative focused on the academic profession in
Asian countries. At the moment, it is useful to think about the value of thisnew study. If the research strategy remains the same as before, the same
instrument is employed or adjusted a little bit, with the only change being a new
sample of countries and institutions, the potential value of the study cannot be
fully achieved. But if we can place the study squarely within the political,
economic, social, cultural and historical contexts of Asian countries, then adistinctively Asian perspective can be developed, and cross-cultural implications
can be explored and underscored. Moreover, such a study can be expected toshed light on academic profession worldwide. There is no doubt that the newresearch strategy can be optimized only by creating an Asian perspective andimplementing it effectively.
1

Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality, Relevance, andGovernance in the Changing Academia: International Perspective, 2006, Research Institutefor Higher Education, Hiroshima University.
2
Maurice Kogan & Ulrich Teichler (2007) (Eds.) Key Challenges to the Academic Profession,
Paris: UNESCO Forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge.
3
The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives: Report of International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession
Project, 2008, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University.
4
European Review, 2010, vol. 18, supplement no.1.

Fengqiao Yan

99

II. Thinking outside the Western box
As an institutionalized field of study, higher education research emerged in
China in late 1970s and early of 1980s. Since then, university faculty or theacademic profession has been an object for higher education research. The
specific topics are wide in scope and vary from time to time. They include
social roles, turnover, structural profiles (academic degrees, ranks and titles,
specialties, gender, ethnic, and age etc.), workload and performance, teachingquality, student-faculty relationships, research publications, salary, satisfaction,
appointment terms and working conditions. However, these studies have been
conducted without referring to relevant literatures and theories in the social
sciences, such as sociology of the professions. Few studies are based onlarge-scale surveys. Consequently, no systematic comparison can be madebetween China and other countries (Zhang & Shen, 2007).
Mainland China first participated in the international survey of theacademic profession in 2007. Professor Hong Shen from Huazhong Universityof Science and Technology conducted the survey and made related analyses.
Her first paper deals with the academic profession’s profile (Shen, 2006), and thesecond paper deals with doctoral education, which supplies candidates to theacademic profession (Shen, 2007a). Afterwards, Shen and her students (Shen,
2007b; Gu, 2010) published a few papers and books either quantitative or
qualitative.
I also participated in the 2008 Hiroshima CAP conference and a 2009 Turinconference, sponsored by Academia Europaea. My first paper (Yan & Chen,
2008) for the Hiroshima conference deals with the educational backgrounds andcareer paths of faculty in higher education institutions in the municipality ofBeijing. I employed a specific concept in organizational sociology – danwei –and tried to make the data-analysis theoretically meaningful. My second paper(Yan, 2010) for the Turin conference placed the academic profession into thecontext of the government, organization and market “triangle” and tried to depict
institutional constraints and dynamics5.
Based on my observation of the literature review, I have the following
comments on previous studies
Firstly, I am concerned about theory building – or its absence. Previous
5

The author borrowed the “Triangle” idea from Burton Clark’s work (Clark, 1983) The
triangle framework put the academic profession at the core surrounded by a triangle consistingof government, organizations and markets. This means that the academic profession can only
be studied explicitly by being related to government, university organization and the market.

100 The Same Term but Different Connotations

investigators paid much attention to data collection and analyses of questionnaire
responses, but not enough attention to theoretical interpretation and theory
building. So far, the study of the academic profession has been insulated within
the narrow confines of higher education research. No serious efforts have been
made to learn from, and apply, theories in the social sciences, such as
modernization theory, social capital theory, institutional theory, theory of theprofessions etc. Only a few exceptions can be found, such as the analyticalquadrant defined by the dimensions of particularism-universalism, andascription-achievement proposed by Professor Akira Arimoto (2008). He put
Japan and US into the quadrant for traditional/modern comparison. I shall talkabout it in more detail in the following section. Furthermore, intellectuals havelong been a topic for study in both China and other countries. Historians andsociologists have studied the role and significance of this social group andpublished many interesting findings. But little reference to this literature on
intellectuals has been made in the study of the academic profession.
Secondly, I am concerned about the methodology employed in previous
studies. An assumption is made in a survey that each individual academic is anindependent actor. Therefore, information is collected from each individual
about his or her attitude and behavior. No interactions among individuals or
beyond-individual-level analyses are taken into account. Due to employing
identical survey instrument, particularities in social context are ignored to a large
extent. Concrete behaviors and differences were carefully analyzed, but
institutional and social factors were left behind. This strategy might be
implicitly appropriate for Western countries which share similar academic
institutions, but explicitly inappropriate for developing countries which are
distinct from the Western countries in many respects. Under the circumstances,institutional contexts are prerequisite for interpreting individual behavior
differences. Furthermore, all analyses concern the current situation, andhistorical analyses are largely forgotten.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the representativeness of the sample. Large
higher education systems are complex and fragmented along divides such as
public/private, research/teaching/vocational, national/local higher education
institutions. The academic profession in a complex system shows wide
differences among institutions of different types and localities and within thesame institution among those in difference disciplines. If the sample size is not
big enough and not randomly selected, findings based on the sample cannot be
generalized to the country level.
In sociological terms, the academic profession is embedded in particularFengqiao Yan 101

social and historical contexts. In order to capture the characteristics of theacademic profession, it is necessary to understand the contexts first. Without
knowledge about the contexts, it is hard to interpret the data. This isparticularly true for Mainland China, a very diverse and dynamic society.

III. Special features of Asian societies and their higher education
systems
Just as Europe is not only a geographic, but also a cultural, concept, so, too,
Asia has both geographic and cultural connotations. In order to study theacademic profession in Asia, it is necessary to put it into the contexts of higher
education systems and societies. Asia is the continent with the largest land area,
population and most diverse culture. There existed three different cultures inancient Asia: Arabic or Islamic culture in West Asia, Indian religion andBuddhist religion in South Asia, and Confucian culture in East Asia (He, 2010).
Prior to the 16th century, the culture of East Asia led the world. After the 16th
century, the center-periphery pattern was reversed due to the progress of Western
civilization. In 1492, a new American continent was discovered. The
Scientific Revolution started in Britain in the 17th century, followed by theIndustrial Revolution and the Enlightenment in the 18th century. These events
put Europe at the center of the world. Western Civilization spread out
worldwide through colonization and broad dissemination of the Western canon.
Consequently, Asian cultures were under attack by Western culture.
Modernization is an ongoing process, composed of material and technology,
institutions and culture. Modernization has a positive impact on humandevelopment. However, some problems accompany modernization, such asdeterioration of natural and ecological environments, colonization, misuse ofscientific and technological inventions, ideological differences and cold war,
conflict between cultures, and so forth. In essence, instrumental rationality isoveremphasized, and value rationality is underemphasized. Most Asian
countries are undergoing modernization. Can Asian countries avoid the
problems of Western-style modernization? Can they maintain and even prosper
within their traditional cultures? These are questions that Asian countries haveto address. Efforts to explore the question can contribute to the general theoryof modernization.
All cultures have experienced a great number of evolutions. Their value
systems persist. Western culture, Hebrew culture, Islamic culture, Indianculture and Chinese culture all underwent successfully the test of modernization

102 The Same Term but Different Connotations(Yu, 1987). All civilizations cannot only coexist peacefully, but can also be
integrated and cross-fertilized. This is quite conducive to the prosperity ofhuman beings. Historically, the Christian religion benefited from Greek
philosophy, and Confucian culture benefited from Buddhism. We hope that
Asia can, again, contribute to the civilization of the world. In the 1990s, former
Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew and former Prime Minister of
Malaysia Datuk Seri Mahathir Bin Mohamad proposed the key elements of“Asian” value. In their words, Asian people value collectivity, social harmony,family ties, respect for authority, and emphasize discipline and social order (Li,2010).
Is East Asian culture a facilitator or an obstacle to East Asian economic
development? Different assessments have been advanced from different
theoretical schools and at different times. In 1980s, while the economies ofJapan and the “Four Small Dragons” (Singapore, S.Korea, Hong Kong andTaiwan) grew rapidly, their dynamism was attributed to East Asian culture. But
when the financial crisis occurred in East Asia in 1997, its culture was blamed(Ruan, 2010). In China, there are two competing schools which interpret theeconomic progress of East Asia differently. The first school is market successor comparative advantage in the market system, which interprets Asian economic
success as the result of its comparative advantage in labor supply and costs.
The second school is the new-leftist, and attributes Asian economic success to“planning rationality” by the governments (Zheng, 2004).
By the same principle, there are two competing theories of modernization.
The first theory assumes that modernization will lead the world to congruence,with the United States as the prototype that the world can follow. The second
theory assumes that the world will maintain its heterogeneity, and there will bevarious paths to modernization (Tu, 2004). Cultural diversity is thought as aprerequisite for world prosperity (Hayhoe, 2003). King (2002, p.232) pointed
out that globalization had arisen in the West to rediscover the particularity,
locality and difference, and review modernity. If we only look at the 20th
century, we might conclude that the theory of congruency is supported. But if
we consider the long history of human development, we cannot deny that
Eastern Civilization has made great contributions to the whole world. To namea few, India contributed to mathematics, Arabs played a crucial role in theinheritance of Greek civilization, and China made “Four Great Inventions” –papermaking, the compass, gunpowder, and movable type printing – that have
had great impact on the world’s civilization. In prospect, it is estimated that thebiggest threat to the world in the 21st century is not economic and political but

Fengqiao Yan 103

cultural, e.g. the potential conflict between Christianity and Islam. Therefore,
mutual respect and dialogue between cultures are quite necessary.
Almost every country has its own history of scholarship. However, themodern higher education system is a new worldwide phenomenon. It
originated in Europe in the Middle Ages, and no country had maintained its own
higher education system prior to that epoch (Altbach & Umakoshi, Eds., 2004).
The formation of the academic profession resulted from modernization. No
doubt, differences exist in the academic profession between West and East.
Will the differences disappear or persist? As congruent or diverse arguments
for modernization, one model or multiple models are arguably hypothesized formodernization of the academic profession. Asian countries have to face thedilemma that they have found it necessary to borrow Western theories tointerpret indigenous practices. Under the circumstances, this can lead toidiosyncratic interpretation of indigenous innovation and ignore universal
implications of indigenous practices, and even evaluate indigenous practices byWestern theories, for example, the unidentified property right promoted thedevelopment of village and township enterprises in Asia. This is difficult to
explain by the Western theory of property rights.
I advocate that an Asian perspective should be developed for the study of
the “Asian” academic profession. In doing so, particularities should firstly beobserved and studied by comparing the Asian countries with the rest; secondly,
these particularities should not be dismissed casually, and efforts should be madeto interpret them; finally, new theory might be developed by developing
analytical models. Of course, a concrete Asian perspective cannot be
developed promptly and easily. But from my point of view, the Asian
perspective should take at least modernization and culture into consideration.

IV. Different interpretations of China’s economic success
In ancient China, the concept of nation-state did not exist. Instead, theconcept of heaven circumscribed the boundary of Confucian culture, whichspanned several countries in East Asia, including Vietnam and S.Korea. The
name of China means the center of the world. Thus, China has a long historyof self-confidence in its cultural superiority. This situation was altered in the
16th century when powerful Western culture brought by missionaries met with
Chinese culture. In the middle of 19th century, Chinese culture lost its
superiority to Western culture in the Opium War.
Prior to 1978, when China adopted its reforms and “opening up” policy, she104 The Same Term but Different Connotations

had gone through five modernization movements. They are the Westernization
Movement, Constitution Reform and Modernization, the Revolution of 1911, the
New Culture Movement, and the Cultural Revolution respectively (King, 2010,
pp.36-38). Similar to modernization in other nations, China’s modernization
has included the following transformations: from agricultural economy toindustrial economy, from community to society, from ascription to achievement6(King, 2010, pp.61-62).
Culture is an ideal-type abstraction of the general characteristics of aparticular country. It is also a historical construct, closely related to the
tradition and evolving into the future. Cultural comparisons have been drawn
between the US and China as follows (King, 2010, p.103): US culture is definedby capitalism, core or “nuclear” family, individualism, right (vs. obligation or
responsibility) orientation, democratic political system, emphasis on science andtechnology; China’s culture, by contrast, is defined by an agricultural economy,
familism, an obligation orientation, ancestor worship, the art of human relations.
In brief, fundamental characteristics of Chinese culture are art and ethics, andthose of Western culture are philosophy and science (King, 2010, p.120).
China has entered a new epoch since 1978. It reformed her economic,
political and social systems in a systematic way and made great progress inmodernization. The success allowed the Chinese to recapture their cultural
self-confidence. Nowadays, the Chinese model and Chinese experience havebecome buzz words (Zheng, 2010; Pan & Ma, Eds., 2010; Ding, 2011). To
what can one attribute China’s economic success? Two competing theories areavailable (Chen, 2010; Zheng, 2004). Neo-classic economists attribute it to theadoption of the free market system. Further development is suggested todeepen reform and establish an even freer market and legal system. By contrast,
new leftists attribute it to Mao’s legacy. A strong and centralized government
has helped China to achieve rapid growth and overcome financial crises
effectively. How should China deal with international trade rules? The newleftists argue that existing rules are created by Western nations, and they do notnecessarily accrue to China’s benefit. On the contrary, neo-classic economists
argue that China must abide by international and universal rules for its wellbeing(Zheng, 2004, p.182).
In sum, China’s modernization shares some similarities with other countries
6“Community” refers to simple ties in villages, and “society” refers to complex ties in cities.
“Ascription” refers to status related to family backgrounds, and “achievement” refers topersonal education, skills, efforts and productivity.

Fengqiao Yan 105

but has its own particularities. If we can study these phenomena objectively
and try to interpret them theoretically, we can expect to make contributions toboth practice and theory.

V. Characteristics of China’s academic system and academic
profession
Universities are more influenced by history than other type of organization(Altbach & Umakoshi, Eds., 2004). Thus, Chinese universities will inherit its
tradition, learn from international experiences and integrate them with local
practices. Particularities in China’s academic system and academic profession
cannot be well identified without historical accounts. In the forthcoming booktitled Portraits of 21st Century Chinese Universities: On the Move to Mass
Higher Education, Professor Ruth Hayhoe and coauthors summarized someparticularities of Chinese higher education. They pointed out that Chinese
higher education is not simply the transplantation of a Western system, but isactually an integration of the Western system with Chinese culture. The
cultural core is the key to interpret Chinese particularities. I believe that this isalso a good proposition for the study of the academic profession in China. In
Hayhoe’s (2000) other book China’s Universities: 1895-1995, she demonstrated
from historical and cultural perspectives that Chinese higher education differsfrom its Western counterpart in both formality and content: it valorizes
integration of knowledge and practice, no division between scholar andgovernment official, epistemology on the basis of practice, and a wholistic viewof knowledge.
“Shi Da Fu” is the term for a special social class in ancient China, who had
both scholar and government official statuses. It has no exact counterpart inEnglish-speaking countries. But its close English translation is scholar-official㧘
scholar-bureaucrat㧘or literati and officialdom. In Western societies, scholar
and official are separated from each other and categorized into different social
statuses. Therefore, “Shi Da Fu” is a special phenomenon in ancient China(Yan, 2005).
There are many literatures that compare Chinese scholars with Western
scholars. Two types of scholars can be identified in the West: those whointerpret the world, and those who change the world. The former was typical inAncient times, and the latter is a more recent phenomenon. We can observe thehistorical legacy in the contemporary West. By contrast, ancient Chinese
scholars were characterized with inward transcendence of Dao (doctrine) (Yu,106 The Same Term but Different Connotations

2005). The purpose of scholarship was human or ethical in ancient China, andit was for the sake of knowledge per se in the West (King, 2010, p.125). The
spiritual orientation of Chinese culture prioritized ethics over knowledge (Xu,
2005). Traditionally, Chinese intellectuals took human spirituality (ethics,
human relationship) as the core value, but did not have religious beliefs in God
and scientific spiritualities (logical speculation on the principles governing the“objective” world) (Qian, 2005).
The above descriptions are of ancient China.
Has the tradition
disappeared in the course of modernization? Or has it persisted in an apparent
or hidden form? How is Chinese tradition integrated with Western influenceand how do they jointly shape the current academic profession in China?
Addressing these questions can add value to the study of the academic
profession in China. In recent decades, little originality has been demonstrated
in the study of Chinese social phenomena. In most cases, theories are borrowed
from the West for the interpretation of Chinese phenomena. But as early as the
1920s and 1930s, a Chinese school of sociology was created by Chinese scholars,
whose experience shed light on today’s study. Chinese sociologist Wu
Wenzhao and his colleagues undertook in-depth field work and tested Westernsociological theories empirically against Chinese data. By doing so, they
contributed to sociological theory (Li, 2008). Fei Xiaotong is another past
Chinese sociologist who contributed to sociology as a discipline. In his book
Earthbound China, (Fei, 1998) compared Chinese society with Western societies
and identified some intriguing comparisons. For example, traditional China is a
non litigation oriented society; by contrast, the West is a legally-oriented society.
Traditional China is a society emphasizing status; by contrast, the West is asociety emphasizing legal contracts. In his later work, he reiterated theimportance of cultural self-consciousness.

VI. Some considerations for the study of academic profession in
China
The modernization of Chinese higher education began in the late 19th
century. In 1905, China abolished its Imperial Examination System (Keju7) and
Academy (Shuyuan8) system, and adopted a school system from the West. As a
7

Keju is an examination system by which feudal imperials chose government officials
between the year 605 to 1905.
8
Shuyuan is a non-governmental academy which existed from the Tang Dynasty to the late
Qing Dynasty and became full-fledged in the Song Dynasty.

Fengqiao Yan 107

result, the social foundation for “Shi Da Fu” collapsed, and the academic
profession in the modern sense emerged. Between 1949 and 1978 especiallyfrom 1966 to 1976, traditional Chinese culture was completely forsaken, andpolitical intervention exerted a powerful impact on the academic profession. At
that time, the social status of the academic profession was inferior to the working
class. Political correctness was more emphasized than professional competency.
In 1952, China adopted the former Soviet Union’s higher education model, andthe academic profession became overspecialized and practically-oriented.
Since 1978, China has gradually adopted a market system. Market forces
penetrate the academic profession í for better or worse. Beginning at the endof the last century, two remarkable trends have appeared in China’s higher
education. The first one is expansion and massification of higher education, atrend which will continue in the coming decades. The second one is theworld-class university project (985 and 211 Projects). These two changes arebasic contexts for the study of academic profession in China. These factors
will shape the academic profession in both quantity and quality.
In the past decade, China’s higher education and its academic profession
have made great changes. But higher education is more difficult to evaluate
than the economy. My personal observation is that foreign scholars tend toevaluate Chinese higher education more positively, but Chinese scholars tend toevaluate it more negatively. As mentioned before, we need to develop a
distinctively Chinese perspective for the study of the Chinese academic
profession. This perspective needs to take modernization and Chinese culture
into account.
Based on modernization theory, I propose the following propositions or
hypotheses for the study of the academic profession in Asia.
1. In his paper, Professor Arimoto (2008) proposed the following quadrants
defined by two dimensions: particularism-universalism, on the one hand, andascription-achievement, on the other. This is a useful tool that we can employ
for empirical study. We can test whether and the extent to which the Chinese
academic profession has moved from tradition to modernization. What are thecharacteristics of the transition process and why? How does Guanxi9 (relation)
culture influence the academic profession’s modernization?
What aresimilarities and differences between Chinese Guanxi and social capital theory?

9

Guanxi refers to an informal tie in Chinese social contexts.

108 The Same Term but Different Connotations

Achievement

Particularism

Universalism

Ascription

Source: Arimoto (2008), p.16

Figure1. The shift from ascription to achievement, and from particularism touniversalism characterizing modernization

2. Modernization has three components: materials and technology,
institutions, and culture. When a country moves from its traditional stage to its
modern stage, comparatively speaking, materials and technology are most easily
advanced, culture is most difficult to advance and institutions are in between.
Consequently, the phenomenon of cultural lag can be seen (King, 2010).
Because the Chinese academic profession is going through modernization, thereis assumed to be a cultural lag. Corruption is a typical example of cultural lag.
What specific hypotheses can we propose?
3. While a country is moving from its traditional stage to a modern stage,
three phenomena will inevitably occur: heterogeneity, formalism, andoverlapping (King, 2010, pp.71-75). Heterogeneity implies that multiple typesof academic profession coexist, and disparities are wide-ranging and apparent.
Formalism implies that norms are evolving, and existing rules cannot be easily
enforced. Overlapping implies that there is no a clear-cut division between
administration and academic work. We can find many phenomena that areconsistent with these hypotheses, such as huge disparities in salary, academic
misconduct, bureaucratization of academic work etc. Specific empiricalhypotheses can be developed for the study of academic profession in China.
For testing the hypotheses, surveys should be combined with such methods ashistorical analysis, institutional analysis, case study etc.

Fengqiao Yan 109

In summary, at the outset of this paper, I raised the question: Whatapproaches or strategies are of special value for research on the academic
profession in China?
Based on the limitations of previous, mostly
Western-oriented research projects, and the cultural distinctiveness and traditionsof Asia in general, and China in particular, I propose identification andassumption of a distinctively Asian and Chinese perspective for the new research
initiative entitled Changing Academic Profession in Asia. The perspective canbe developed by taking into account modernization and cultural components.
Specific hypotheses can be deduced from theories, such as modernization theory.
More importantly, particularities can be highlighted, and theoretical implications
can be drawn. To achieve this objective, multiple methods, instead of only
questionnaire, must be employed. By doing so, the study of the Asian
academic profession is expected to make a unique contribution to the relevant
knowledge base on the global academic profession.

References
Altbach, P.G. (1996). The Academic Profession in International Perspective. In P.G. Altbach(Ed.), The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries andRegions (pp.3-50). The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Altbach, P.G. (Ed.) (2000). The Changing Academic Workplace: Comparative Perspectives.
Center for International Higher Education, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
Altbach, P.G. (2002). Centers and Peripheries in the Academic Profession: The Special
Challenges of Developing Countries. In P.G. Altbach (Ed.), The Decline of the Guru
(pp.1-22). Center for International Higher Education, Lynch School of Education,
Boston College.
Altbach, P.G., & Umakoshi, T. (Eds.) (2004). Asian Universities: Historical Perspectives andContemporary Challenges. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Arimoto, A. (2008). International Implications of the Changing Academic Profession in Japan.
In Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE) (Ed.), The Changing Academic
Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives: Report ofInternational Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project (pp.1-31).
Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Chen, Z. (2010). Chen Zhiwu’s Comments on China’s Economy. Taiyuan: Shanxi PublishingGroup.
Clark, B. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National
Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

110 The Same Term but Different Connotations

Ding, X. (2011). Debating Chinese Model. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
Enders, J. (2006). The Academic Profession. In J. Forest, & P. Altbach (Eds.), International
Handbook of Higher Education (pp.5-22). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Fei, X. (1998). Earthbound China. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Gu Z. (2010). Empirical Analyses of Influencing Factors for Academic Profession Mobility in
China. Educational Research of Tsinghua University, 3, 73-79.
Hayhoe, R. (2000). China’s Universities: 1895-1995. Beijing: Educational Science Publishing
House.
Hayhoe, R. (2003). Knowledge Across Cultures: A Contribution to Dialogue Among
Civilizations. (pp.21-22). Nanjing:Najing Normal University Press.
He, S. (2010). Historical Exploration of Culture and Value in Eastern Asia. In Z. Wu, & Y. Li(Eds.), Value of East Asia (pp.33-61). Beijing: Peking University Press.
King, Ambrose Y.C. (2002). Self Selection of King, Ambrose Y.C. Shanghai: Shanghai
Education Press.
King, Ambrose Y.C. (2010). From Tradition to Modernization. Beijing: Law Press.
Li, P. (2008). Chinese School of Sociology in Early of 20th Century. Social Sciences Frontier,12, 203-210.
Li, W. (2010). Significance and Approaches of Constructing Eastern Asia Identity. In Z. Wu,& Y. Li (Eds.), Value of East Asia (pp.62-77). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Pan, W., & Ma, Y. (Eds.) (2010). Sixty Years Republic and Chinese Model. Beijing: Sanlian
Shudian.
Qian, M. (2005). Chinese Intellectuals. In J. Xu (Ed.), History of Intellectual in 20th Century.
Beijing: Xinxing Press.
Rhoades, G. (2007). The Study of the Academic Profession. In P.J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociologyof Higher Education: Contributions and Their Contexts (pp.113-146). Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ruan, Q. (2010). East Asian Value and Idea of East Asia Community. In Z. Wu, & Y. Li (Eds.),
Value of East Asia (pp.78-88). Beijing: Peking University Press.
Shen, H. (2006). Academic Profession in China: With a Focus on the Higher Education
System. In RIHE (Ed.), Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on
Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International
Perspective. Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Shen, H. (2007). Challenges on the Academic Profession Development by the Changing
Doctoral Education in China. In M. Kogan, & U. Teichler (Eds.), Key Challenges to the
Academic Profession (pp.125-144). Paris: UNESCO Forum on Higher Education
Research and Knowledge.
Shen, H. (2007). Changing Academic Profession: from fourteen Countries and Region to
Twenty One Countries. University: Research and Review, 1.

Fengqiao Yan 111

Tu, W. (2004). Globalization and Diversity. In Globalization and Dialogue of Civilization(pp.75-104). Nanjing: Jiangsu Educational Press.
Xu, F. (2005). Historical Character and Fortune of Chinese Intellectuals. In J. Xu (Ed.),
History of Intellectual in 20th Century (pp.63-75). Beijing: Xinxing Press.
Yan, B. (2005). On Dual Roles of “Shi Da Fu”. In J. Xu (Ed.), History of Intellectual in 20th
Century. Beijing: Xinxing Press.
Yan, F. (2010). The Academic Profession in China in the Context of Social Transition: An
Institutional Perspective. European Review, 18 (1), 99-116.
Yan, F., & Chen, Y. (2008). Analyses of Educational Backgrounds and the Career Paths ofFaculty in Higher Education Institutions in Beijing Municipality, China. In RIHE (Ed.),
The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives: Report of International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession
Project (pp.265-292). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Yu, Y. (1987). Modern Implication of Value of Chinese Culture. Culture: China and the World,
1.
Yu, Y. (2005). Historical Exploration of Chinese Intellectual. In J. Xu (Ed.), History ofIntellectual in 20th Century (pp. 13-30). Beijing: Xinxing Press.
Zhang, Y., & Shen, H. (2007). The Study of Academic Profession in China: Literature Review.
University: Research and Review, 1, 54-59.
Zheng, Y. (2004). Globalization and State Transformation in China. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zheng, Y. (2010). Chinese Model: Experience and Dilemma. Hangzhou: Zhejiang United
Publishing Group.

112

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011 113

The Academic Profession in East Asia: Changes andrealities

Futao Huang

Introduction
While the term East Asia can be defined from various perspectives, in thisarticle it refers to China, Japan and Korea (South Korea after the end of WWII).
The three countries were chosen for several reasons. First, they shareconsiderable cultural and educational similarities. Their traditional education
activities, including the academic activities, were essentially affected by
Confucius’ philosophy and ideals. Second, the academic professions of thethree countries arose in the later part of the 19th century via the introduction offoreign models or were influenced by other countries. Third, although there
existed considerable differences in the shape of the academic profession in thethree countries by the 1980s, since the 1990s, increasing similarities could be.
Finally, and most importantly, by undertaking international and comparative
studies, we may discover distinctive aspects of the changing academic profession
in the three countries and gain insights into how their academics have responded
to emerging domestic and international challenges.
In the last decades, much research has been done on the academic
profession focused on different aspects, countries and regions. However, thevast majority is concerned with the academic profession in European and US
contexts. Except for a very few books and articles (Eggins, 2007; Kim, 2001;
Marginson, 2010), little study has been made of the academic profession in East
Asia; and there are many fewer accounts of the changing academic professions
in the three major countries in East Asia most recently.
Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

114 The Academic Profession in East Asia

This article begins with a brief historical overview of the academic
profession in China, Japan and South Korea, and then touches on the recent
higher education reforms and the similar challenges facing the academic
profession in the three countries. The article will mainly address the changes
which have occurred in the academic profession, and how it responded to thesechallenges. The article concludes by addressing some issues facing theacademic profession in the three countries.

The formation and traditions of the academic profession
It is widely recognized that there had been a long-standing history andtradition of educational and academic activities in China, Japan and Korea. As
early as the Han Dynasty in 135 BC, there appeared a national higher learning
center in ancient China. Especially since the 6th century, the development ofpolitical and economic systems, as well as cultural and academic activities íincluding language and education systems í in both Japan and Korea had beensignificantly affected by the Chinese model. Though there are huge differencesamong the three countries, the impact of Confucius’s ideals and beliefs on thedevelopment of the academic and educational activities is crucial. However, it
must be remembered that all these traditions and ancient conventions bear little
connection with the establishment of modern universities in the three countries
in the late 19th century. As indicated by earlier research:
All of the higher education systems considered here have Westernroots and use basically Western models. In Asia, as in the rest of theworld, the contemporary university is a basically Western institution,
tracing their roots to the medieval European universities and shaped by
the particular Western power that was the colonial ruler. In the case ofJapan, China and Thailand, foreign influences were chosen withindependence, but the models were foreign nonetheless. (Altbach &Selvaratnam, Eds., 1989)
The same is true of academics in the three countries. Compared withJapan in which there is no colonial heritage, China experienced a semi-colonial
development of its academic system, while Korea was significantly influenced
by the Japanese pattern after it became the colony of Japan in 1910.
China
From the late Qing and early Republic period (1911-1949) in the latter partof the 19th century through the first decade of the 20th Century, influences from

Futao Huang 115

France, Germany, Britain, the US and even Japan shaped China’s academics andthe development of its modern academic systems. In the era of the Republic ofChina, which was founded by the National Party from 1911-1949, the basic
structure of the academic and educational systems were essentially modeled on
the American patterns, though some reforms, which were based on the
Humboldtian ideal, were implemented in Peking University in the early 1920s.
Beginning in 1949 when the People’s Republic of China was establishedthrough the mid-1950s, the watchword in China was “to learn from the Soviet
Union” in all aspects, including the academic system – an example of thenational “lean on one side” policy. As a result, during the 1950s and early
1960s, many Soviet educators and specialists in various fields came to China.
They helped restructure China’s higher education system, train university faculty
members and carried out teaching and research activities at Chinese campuses
and research institutes. Similarly, a lot of Chinese university students, young
scholars and academics were dispatched to the Soviet Union for the purpose of
pursuing further study and undertaking research activities. For example, In
August 1951, the first group of Chinese students was sent to the former Soviet
Union for study. By 1960, the number of students sent to the former Soviet
Union constituted approximately 90 percent of all Chinese students overseas.
However, the Culture Revolution from 1966 to 1976 interrupted academic
development in China. As stated by Pepper, since the latter half of the 1950s,
China attempted to search for a more rural-oriented “Chinese way,” with
deregulation on an unprecedented scale. The Soviet Union was dropped as an
overt model but seemed to provide continuing “internal” reinforcement througha de-regularization exercise of its own which occurred at the same time (Pepper,
1996).
Over “the 10-year turmoil” period (The Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution, commonly known as the Cultural Revolution, was a socio-politicalmovement that took place in the China from 1966 through 1976), as both foreignmodels and traditional Chinese academic conventions were criticized andabandoned, the Revolution aimed at building up China’s own educational andacademic systems. As we now know, it not only ended in failure, but also
greatly damaged the development of China’s academic system, and in particular
its academic profession.
Only after 1978 when the open-door policy and economic reform were
implemented has China once again sought foreign models and undertaken
various initiatives to re-develop its educational and academic systems.
However, China’s approach to the introduction of foreign academic patterns or116 The Academic Profession in East Asia

models since 1978 differs fundamentally from earlier practices. While
importing elements of various foreign models, especially from the US, China
came to emphasize national character and identity and protecting Chinese values
through government legislation and policy. Moreover, China has never given
up exploring its own approach to establishing a distinctive academic andeducational system to suit Chinese national needs.
Briefly speaking, since the 1950s, academic staff in China’s universities
were mainly involved with teaching activities and focused on socialist
construction prior to the early 1990s. By the early 1990s, while still affected by
the former Soviet model, a special emphasis had been placed on training
professional manpower through specialized education for industry and the
proportion of students in engineering institutions expanded quickly.
Japan
Beginning in the late 19th century, the Meiji government of Japan made anumber of attempts to modernize Japan by absorbing Western educational ideas:
inviting foreign faculty for short periods and introducing university curriculafrom Western countries (Ebuchi, 1997). For example, in the early Meiji period,
the central government dispatched many students abroad, mostly to Germany,
France, and the USA. At the same time, the government also hired many
excellent foreign scholars to work in the Japanese national universities and otherhigher education institutions. In 1876 alone, there were 78 foreign faculty
members who were involved in professional and language teaching activities, inmost cases teaching in foreign languages other than Japanese (MOE, 1992).
However, in contrast to China, when Japan sought to establish modern
universities, it looked to the University of Berlin as a model, although there weresignificant differences in mission and internal academic organization between
the former Japanese imperial universities and the German research-oriented
universities (Huang, 2006).
Since the 1930s, academic activities in Japan were basically dominated bynationalism and militarism. Except for a very few fields in medicine andengineering, Western academic standards, including English language teaching,were forbidden in Japan. Meanwhile, the Japanese educational model andconventions were exported to Korea, Taiwan and some South-Asia countries as
one measure for imposing colonial control in these countries. In contrast to an
introduction of Western academic standards in the previous phase, by absolutely
denying all the Western academic norms and conventions, especially those of the
U.K. and the U.S., Japan’s higher education during this period took its major

Futao Huang 117

focus as exporting Japanese academic values and standards to other Asian
countries and areas. Under rigid regulation and control of the central
government, academic freedom and institutional autonomy were greatly
curtailed.
After the Second World War during the Occupation period the Japanesehigher education system, influenced by American models, was fundamentally
reorganized. Over the past 60 years, while the pre-war German origins werestill maintained, considerable American influences stimulated tremendous
changes in the roles and characteristics of the academic profession in Japanesehigher education institutions. One of the big changes was the widespread
growth of interest in research and establishment of various academic societies: inparticular academic faculty became more research-oriented, engaging in bothpure research and applied research (Cummings & Amano, 1977).
By the early 1990s, due to the original German Humboldtian influence asreinforced by the American model, the vast majority of faculty members in theJapanese universities, especially in the national sector, are expected to facilitate
the advancement of basic and applied scientific research. In contrast, aconsiderable number of private institutions are more market-oriented andteaching-centered.
Korea
Since the early 19th century, Western missionaries began to exert influence
on Korea. Since the first U.S.-Korea Treaty in 1882, American missionaries
decisively shaped the development of Korean higher education and academic
systems. Specifically, they introduced Western curriculum and methods of
instruction, and more importantly, during the process, spread the democratic
ideology of freedom and independence and the philosophy of democratic
education (Lee, 1989). However, it should be noted that prior to the Japanese
occupation in 1910, the modern Korean academic system had not been fully
developed, as it had in both China and Japan. During the colonial period(1910-1945), only one university í the Imperial University (Kyung Sung
Imperial University) í was established by the Japanese colonial government in
1926 – although a few small-sized private institutions existed which were notofficially considered as part of higher education system. However, since thisImperial University mainly catered to the needs of Japanese residents in Korea
for university education, the largest number of Korean students were enrolled in
the private sector. Moreover, except for a very few Korean faculty at a junioracademic rank, the vast majority of academics in the university were Japanese,

118 The Academic Profession in East Asia

mostly graduates from Japanese universities. The Japanese pattern dominatedthe development of the Korean academic profession until the end of the Second
World War in 1945.
One of the most notable changes in the postcolonial period is that theacademic profession came to consist mainly of Korean nationals because of theuse of Korean as the uniform medium of instruction in university education(Kim, 2001, p.182). However, after 1945, the American occupation forces once
again imposed American ideas on Korea. Especially in the 1950s and early
1960s, with military, economic and financial support from the US, the Korean
educational system was restructured. Though some vestiges of the older
Japanese pattern could still be found in contemporary Korean culture andeducational activities, the impact of the US on the development of Korean
academic and educational systems has become increasingly profound. With
respect to the formation of the academic profession, a considerable number of
Korean professors have been educated in US universities. Instead of Japanese,
English has become the major academic language and the most important
medium of instruction among lectures offered in foreign languages. Like Japan,
even today, the development of the Korean academic profession remains
primarily affected by American academic developments.
Apparently, there exist substantial similarities in the academic profession
between Japan and Korea, because in the process of shaping the academic
profession, Korea has been impacted by both the Japanese model and theAmerican pattern. One of the typical examples is that there is a similarly clear
division of labor in the academic profession among different sectors and types ofhigher education institutions conforming to a hierarchical structure.

Challenges for the academic profession
Affected by a combination of domestic socio-economic factors andinternational as well as global trends, tremendous changes have occurred inhigher education, including the academic profession, in the three countries
especially in the past 15 years. Though there are diverse challenges facing theacademic profession in the three countries when viewed more broadly incomparison to the countries in North America and Europe, these three countries
of East Asia are distinguished by their huge growth in higher education, theirincreasing marketization, decentralization and privatization of higher education,and the accelerating effects of globalization on higher education.
First, there has been continual growth in the number of students in higher

Futao Huang 119

education institutions in the three countries. In China, since 1999 when the
Chinese government decided to expand higher education, enrollment has showna rapid and substantial increase. Between 1999-2009, gross enrollment
increased from 9.3 percent to 23.3 percent of the 18-24 year – old age-cohort,indicating that China’s higher education has evolved into “mass” stage according
to Martin Trow’s definition (Trow, 1973). From a comparative perspective, aslate as 2004, enrollment in China was still much lower than that of Japan í
where it constituted 47 percent of the age-cohort. What is noteworthy, however,is that the total number of students in Chinese higher education institutions has
already reached approximately 19 million, far more than in Japan and evensurpassing the number in the United States. The process was accelerated by a
rapid increase in the number of students attending private institutions. For
example, by 2009, the proportion of both private students and private institutions
in regular higher education institutions had made up of approximately one thirdof the total students and all the regular higher education institutions respectively(MOE, 2011). In Japan, the dramatic expansion of higher education was reallyinitiated in the late 1950s when Japan started its New Long-Term Economic Plan
with the purpose of doubling its citizens’ income. By 2009 the grossenrollment in higher education institutions rose to 79.1 percent of the age-cohort.
It suggests that Japanese higher education had evolved from the stage of massinto near universal access (MEXT, 2009). In Korea, due to the policy of
deregulation since the mid-1990s, there has been a massive growth in higher
education. As of 2009, the percentage of higher school graduates who go on to
post-secondary education stands at 90.5 percent (MEST, 2011).
A related trend common throughout East Asia is the greater intrusion ofmarket forces on higher education. As early as the 1980s, impacted by
neo-liberalism and the policy of privatization by the Thatcher’s Administrationin the UK, there emerged a rapid and unstoppable marketization of higher
education in the UK and other Commonwealth countries. Since the mid-1990s,
though the nature and pace of marketization varies substantially among the three
countries, it is clear that market-driven mechanisms have been gradually
introduced into higher education in China, Japan and Korea. Clear examples
can be found at both the policy and institutional levels. Major documents andlegislative acts indicate that the traditional model of higher education institutions
almost totally controlled by government in a planned economic system, has
become more responsive to society and internationally competitive. For
example, all the national universities both in China and in Japan were changed
into corporate bodies in 1995 and 2004, respectively. In China, individual

120 The Academic Profession in East Asia

corporations are encouraged to be more entrepreneurial in undertaking activities,
including generating diverse revenue sources, competing for research grants, andoperating university companies. Financially, the incorporation of the Chinese
public sector is a closer approach to privatization. In Japan, with the
deregulation of Standards for the Establishment of Universities in 1991, andespecially since the incorporation of national universities in 2004, national
university corporations have been granted more freedom to provide newprograms and decide their own tuition fees even at the undergraduate level. At
the same time, they are required to be more vigorous in recruiting new entrants
through their admission policies. With respect to academic research andscholarship, the university sector, including national university corporations, is
expected to compete for research project grants and establish more linkages withindustry and other sectors to diversify sources of funding (Huang, 2011).
Similarly, since 1994, by setting up the Education Reform Committee, theKorean government implemented various reforms which could be describedunder the rubrics of liberalization, diversification, and specialization. Based on
the policy of liberalization, the central government deregulated the standards forthe establishment of higher education institutions. Therefore, each individual
institution, especially in the private sector, has more freedom to recruit new
entrants, to design and implement curricula according to their own missions,
goals and objectives. For example, the private sector accounts for over 70
percent of the total student enrollment in Korean higher education and theoperation of a huge majority of these private institutions is exclusively
dependent on tuition and fees.
Another recent phenomenon emerging across the three countries, withconsiderable implications for the academic profession, is the increased attention
to the impact of globalization on higher education. One of the obvious
strategies adopted by the three countries is to facilitate the internationalization ofhigher education. In addition to the traditional patterns of internationalizationof higher education, such as mobility of students, faculty, as well as researchers
across borders, new trends in the internationalization of higher education areseen widely among the three countries. They include an introduction ofEnglish-language products into local campuses and provision of joint ortransnational programs in partnership with foreign institutions. Anotherimportant strategy for promoting the internationalization of higher education in
East Asia is to support several selected universities or disciplines with enlarged
budgets with the aim of becoming world-class universities, or world-reknown
center of excellence. To illustrate, in November 1995, two years after the issue

Futao Huang 121of the Outline1, the former SEC (State Education Commission) implemented
Project 211 to enrich the financing of Peking University and Tsinghua University
with the purpose of enabling the two universities to reach world-class status. In
December 1998, the Ministry of Education articulated objectives and principles
in the Action Plan. The Action Plan emphasizes that within the next 10 or 20
years, some Chinese universities and key areas of study should reach aworld-class level and be internationally recognized. Afterwards, Project 9852
í which means that the idea of Project was first mentioned by the former
Chairman Jiang Zemin in May 1998 í was immediately implemented. In June
2001, the Japanese government set up the goal of fostering the “Top 30”
Universities towards attainment of the highest global standards. Later, theprogram was changed into a scheme of cultivating ‘Centers of Excellence in the
21st Century’ (COE21). The central government is supporting selected units
among the national universities with an expanded budget. It is hoped that thequality of research activity in Japanese higher education can be considerablyenhanced and increased international dimensions can be integrated into campus
research activities. Clear evidence can also be found in Korea. In 1999 theKorean government started The Brain Korea 21 project for the purpose ofbuilding world-class graduate schools and nurturing the development of researchpersonnel. Based on the “choice and concentration” principle, the government
has allocated a special budget to the project. From 2006, the second stage of
BK 21 has been implemented. By 2012, more efforts will be made tostrengthen the research focused university system and to foster expert personnel(Kim, 2008).
Apparently, these changes did not impact all the three countries in thisregion to the same degree and in the same way. For example, the restructuringof university visions and missions of the academic profession in China areparticularly affected by a massive expansion of higher education, a shift from aplanned economic system to market-oriented mechanisms, and the progress ofglobalization. From the international and comparative perspectives, the policy
to deregulate the “Standards for Establishment of Universities” and the policy ofincorporation of national universities have directly influenced the changes in theacademic profession in Japan. In Korea, it seems that issues arising from a1

In 1992 the Outline of the Educational Reform and Development in China was approved in
the 14th National Meeting of the Chinese Communist Party and it became effective in 1993.
2
In the Project 985, 98 means the year of 1998 while 5 refers to May in English. The
Project 985 was developed based on the speech by the former Chairman Jian Zemin in May
1998.

122 The Academic Profession in East Asia

radical transformation from mass higher education to the near universal accessand pressures resulting from globalization have more profound influences on its
academic profession.
To sum up, though there remain some differences in degree and form
among the three countries, the distinctive characteristics of higher education in
China, Japan and Korea as influenced by their heritages and recent driving forces,
can be practically identified as follows:First, differing from most countries in Europe and the USA, the central
governments of China, Japan and Korea still exercise strong supervision on
individual university corporations and private institutions in terms of approving
or closing corporate entities. Moreover, currently the amount of budgetedfunding from government still constitutes the major source of revenue ofindividual corporations or national universities, though there has been a steadydecline in the sum of appropriations over the last decade. In essence,transformation from direct control of the national universities by Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) into mandating
various evaluations does not imply restriction of the powers of the government,
but expansion of its authority in a different form.
Second, it is clear that the private sector constitutes a large proportion of all
institutions in terms of numbers of both students and institutions, especially inJapan and Korea. Similarly, clear data reveal that the massification of Chinese
higher education was mainly driven by rapid enrollment increases in private
institutions. It is reasonable to assume that the trend will continue in the future.
With respect to the division of labor between national and private sectors,
normally, among the three countries, national universities are more
research-intensive institutions while private institutions are moreteaching-centered. To illustrate, in the case of Japan, the legacy of the pre-war
hierarchical and privileged higher education system and post-war developmentof higher education have left two distinct groups of Japanese universities: thenational, public sector and the private sector. While the national and public
sectors are more directly controlled by government, the private institutions tend
to be more market-oriented. Moreover, the national universities are expected tofacilitate the advancement of basic, applied and large-scale scientific research, toprovide students from different backgrounds with general and professional
education, and to provide higher education opportunities for the community. In
contrast, except for a very few private institutions, the vast majority areteaching-centered, with more students in social sciences and humanities. The
difference between national universities and private institutions can also be seen

Futao Huang 123

in the allocation of public grants and the ratios of faculty members to students.
Normally, approximately 70 percent of Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Researchwere allocated to national universities and only 15 percent of these grants wereassigned to private universities. More importantly, due to the fact that national
and public sectors are intensively financed by central government or local
authorities, students are charged lower tuition and fees than those in private
sector.
An added characteristic is that the higher education institutions conform toa hierarchical structure. This is evident not only in the wide gap in the
allocation of funds from government between the national and private sectors,
but is also reflected in universities and junior colleges at different levels even in
the same sector. Normally, a small number of national universities, together
with many fewer private universities in Japan and Korea, which were founded in
the pre-war period, enjoy the highest academic and social status. Below them
are numerous national, public and private universities which were located in themetropolitan areas or big cities. A plurality of provincial public and private
universities seem to hold much lower positions than those located in big cities,
but they are generally considered to be more prestigious than junior colleges,
especially the private sector which only offers short-cycle programs.

Changes in the academic profession
In response to these varying challenges, the academic profession in thethree countries is undergoing considerable and progressively striking changes,
too.
One of the most direct and obvious outcomes of the continual expansion ofhigher education is a gradual increase in the number of faculty members inhigher education institutions. Particularly in China, in parallel with the rapid
growth in student enrollments, the number of full-time faculty in regular higher
education institutions3 alone grew over three-fold from 404,471 in 1997 to
1,363,531 in 2009. In Japan, over the period 1995-2007, there was a much
more gradual increase in the total number of full-time faculty í from 171,472 to
183,111. In Korea, there had seen a steady growth in the number of full-time
faculty as well, from 57,632 in 2000 to 73,072 in 2008 (MEXT & KEDI, 2008).
3

Regular higher education institutions refer to those institutions in which only full-time,degree seeking students are accepted. Therefore they differ in mission and academic
programs and internal arrangements, etc. from degree-granting higher education institutions
for mature students or adult higher education institutions.

124 The Academic Profession in East Asia

In parallel with the expansion of student enrollments, the faculty body was
also undergoing tremendous changes in China and Japan in particular. For
example, the proportion of the full-time faculty in China who were female grewfrom 37.4 percent in 1999 to 46.0 percent in 20094 while in Japan it increased
from 15.4 percent to 20.3 percent during the same period 5 (MEXT, 2010).
Though little relevant data could be found for Korea, in 2008 the proportion of
full-time female faculty employed in Korean universities grew from 13.8 percent
in 1990 to 17.7 percent in 2008 (Oh, & Pang, 2005)6.
Furthermore, with the largest share of the increase in enrollment in theprivate sector, there has been a notable and enormous growth in the proportion offaculty employed in the private sector. In China, the proportion of full-time
faculty who were employed in the private sector increased from 3.4 percent in2002 to 15.6 percent in 2009 (MOE, 2011).
However, as indicated in Table 1, 2 and 3 below, the ratio of students tofull-time faculty among the three countries seems to be relatively high.
Especially in China, compared with both Japan and Korea, the number ofstudents per full-time faculty rose steadily from 1995 to 2009. In the private
sector the ratio of students to faculty was 1:19.65 in 2009 in regular higher
education institutions. Moreover, though little data is provided, the ratio ofstudents to faculty in Japan is much higher in the private than in the national andpublic sectors, while in Korea the ratio of students to faculty in both industrial
universities7 and junior colleges are particularly high.
In response to the increased marketization and privatization of higher
education, the faculty in the three countries has become involved in morediversified teaching and research activities. In terms of teaching activities,
academic staff are developing curricula that are more closely related to students’interests and more responsive to changes in the labor market. With respect toresearch activities, faculty are asked to obtain competitive grants, to undertake
research projects focused more on community, society and industry.
Furthermore, as national quality assurance systems and national evaluation
agencies have all been established in the three countries, faculty now face4

Only in regular higher education institutions.
Only in universities, junior colleges and colleges of technology.
6
However, according to the data from the international survey which were carried out in thethree countries as part of the Changing Academic Profession project, the proportion of the
full-time female faculty is 37.1% in China, 9.0% in Japan, and 18.7% in Korea.
7
They refer to those institutions in which adult, non-degree students are enrolled, and theireducational programs are more relevant to industrial needs and skills and specifications which
are required in various occupations.
5Futao Huang 125

compulsory external evaluation by third-parties and interested stakeholders in
addition to self-evaluation, peer-review, and evaluation by students. In mostcases, these activities are concerned with curricular development, delivery ofcourses, the quality of teaching and research and so forth. In relation to thepattern of internal governance and management, in the name of enhancing
efficiency, transparency and accountability, recent trends show that more powerhas been placed in governing bodies at the institutional level with a reduction in
the autonomous prerogatives residing in faculty meetings.
Moreover,non-university external experts are also expected to be involved in internal
governance and management. This is especially evident in Japan, although not
in China.
Table 1. Student – full-time faculty ratio in regular higher education
institutions in China, Selected Years, 1995-2008
Year

All

University

1995

9.8

9.7

Junior colleges
10.2

2000

16.8

16.0

17.7

2005

16.9

17.8

14.8

2008

17.2

17.2

17.3

Source: MOE (2009). Educational Statistics Yearbook of China, People’s Education Press,
p.17. (in Chinese)

Table 2. Student – full-time faculty ratio in Japan, selected years, 1995-2007
Year

All

National

Other Public

Private

1995

18.5

10.4

10.2

26.0

2005

17.7

10.3

10.9

23.6

2006

17.4

10.4

10.9

22.8

2007

16.9

10.3

11.0

21.8

Source: MEXT (2008). Statistical Abstract 2008 edition, National Printing Bureau, Japan. (inJapanese)

Table 3. Student – full-time faculty ratio in Korea, selected years, 2000-2008
All

University

Industrial
university

Juniorcolleges

2000

43.9

31.8

48.8

51.2

2005

39.3

29.5

44.4

44.1

2006

42.0

28.6

53.0

44.5

2007

40.7

28.3

49.4

44.5

2008

39.4

27.7

48.8

41.6

Source: MEXT & KEDI (2008). Brief Statistic on Korean Education, Korea, p.32
Note: 1) The number of students per full-time faculty member = Number of students/Total
number of faculty (president & dean㧗full-time faculty).
2) Figures for university and industrial university include the number of full-time faculty and126 The Academic Profession in East Asia

students in graduate schools attached to university. But the number of students in graduate
schools attached to university, which is included in the number of students in industrial
university in 1990, is the number of enrolled students.

The effect of globalization on the academic profession cannot be
overestimated, for it has not only diversified academic staff demographically, butalso led to increasing differentiation in activities undertaken by faculty. One of
the most remarkable examples is that the number of foreign faculty inuniversities has risen steadily in each country. Between 2004-2008, in the
Chinese universities which are founded and administered by the Ministry of
Education alone, the number of foreign experts and faculty members withlong-term and short-term contracts has nearly doubled, increasing from 14,898
in 2004 to 24,634 in 2009 (MOE, 2005, 2009. In Japan, over the period
1995-2010, the total number of foreign faculty increased by 1,589 (Table 4).
Though there was a reduction in the number of foreign faculty in junior colleges,
there was a big rise in the number of foreign faculty in universities. In Korea,
the overall number of full-time foreign faculty employed is smaller than inJapan; however, there had been steady and continual growth between 1990 and2008 (Table 5).

Table 4. Numbers of foreign full-time faculty in Japan, 1995 and 2010
Type

1995

2010

Changes (%)

University

3,858

5,931

+53.7

Junior college
Total

705

221

-68.7

4,563

6,152

+34.8

Source: MEXT (2010). Statistical Abstract 2010 edition. Retrieved November 26, 2010 fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp

Table 5. The number and percent of foreign faculty in Korea, selected years,
1990-2005
Year

Total No. of
foreign faculty

Percentage of all
faculty

1990

402

1

2000

1,373

2.4

2005

2,131

3.2

2006

2,540

3.7

2007

2,919

4.1

2008

3,432

4.7

Source: MEXT & KEDI (2009). Brief Statistics on Korean Education, Korea, p.32.
Note: 1) Foreign faculty rate = (Number of foreign faculty/total number of faculty) × 100
2) The number of total faculty is that of president, dean, and full-time faculty of the entire

Futao Huang 127
higher education institutions.
3) The number of foreign faculty is that of the president, dean, and full-time faculty of foreign
nationality in the entire higher education institutions.
4) The number of faculty for university and industrial university includes that of the faculty inthe graduate schools attached to the university.

Table 6. Journal articles published and research rankings by country, selected
years, 1988-2008
Year
1988

China

Japan

Korea

No. of articles

Rank

No. of articles

Rank

No. of articles

Rank

6,742

15

40,9904㧙Below 25

1998

21,098960,347

2

9,105

16

2008

104,1572

69,300530,016

12

Source: MEXT (2009). 2009 White Paper on Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology, online information at http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/ (Retrieved
on 23 November 2010). MEXT (2010). Secrets of an Education, Powerhouse 60 years of
Education in Korea: Challenges, Achievement and the Future. Korea. p.9.

In relation to teaching activities, with increases in the number of incominginternational students and reform of the curriculum, faculty members in someuniversities in the three countries have been asked to provide English language
programs with a further emphasis on internationally recognized professional
programs and certificates rather than those of the language/culture-oriented type,i.e., programs concerning language, history or traditions and culture. Moreover,as small numbers of universities in China, Japan and Korea have begun toestablish branch campuses in foreign countries, cross-border programs havebecome part of the teaching activities for some faculty members í though thenumbers are small.
Another big change in the academic profession is the increasing emphasis
placed on the importance of research. Since the latter part of the 1990s, with
the intent of building up “world-class” universities, governments in the three
countries selected a few universities for intensive funding. In all three
countries, these designated “national” institutions have a long history and enjoy
high prestige and social position. More importantly, the faculty in these
universities is essentially research-oriented. As the number of publications
included in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index(SSCI) database is a good representation of a country’s strength in research, in
addition to the provision of lectures, the faculty from these universities isparticularly encouraged to publish scientific papers in major international
journals. Table 6 suggests that although there had been a steady increase in128 The Academic Profession in East Asia

publications in all the countries, China has had the most rapid growth among thethree countries, followed by Korea. By 1998, the number of the articles
published by Japanese scholars surpassed that of all other countries except for
the USA, but dropped to top 5 in 2008. By contrast, within 20 years, the ranksof China and Korea rose from “top 15” and “low 25” to “top 2” and “top 12,”
respectively.
As a result several changes have taken place in the academic profession in
the three countries. While there was growth in the number of foreign faculty,
much evidence indicates that there have been new pressures for the academic
profession in East Asia to be involved with developing the internationalized
university curriculum, including English-taught programs, promoting
cross-border higher education activities, and undertaking research activities in amore competitive international environment. This differs essentially from thechallenges of internationalization of higher education for the academic
profession prior to the 1980s in particular.

Concluding remarks
Based on their traditions, the academic professions in China, Japan and
Korea have made great efforts to respond to various new challenges – in theprocess re-shaping themselves. Prior to the 1980s, it is clear that the former
Soviet model had affected the Chinese faculty significantly. In contrast, theAmerican pattern had considerable direct influence on the academic profession
in both Japan and Korea, though the latter still maintained some elements of theJapanese model. Since the mid-1990s, however, the academic profession in
China, Japan and Korea are confronting many similar challenges resulting frommassive growth in student enrollments, increased market forces, and theinternationalization of higher education in this era of globalization.
In response to these challenges, radical changes have occurred in theacademic profession in the three countries. They include a quantitative increasein the number of faculty members and, more importantly, a qualitative change inmany aspects of academic work. In a major sense, we have seen an
increasingly diversified academic profession on both vertical and horizontal
dimensions. On the vertical dimension, in parallel with the massification ofhigher education and near universal access, more differentiated facultysubgroups have taken shape those who are employed in top or leading
universities; those who are working in local or provincial universities; and those
who are recruited in junior colleges and so on. On the horizontal dimension, inFutao Huang 129

terms of nationality, there has been growth in the number of foreign academics.
In terms of gender, the increase in the number of female faculty is remarkable.
In terms of the major activities that are undertaken by the academic profession, it
is clear that the division of roles has become much wider, e.g. some prefer to do
more research-oriented activities while others tend to be more involved withteaching activities. With respect to the faculty appointment system, it has cometo be more flexible and differentiated, too. For example, the introduction of the
fixed-term system in Japan, the implementation of the contract-based
employment system on Chinese campuses and the wide use of part-time facultyin Korean private institutions.
It is evident, however, that many problems remain to be addressed by theacademic profession in China, Japan and Korea.
First, the academic
marketplace in Japan and Korea is strongly male-oriented: the proportion of
women is extremely low, especially by international standards. Second, despite
a trend toward internationalization of higher education, the academic
marketplace in the three countries is not fully open to the international academic
community, so few foreign faculty members are recruited in comparison with the
USA and the UK. Third, the ratio of students to faculty in the private sector
seems to be relatively high, especially in China and Korea. Fourth, the growing
hierarchical structure has not only led to a wide gap in the allocation of funds
from government between the elite public and private sectors, but also increased
disparity in income, working conditions, prestige and social status of theacademic profession in universities and junior colleges and at different levels
even within the same sector.
Additional issues that remain to be addressed include: how to strengthen therole of central government playing the role of a “wise actor” with a useful mix of
benevolent intervention and guardian angelship for the academic profession;
how to establish a wider regional network and stimulate further international
cooperation; how to enhance the quality of the teaching and research activities inindividual countries, and how to imbue the academic profession in individual
countries with its own distinctive and character.

References
Altbach, P.G., & Selvaratnam, V. (Eds.) (1989). From Dependence to Autonomy: The
Development of Asian Universities (p.xii). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cummings W.G., & Amano, I. (1977). The Changing Roles of the Japanese Professor. In P.G.

130 The Academic Profession in East Asia
Altbach (Ed.), Comparative Perspectives on the Academic Profession (pp.43-67).
Praeger Publishers.
Ebuchi, K. (1997). Daigaku kokusaika no kenkyu [Research in internationalization ofuniversity]. Tokyo: Tamagawa Press. (in Japanese)
Eggins, H. (2007). The Changing Academic Profession: Implications for the Asia PacificRegion. Paper presented at the regional seminar Competition, Cooperation and Chang in
the Academic Profession: Shaping Higher Education’s Contribution to Knowledge andResearch, UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge, September
18-19, 2007, Hangzhou, China.
Huang, F. (2006). The Academic Profession in Japan: Major Characteristics and New Changes.
In RIHE (Ed.), Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia:International Perspectives (COE Publication Series 20, pp.195-208). Hiroshima:
Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima University.
Huang, F. (2011). The Marketization of Higher Education: A Perspective from Japan. In B.
Roger (Ed.), Higher Education and the Market (pp.146-157). New York: Routledge.
Kim, T. (2001). Forming the Academic Profession in East Asia: A Comparative Analysis, NewYork & London: Routledge.
Kim, Y. (2008). Universalization of Tertiary Education, Understanding Korean Educational
Policy II, KEDI (Korean Educational Development Institute).
Lee, S. (1989). The emergence of the modern university in Korea. In P.G. Altbach, & V.
Selvaratnam (Eds.), From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian
Universities (pp.230-231). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Marginson, S. (2010). Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: rise of the Confucian
Model. Higher Education (Published online on October 8, 2010, DOI: 10.1007/
s10734-010-9384-9).
MEST (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Korea) (2011). Secrets of
Education Powerhouse. Online information at
http://eng.kedi.re.kr/khome/eng/education/genernalInfo.do#
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology). (2009). Statistical Abstract 2009
edition. National Printing Bureau, Japan.
MEXT (2010). Statistical Abstract 2009 edition. National Printing Bureau, Japan. (inJapanese)
MEXT, & KEDI. (2008). Brief Statistics on Korean Education, Seoul (p.10). Korea.
MOE. (1992). Gakusei hyakunijyuunenshi [History of 120-Year School System] (pp.39-40).
Tokyo: Kabushiki kaisya gyousei. (in Japanese)
MOE. (2005). Zhonguo jiaoyu nianjian [China Educational Yearbook 2004] (p.471). People’s
Educational Press, China. (in Chinese)
MOE. (2009). Zhonguo jiaoyu nianjian [China Educational Yearbook 2008] (p.403). People’sFutao Huang 131

Educational Press, China. (in Chinese)
MOE. (2010). Zhonguo jiaoyu tongji nianjian [Educational Statistics in China 2009].
Retrieved January 7, 2011from http://www:moe.edu.cn (in Chinese)
MOE. (2011). Zhonguo jiaoyu tongji nianjian [Educational Statistics in China 2010],
Retrieved January 7, 2011 from http://www:moe.edu.cn (in Chinese)
Oh, J., & Pang, J. (2005). Female Students and Faculty. In J. Weidman, & W. Park, (Eds.),
Higher Education in Korea: Tradition and Adaptation, New York: Falmer Press.
Pepper, S. (1996). Radicalism and education reform in twentieth-century China- the search for
an ideal development model (p.157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass higher Education. In OECD
(Ed.), Policies for Education (p.57). Paris: OECD.

132

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011 133

The Academic Profession in Japan: Work, careersand scholarship

Hideto Fukudome

Introduction
There is much discussion on higher education reform in Japan. Most of itis closely related to the work of the academic professions who are the core
constituents of colleges and universities. This paper discusses the most criticalcontemporary issues of the academic profession in Japan. These issues are
essentially related to three areas; work, career development and scholarship.
How Japanese academics carry out their work? How do they develop theircareers? How do they sustain their academic lives and values. These are themain research questions which I will discuss in this paper.
First, I will review some survey data on Japanese academic professions.
Mainly, I will refer to working conditions and initial career formation such as
employment conditions, workloads and experienced difficulties in their work.
Through them, we can review the reality of the contemporary Japanese academic
profession compared with that of early 1990s and also with that of academics inother countries.
Then, based on these findings, I will discuss two topics: graduate educationand conceptions of academic work. I will focus on graduate education in termsof the period of research training, which reflects the culture and tradition ofacademics in each country. So, it will be interesting to compare data fromdifferent countries. Even though some important shifts in Japanese graduate
education are discernable, we can still find essential differences between Japanand other countries.
Associate Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, Japan, e-mail: fukudome@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

134 The Academic Profession in Japan

Finally, I will refer to some conceptions of scholarship; some important
thoughts which enhance our approach to the work of the academic professions. I
will pick up some discussions in the United States. I think their ideas areclosely related to the critical issues of the characteristics and specialties ofcontemporary academic professions, not only those of the United States but also
the academic professions in Japan and other countries.

Working conditions
Work time
Figure 1 shows the work time of faculty members in each country which
participated in the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) survey (the numbers
report respondents’ average working hours per week when classes are in session).
The data shows that Japanese faculties spend more time in teaching, research andother work activities than most faculty members in other countries. The total
working time of Japanese academics (51 hours) is the second longest next toKorea (52 hours).

Source: CAP Survey (2007)
Note: Average working hours per week when classes are in session.

Figure 1. The distribution of work time by country

Figure 2 shows how the time distribution over various work activities haschanged in Japan in 15 years since the 1992 Carnegie International Survey.

Hideto Fukudome 135

Most notable is the decrease of time for research. On the other hand, the time
for teaching, administration and service increased a little. This decline inresearch time can be viewed as one of the main trends in the working conditionsof Japanese academic professions after the 1990s. In another survey, Kato
(2005) reported that Japanese faculties overwork themselves. Particularly, heindicated that the time for research is invaded by the time for meetings andmiscellaneous duties. Of course, it is necessary for faculty members to get
involved in the administrative work of their own institutions to govern theacademic institutions properly. However, the serious problem is that Japanesefaculty members become busier while losing time specifically devoted to theiracademic work, particularly research.
㻜㻑

㻝㻥㻥㻞

㻞㻜㻑

㻟㻣㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

㻢㻑 㻝㻝㻑 㻡㻑㼀㼑㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼓
㻾㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔
㻿㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑
㻭㼐㼙㼕㼚㼕㼟㼠㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚
㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞

㻞㻜㻜㻣

㻠㻜㻑

㻟㻞㻑

㻤㻑

㻝㻠㻑

㻢㻑

Source: Carnegie Survey (1992), CAP Survey (2007)
Note: Average working hours per week when classes are in session.

Figure 2. Distribution of work time, 1992 and 2007

Figure 3 shows the differences in work time distribution by age cohort for
academics in Germany, UK and US, compared to Japan. The data suggest thefollowing:
࣭In Japan, faculty in their 20-30s spend a little more time on research thanother age cohorts, but the difference between age cohorts is insignificant.
Instead, young people spend more time on teaching than other age cohorts,
and almost the same amount of time on administration. Therefore,
disparities in time distribution between age cohorts is very flat in Japan.
࣭In the other three countries (Germany, UK and US), young faculty spend
more time on research than other age cohorts. In these countries, the timespent on teaching and administration start to increase in their 40s.

136 The Academic Profession in Japan

These differences between Japan and other countries imply the different
structure of work among age cohorts in different countries, and may also indicate
the differences of structure and process in faculty members’ development of
academic careers.
㪉㪌

㪉㪇

㪈㪌

㪫㪼㪸㪺㪿㫀㫅㪾
㪩㪼㫊㪼㪸㫉㪺㪿
㪘㪻㫄㫀㫅㫀㫊㫋㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅

㪈㪇

㪌

㪇
㪉㪇㪄㪊㪇㫊
㪞㪼㫉㫄㪸㫅㫐

㪋㪇㫊㪌㪇㫊㪍㪇㫊㩷㩽㩷㪸㪹㫆㫍㪼Germany㪉㪌㪉㪇㪈㪌㪫㪼㪸㪺㪿㫀㫅㪾
㪈㪇㪩㪼㫊㪼㪸㫉㪺㪿
㪘㪻㫄㫀㫅㫀㫊㫋㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㪌㪇㪉㪇㪄㪊㪇㫊
㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅

㪋㪇㫊

㪌㪇㫊

㪍㪇㫊㩷㩽㩷㪸㪹㫆㫍㪼

Japan

㪉㪌

㪉㪇
㪫㪼㪸㪺㪿㫀㫅㪾
㪩㪼㫊㪼㪸㫉㪺㪿
㪘㪻㫄㫀㫅㫀㫊㫋㫉㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅

㪈㪌

㪈㪇

㪌

㪇
㪉㪇㪄㪊㪇㫊
㪬㫅㫀㫋㪼㪻㩷㪢㫀㫅㪾㪻㫆㫄

㪋㪇㫊

㪌㪇㫊

United Kingdom㪍㪇㫊㩷㩽㩷㪸㪹㫆㫍㪼Hideto Fukudome 137

㻞㻡

㻞㻜

㻝㻡
㼀㼑㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼓
㻾㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔

㻝㻜㻭㼐㼙㼕㼚㼕㼟㼠㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻡㻜㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟
㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟

㻠㻜㼟

㻡㻜㼟

㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑

United States

Source: CAP Survey (2007)
Note: Average working hours per week when classes are in session.

Figure 3. Distribution of work hours of faculty in four countries
㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑

㻟㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻡㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚
㻯㼔㼕㼚㼍
㻲㼕㼚㼘㼍㼚㼐
㻹㼍㼘㼍㼥㼟㼕㼍
㻳㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼥
㻭㼡㼟㼠㼞㼍㼘㼕㼍㻼㼛㼞㼠㼡㼓㼍㼘
㻴㼛㼚㼓㻌㻷㼛㼚㼓㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻷㼕㼚㼓㼐㼛㼙㻿㼛㼡㼠㼔㻌㻭㼒㼞㼕㼏㼍㻯㼍㼚㼍㼐㼍
㻵㼠㼍㼘㼥㻺㼛㼞㼣㼍㼥
㻹㼑㼤㼕㼏㼛
㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟㻷㼛㼞㼑㼍㻘㻌㻾㼑㼜㼡㼎㼘㼕㼏㻌㼛㼒㻮㼞㼍㼦㼕㼘
㻭㼞㼓㼑㼚㼠㼕㼚㼍㼀㻻㼀㻭㻸

Source: CAP Survey (2007)

Figure 4. Percentage of faculty in 18 countries who think their teaching andresearch are hardly compatible, 2007

Compatibility of teaching and research
The CAP survey asks whether faculty members think their teaching andresearch are compatible. Figure 4 shows the proportion of respondents who
perceived that their teaching and research responsibilities are ‘hardly’ compatible.

138 The Academic Profession in Japan

The proportion is the highest in Japan, and we can find huge gaps between Japanand other countries. Many factors contribute to this result, and each country
has its own complex contexts of its own. So, it is not simple to interpret theseresults. However, at least from these data we are able to perceive some serious
problems in terms of the academic work of Japanese faculty members.
Figure 5 shows perceptions of the compatibility in teaching and research by
age cohorts in four countries. Teaching and research conflict is more serious
for Japanese younger faculty members than for older generations and also thanfor young faculty members in other countries. One of the reasons that Japanese
academic staff in their 20-30s tend to think teaching and research are notcompatible seems to relate to their time distribution; that is, as indicated in
Figure 3, they spend almost the same amount of time on teaching and research as
their older colleagues even though, in other countries, younger faculty members
spend more time in research than their older colleagues.
㪎㪇㩼
㪍㪇㩼
㪌㪇㩼
㪞㪼㫉㫄㪸㫅㫐

㪋㪇㩼

㪡㪸㫇㪸㫅
㪊㪇㩼

㪬㫅㫀㫋㪼㪻㩷㪢㫀㫅㪾㪻㫆㫄㪬㫅㫀㫋㪼㪻㩷㪪㫋㪸㫋㪼㫊

㪉㪇㩼
㪈㪇㩼
㪇㩼
㪉㪇㪄㪊㪇㫊

㪋㪇㫊㪌㪇㫊㪍㪇㫊㩷㩽㩷㪸㪹㫆㫍㪼

Source: CAP Survey (2007)

Figure 5. Percentage of faculty who think their teaching and research are
hardly compatible in 4 countries by age cohort, 2007

Employment
The distribution of faculty work time may have some relationship to faculty
members’ employment conditions. In Japan, faculty members’ employment
contracts with higher education institutions have been gradually changing.
Based on the CAP survey, in 1992 almost all faculties (96.9%) were permanently
employed (tenured). But by 2007, some portions of them were employed on
fixed-term contracts (11.9%). As shown in Figure 6, younger faculty members
tend to be employed with fixed-term contracts. Even though, compared withother countries, the employment system in Japan is more stable regardless ofHideto Fukudome 139

Japan

Germany

their ages. In Japan, most faculty members are employed permanently or
continuously (no preset term without guarantee of permanence) even in their
20-30s. When we put these two categories (permanent or continuous
employment) together, inter-cohort differences in the proportions reporting
various types of contract are small. The situation of many young members offaculty being employed with the same status as their middle-aged and seniorcolleagues may be one of the factors in their equal commitment to the same
proportionate obligations towards teaching and administration. What is clear isthat Japanese academic professionals’ working conditions differ from those of
the other three countries. They share the same work structures regardless of
their ages. Many faculty members are guaranteed permanent or at least
continuous employment, even at the outset of their careers. It can be said that
the Japanese academic world is a flat and stable system, and does not lend itself
to much disparity by age when we talk about faculty development.

United States

United Kingdom

140 The Academic Profession in Japan

Source: CAP Survey (2007)

Figure 6. Duration of employment contract in four countries by age cohort, 2007

Graduate education
Graduate education provides the training for the academic professions. In
the Japanese context, how to construct graduate training as systematic andsubstantial programs has long been an issue since we adopted the Americansystem of graduate education after WW2. This issue includes two different,
though closely connected, factors; awarding PhD degrees to more students when
they graduate from doctoral programs, and making coursework requirements
more systematic and substantial.

Hideto Fukudome 141

Awarding PhD degrees
In Japan, we have two types of PhD: a “program” PhD which is conferred
upon completion of a required course of study and a “dissertation” PhD which isawarded regardless of the enrollment in PhD programs upon presentation of abook-length dissertation to a graduate school. Typically, many “dissertation”
PhDs are awarded to individuals who have finished PhD programs without
writing their dissertations (and without getting the PhD), and completed them intheir 40s or 50s after they obtained academic positions and worked for years inacademic world. Traditionally, PhD degrees have been thought to beauthoritative particularly in the field of humanities and social sciences, and given
to great scholars who already have major accomplishments in their own fields.
This tradition makes it difficult for many students to get PhD degrees at the time
when they finish doctoral programs. However, this trend has gradually changed
after the 1990s, and currently many students finish their doctoral programs while
also completing their PhD dissertations. In 1985, 62 percent of PhDs wasawarded as dissertation PhDs, and only 38 percent were program PhDs.
However, by 2005 75 percent of all PhDs were “program” PhDs with the numberof dissertation PhDs rapidly decreasing (Ogata & Murasawa, 2009, Figure 7).
This situation indicates the significant change in the process of researchtraining through graduate education. Completing PhD dissertation now
becomes the most substantial research activity in PhD programs. Along withthis change, the whole process of research training including coursework andwriting master’s theses should be reconsidered.
㻜㻑

㻝㻥㻤㻡

㻞㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻟㻤

㻢㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

㻢㻞

㻼㼞㼛㼓㼞㼍㼙㻌㻼㼔㻰
㻝㻥㻥㻡

㻞㻜㻜㻡

㻡㻝

㻠㻥

㻣㻡

㻰㼕㼟㼟㼑㼞㼠㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻌㻼㼔㻰㻞㻡

Source: Ogata & Murasawa (2009)

Figure 7. Distribution of type of PhD, 1985-2005

99

61

58

66

53

21

86

38

You were required to write a thesis ordissertation

You received intensive faculty guidance foryour research

You chose your own research topic

You received a scholarship or fellowship

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

You received training in instructional skills
or learned about teaching methods

You were involved in research projects withfaculty or senior researchers

You served on an institutional or
departmental (unit) committee

19

45

16

40

71

74

29

99

18

AU

28

52

17

27

64

79

68

98

87

BR

32

60

21

63

78

80

52

97

75

CA

8

59

22

39

31

52

71

80

73

CH

20

57

13

48

57

67

36

93

64

FI

16

38

8

62

21

59

30

100

14

DE

13

42

19

38

57

84

50

97

54

HK

11

67

25

18

81

61

82

96

51

IT

3

21

15

50

49

60

60

83

36

JP

5

59

26

51

64

81

63

95

82

KR

30

44

16

33

74

69

41

95

35

MY

30

70

35

39

35

90

87

99

66

MX

28

43

9

61

73

65

27

94

64

NO

10

53

10

28

50

69

92

97

18

PT

11

20

7

17

28

74

24

94

7

ZA

11

36

15

33

68

65

25

97

19

UK

30

52

31

56

73

84

70

97

82

US

Source: CAP Survey (2007)
Note 1: Percentage of positive responses
Note 2: AR: Argentina, AU: Australia, BR: Brazil, CA: Canada, CH: China, Fl: Finland, DE: Germany, HK: Hong Kong, IT: Italy, JP: Japan,
KR: Korea, MY: Malaysia, MX: Mexico, NO: Norway, PT: Portugal, ZA: South Africa, UK: United Kingdom, US: United States

70

You were required to take a prescribed setof courses

AR

Table 1. Percent reporting the following characteristics of their doctoral training by country, 2007

17

49

18

40

57

69

54

94

52

TOTAL

142 The Academic Profession in Japan

Hideto Fukudome 143

Coursework and process of research training
Coursework requirements have long been another critical issue for our
graduate education. Table 1 shows some essential characters of each CAP
country’s research training.
The table provides interesting data for comparative analysis of graduate
education. And, it is thought to be closely related to the academic culture ofeach country. Particularly, here I would like to compare the data of Japan withthat of the United States. For the question “whether they were required to takea prescribed set of courses,” more than 80 percent of American faculty members
replied positively compared to about one third of Japanese faculty members.
When asked “whether they received a scholarship or fellowship,” and“whether they received an employment contract for teaching or research,” about
half of Japanese faculty agreed – a rate relatively low compared with othercountries. Asked “whether they were involved in research projects with facultyor senior researchers,” again we can find a large gap between Japan and the US.
In Japan only one-fifth of respondents have participated in research projects
during graduate studies, though in the US this ratio is more than half.
For most of the other questions, we can find interesting differences between
countries. In total, I can point out three specific findings about graduate
education in Japan. First, Japanese universities only require a small amount ofcourse work for the PhD –, although this low ratio in Japan seems to be similar
to that in Germany and UK, both of which had some influence on Japanesehigher education system particularly before WW2. Secondly, we haveextremely low rates of fellowships and employment contracts. Finally,
opportunities to get involved in collaborative research projects with faculty
members or senior researchers are extremely limited. Of course, we should
remember that practices even in Japan differ substantially by discipline.
To think about the process of research training, it is significant to review theframework which was established by Burton R. Clark (1995). Clark insisted
that to make research training effective, it is important that each training system
include multiple forms of settings, and two kinds of knowledge are necessary.
He referred to them as ‘tangible knowledge’ and ‘tacit knowledge.’ They areconcretely captured with the analogy of ‘words and libretto’ on the one hand, and‘music’ on the other. Applying this kind of knowledge concept, he presented
two kinds of groupings for research training: a teaching group and a researchgroup. And he insisted that a sustainable and interrelated connection between
these two groups is critically important. Particularly, he emphasized theimportance of departments as teaching groups within the context of144 The Academic Profession in Japan

contemporary knowledge expansion. Broad understanding of each discipline
will be effective – as in the American graduate school system –, and I think thatthe concept of interconnection of the two kind of knowledge is essential for
research training even in other places.

Scholarship
Boyer’s framework of ‘Scholarship’To think more deeply about the nature of academic work, we need someconcepts which can describe the essence of academic work and also enhance ourunderstanding of what academics are. One of the concepts we can rely on is
Ernest Boyer’s notion of ‘Scholarship.’ His name is already well known inJapan, but I do not think his ideas are widely shared in our academic world.
‘Scholarship reconsidered’ should be reconsidered again.
Boyer’s four
categories of scholarship (Scholarship of Discovery, Scholarship of Integration,
Scholarship of Application and Scholarship of Teaching) are briefly summarizedin Table 2.
Table 2. Characteristics of Ernest Boyer’s four scholarships
Table
2. Characteristics of Ernest Boyer’s four scholarships
Commitment of knowledge for its own sake/ freedom of inquiry/ following
Discovery
Discovery
Integration
Integration
Application
Application
Teaching
Teaching

Commitmentof knowledge
for toitstheown
sake/of inquiry/ following
disciplined fashion/
contributestackof freedom
human knowledge
and intellectual
disciplined
fashion/ contribute to the stack of human knowledge and intellectual
climateclimateGive meaning to isolated facts putting them in perspective/ making connections
Give
meaning
to isolated
putting inthemin perspective/
makingnonspecialists
connections
acrossdisciplines/
placingfacts
specialties
largercontext/ educating
across disciplines/ placing specialties in larger context/ educating nonspecialists
Equipment for service/ tied directly to one’s field of knowledge/ relate to (flow
Equipment
tied directly
to new
one’sintellectual
field of knowledge/
relate to(flow
directly out forof) service/professional
activities/
understandings
can
arise
directly out of) professional activities/ new intellectual understandings can arise
Based on hard work and serious study/ dynamic endeavor building bridges
Basedonteachers
hard workand serious study/
dynamiclearning/endeavor
bridges
betweenunderstanding
and student’s
notbuilding
only transmitting
betweenteachers
and extending
student’s learning/
not only transmitting
knowledge
but alsounderstandingtransforming anditknowledge but also transforming and extending it
Source: Boyer (1990)

Source: Boyer (1990)

I think the concept of Boyer’s scholarship is significant because based on
this concept we can effectively avoid the simplified dichotomy of teaching andresearch. Each of the four scholarships is suggestive as its own. Also, thewhole concept suggests that scholarship is not a set of static activities, but it isbased on some connection of ideas, attitudes and activities of academicians.
On the one hand, we can say that each of the four scholarships exists as
independent activities. On the other hand, they exist as a series of concepts thatare inter-related and not mutually exclusive.

Hideto Fukudome 145

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is one component ofBoyer’s notion of scholarship. SoTL is based on a conception of teaching as
scholarly work. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
took the initiative to enhance SoTL by establishing the program: Carnegie
Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL). This
program aims to advance teaching activities not only as private activities ofindividual teachers but as the public “communal” scholarly work which can beequivalent to research activities. CASTL tries to establish a community toenhance the activities of teaching and learning. Scholarly work of teaching
includes the process of documentation, exchange and peer review. Throughthem, teaching can turn from a private activities into a public one with anemphasis on accumulation of knowledge and practices.
The Carnegie
Foundation describes it thus;
The CASTL Program seeks to support the development of ascholarship of teaching and learning that: fosters significant, long-lastinglearning for all students; enhances the practice and profession of teaching,and; brings to faculty members’ work as teachers the recognition andreward afforded to other forms of scholarly work.
Achieving these goals involves significant shifts in thought andpractice. For faculty in most settings, teaching is a private act, limited tothe teacher and students; it is rarely evaluated by professional peers….
CASTL seeks to render teaching public, subject to critical evaluation, andusable by others in both the scholarly and the general community.

Conclusion
In this paper, I discussed the contemporary circumstances of the Japanese
academic professions, focusing particularly on their work, academic
development and scholarship. We found that the current working conditions ofJapanese academics are unfavorable. Their working time is longer thanacademics in other countries, but at the same time Japanese academic’s time forresearch is diminishing. Under these conditions, many of them, particularly
younger faculty members, feel it difficult to manage their academic work. To
some extent, these conditions reflect our own academic culture, and definitely
have some advantages. For example, it is a strength of Japanese academic
market that young faculty members can enjoy stable working conditions under
the permanent or continuous employment system. However, how younger
academic staff can address the challenges in managing their academic work is146 The Academic Profession in Japannot clear.
Another thing we should consider is the process of researchers’ academic
development. I addressed this issue through the comparative analysis of
graduate education. Again, we have our own characteristics in terms of theprocess and structure of research training which reflect our traditions andacademic culture. It is still, however, significant to rethink our tradition fromthe comparative perspective. I indicated that CAP data illustrate somesignificant differences in research training and graduate education between
countries.
It is important that we point out from a comparative perspective how
academic culture and traditions are different, and based on them we should think
about what kinds of change are required for the future of the Japanese academic
professions. At the same time, to enhance academic capacities under difficult
conditions, I think it is also important to share ideas which can help to develop
our thinking about what the academic profession is or should be.
It is a very difficult time for the Japanese academic professions to sustain
academic capacities of colleges and universities under the circumstances ofglobalization and massification of higher education. However, it is important tothink how we can chart a bright future for our academic world. I think it isboth important to consider the Japanese academic professions from acomparative perspective on the one hand and also to keep in mind the traditionalfoundations of the distinctively Japanese academic professions.

References
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Academy for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL). Retrieved fromhttp://www.carnegiefoundation.org/scholarship-teaching-learning
Clark, B.R. (1995). Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in Modern
Universities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fukudome, H., & Daizen, T. (2009). Education & Research Activities of Academic
Professions in Japan. In Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE) (Ed.), The
Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International, Comparative, andQuantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Reports No.13, pp.165-192).
Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Hideto Fukudome 147

Fukudome, H., & Kimoto, N. (2010). Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic
Profession: a focus on age and gender. In RIHE (Ed.), The Changing Academic
Profession in International and Quantitative Perspectives: A focus on teaching &research activities (RIHE International Seminar Reports No.15, pp.135-157). Hiroshima:
RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Kato, T. (2005). Academic Profession in Knowledge-based Society. In RIHE (Ed.),
Redefinition of the Academic Profession (Reviews in Higher Education No.83, pp.61-80).
(in Japanese)
Ogata, N., & Murasawa, M. (2009). Trend of the PhD Degrees Award. In RIHE (Ed.), Trends
and Issues of Graduate Education, (Interim Report of Strategic Research Project on
University Reform, pp.131-154). (in Japanese)

148

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011 149

The Academic Profession in Malaysia 2010: A
proposed study

Vincent Pang, Morshidi Sirat, Aida Suraya Md Yunus, Ambigapathy Pandian,Fauziah Mohd. Taib, Munir Shuib, Norzaini Azman, Koo Yew Lie, ShukranAbdul Rahman, Rosni Bakar, Lay Yoon Fah, Ramayah Thurasamy, Ramayah
Thurasamy, Worran Kabul, Roszehan Md. Idrus, Lai Yew Meng, and Mohd.
Rahimie Abd. Rahim

Background of the study
Universities have frequently been regarded as key institutions involved inprocesses of social change and development. In relation to this role, Malaysian
universities have realigned themselves towards goals like creating a ‘knowledge
society’, an ‘achievement society’, a ‘democratic society’, a ‘global society’ or,Vincent Pang, Director of Office of International Affairs at Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia,
e-mail: princent@ums.edu.myMorshidi Sirat, Deputy Director General of Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, e-mail:morshidi@usm.my
Aida Suraya Md Yunus, Director of Centre for Academic Development at Universiti Putra, Malaysia,
Malaysia, e-mail: aida@educ.upm.edu.my
Ambigapathy Pandian, Dean of School of Languages, Literacy and Translation at Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Malaysia, e-mail: ambiga@usm.my
Fauziah Mohd. Taib, Deputy Director of National Higher Education Research Institute at Universiti
Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, e-mail: mfauziah@gmail.com
Munir Shuib, Deputy Dean of School of Humanities at Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, e-mail:munir@usm.my
Norzaini Azman, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
Malaysia, e-mail: norzai12@ukm.my
Koo Yew Lie, Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities at Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, Malaysia, e-mail: kooyl@pkrisc.cc.ukm.my
Shukran Abdul Rahman, Associate Professor, Kuliyyah of Revealed Knowzledge and Human
Sciences at Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia, Malaysia, e-mail: shukran@iiu.edu.my
Rosni Bakar, Associate Professor, Faculty of Business and Economics at Universiti Malaysia
Sarawak, Malaysia, e-mail: brosni@feb.unimas.my
Lay Yoon Fah, Senior Lecturer, School of Education and Social Development at Universiti Malaysia
Sabah, Malaysia, e-mail: layyoonfah@yahoo.com.my
Ramayah Thurasamy, Associate Professor, School of Management at Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Malaysia, e-mail: ramayah@usm.my
Worran Kabul, Associate Professor, Faculty of Business Management at Universiti Teknologi Mara
(UiTM) Sabah, Malaysia, e-mail: wkabul@sabah.uitm.edu.my
Roszehan Md. Idrus, Associate Professor, School of International Tropical Foresty at Universiti
Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia, e-mail: zehan@ums.edu.my
Lai Yew Meng, Deputy Dean of Centre for the Promotion of Knowledge & Language Learning atUniversiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia, e-mail: lyewmeng@ums.edu.my
Mohd. Rahimie Abd. Rahim, Deputy Dean of School of Business and Economics at Universiti
Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia, e-mail: rahimie@ums.edu.my

150 The Academic Profession in Malaysia 2010

more likely, a combination of all of the above. The roles played by universities
in the development period are varied, multiple and contradictory; sometimes
reproductive of the status quo and sometimes transformative (Brennan & Lebeau,
2002). The main focus of a ‘traditional university’ in the Malaysian context isviewed in terms of its three primary functions: education, research and service tothe community.
Recent years have seen marked changes in what we understand asuniversity education and the academic profession. The new emphasis isexpressed in phrases like ‘the knowledge economy’, ‘knowledge workers’,‘knowledge management’, and ‘the knowledge society’. Driving such changes
in the university are the following factors:
Changing demographics í Longer lives, longer work days, larger urban
areas, more diverse populations and more frequent moves;(ii) The restructuring of employment í It has been predicted that the average
career trajectory in the future will consist of six or seven different careers
pursued sequentially. Lifelong learning is becoming a necessity rather
than the enrichment opportunity it may have been in the past.
Increasingly, students who already possess a degree are looking forvocational courses to develop new job or career skills;(iii) Technological change í The rate at which new technologies are
penetrating businesses and especially homes is increasing. One possible
impact of changing technologies is a move away from site-based deliveryof education to a more flexible, learner-selected mode of learning;(iv) Cultural change í human needs have been transformed to the point where,
in the marketplace, consumers focus on representations as much as they
do on physical entities; and(v) Other – Design, aesthetics, concepts, brand associations, and service
sensibilities.
(i)

The above forces have led to the generation of new academic roles and thediversification of existing ones. With the market emphasis and government
steering characteristic of the knowledge society, much is made of the importanceof training in multiple-skills, flexible career paths, lifelong learning and learningin the workplace (Government of Malaysia, 2006). There appears to be a shift
away from an emphasis on knowledge elitism and knowledge for its own sake,as typified by the traditional university, towards the integration of the subject
discipline with professional and vocational education. The attention toacademic roles is becoming critical. In this vein, exciting discussions areVincent Pang et al. 151

taking place: about the curriculum; about how to teach and learn; about theexperiences that are essential for an educated person; about the appropriatebalance between education for a career and education for its own sake; and about
appropriate length of study for degrees or certificates (how soon students cangraduate after initial enrolment). Malaysian academics are currently being
urged to initiate a paradigm shift in their teaching responsibilities, fromteacher-centred to learner-centred. At the same time, there is the imperative tobalance the tensions of market driven, narrow and technical outcomes in terms ofthe mastery of, and proficiency in, the practice of a discipline or field, against a
broad education in citizenship in the context of transforming societies in which
the professions.
On top of innovative teaching and research, universities in Malaysia areconfronting a new set of roles, with the emphasis on promoting the usefulness ofknowledge and the scholarship of application. The primary source of thischange is the growth of knowledge in science and technology emerging fromresearch activities, led by corporate research and development. Universities in
Malaysia are also experiencing similar expansion in roles and functions.
Another source of change is the spread of for-profit education, typical of theprivate higher education institutions (PHEI) in Malaysia, which propels a third
set of roles for these universities: course goals that are tactical, focusing on
knowledge and skills that have immediate payoff i.e. the competencies theircustomers need right now and for their next career move, – popularly termed as
lifelong employability competencies. According to Newton (2002), many
institutions of higher learning become educational corporations depending on
expertise in finance, accreditation, marketing and customer relations to survive
in an increasingly competitive environment marked by diminishing government
funding.

Recent developments in Malaysia affecting the academic
profession
Since the conduct of the international Changing Academic Profession
survey in 2007, a multitude of policy and governance changes have taken placein Malaysia. These changes affect all aspects of life in Malaysia, including
higher education and the academic profession. In 2007, the Malaysian
Qualifications Agency (MQA) Act was instituted. The MQA Act 2007
introduced the Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF) that sets thestandards on the quality of higher education in nine areas: (i) vision, mission,educational goals and learning outcomes; (ii) curriculum design and delivery;

152 The Academic Profession in Malaysia 2010(iii) assessment of students; (iv) student selection and support services; (v)academic staff; (vi) educational resources; (vii) programme monitoring andreview; (viii) leadership, governance and administration; and (ix) continual
quality improvement (MQA, 2009). MQF also stipulates the determination oflearning outcomes of all academic programmes to cover eight domains: (i)knowledge; (ii) practical skills; (iii) social skills and responsibilities; (iv) ethics,
professionalism and humanities; (v) communication, leadership and team skills;(vi) scientific methods, critical thinking and problem solving skills; (vii) lifelong
learning and information management skills, and (viii) entrepreneurship andmanagerial skills.
To transform higher education in order to meet a world standard, theNational Higher Education Strategic Plan: Towards 2020 and Beyond (MOHE,
2007b), and the National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010 (MOHE,
2007a) were launched in 2007. Seven thrusts were outlined in the Strategic
Plan: (i) widening access and enhancing equity; (ii) improving the quality ofteaching and learning; (iii) enhancing research and innovation; (iv) strengthening
institutions of higher education; (v) intensifying internationalization; (vi)enculturation of lifelong learning; and (vii) reinforcing the Ministry of Higher
Education’s service delivery system. Subsequently the Ministry of Higher
Education established the Project Management Office (PMO) to facilitate therolling out of the plans, to monitor progress as well as to perform formativeevaluation of implementation. In all public institutions of higher learning,
Institutional Project Management Offices (IPMO) were set up to facilitate theimplementation of plans and to support the national PMO.
In the March 2008 general elections, the ruling party lost its two-third
majority in the parliament for the first time in history. The result of theelections indirectly caused a change in the country’s leadership. Under the newprime minister, numerous new programs and policies aimed at making Malaysia
more competitive were introduced. The concept of One Malaysia wasintroduced “to preserve and enhance this unity in diversity which has always
been our strength and remains our best hope for the future” (Najib Tun Razak,
2010). The Government Transformation Plan (GTP) was then introduced witha focus on six National Key Result Areas (NKRA) of which education is
included. The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) system was introduced toprovide a mechanism to regularly assess the performance of all ministries andgovernment agencies, including public institutions of higher learning (PIHL).
In public institutions of higher learning, the performance assessment
management is coordinated by IPMO. Each ministry and agency has beenVincent Pang et al. 153

required to establish specific KPIs to be attained within specific time frames.
In public institutions of higher learning’s, each and every academic staff member
was required to set his/her KPI that will jointly contribute towards the attainmentof KPI in the institution.
The KPI system that stressed assessment and accountability shifted thecharacter of universities from elite institutions of higher learning to institutions
that meet public, academic and market demands. The Ministry of Higher
Education has outlined the performance indicators for the academicians toinclude teaching, research, publication, public service and consultancy. For
example, Malaysian academics have to ensure they carry out three research
projects a year and at least two published articles a year, apart from teaching andother administrative work (Saran Kaur Gill, 2007).
Assessment and accountability mechanisms are extending to institutions as
well. The Academic Performance Audit (APA) which was an importantmilestone of the 2007-2010 higher education action plan was carried out
nationwide in all public and private institutions of higher learning in 2010.
APA resulted in the award of Institutional Accreditation Status to Universiti
Sains Malaysia, Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti
Putra Malaysia, Monash University Sunway Campus, Nottingham University
Malaysia Campus, Curtin University Sarawak Campus, and Swinburne
University Sarawak Campus. MQA is planning to perform program audits for
all undergraduate and postgraduate programs in all public and private institutionsof higher learning in 2011.
The Malaysian government has identified a resource allocation system
based on the results of institutional assessments such as the Research Assessment
Exercise in the UK. Beginning in 2011, the funding mechanism of public
institutions of higher learning will take into account their performance, as
measured by the Rating System for Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia(SETARA) carried out by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA)(Economic Planning Unit, 2010).

Statement of the problem
Traditionally, academics in public institutions of higher learning areexpected to be producers and disseminators of knowledge, whose duties
primarily involve teaching, supervising research of undergraduate andpostgraduate students, conducting research and publishing scholarly works.
Academics in private higher education institutions, in contrast, are mainly

154 The Academic Profession in Malaysia 2010

expected to be disseminators of knowledge, focusing primarily on teaching, butwith the additional duties of marketing courses and recruiting students.
Academics in public institutions of higher learning’s are expected to teachstudents in undergraduate as well as postgraduate programs. They may design
the courses they teach, assign reading material and assess their students. On theother hand, many academics in private higher education institutions, whichmostly offer franchised programs, have no part in designing courses or evenassessing the students they teach (Lee, 2002).
While academics in public universities are expected to conduct research andproduce publications that meet national and international standards, and present
their findings in national or international seminars and/or publish them in theform of monographs, books or articles, their counterparts in the private sector are
not expected to undertake publication. However, of late, some private
universities and university colleges 1 are moving in the direction of public
universities with respect to research and publication, offering grants for theiracademic staff to conduct research and publish journals of their own. Currently,
services to the university and community are also important for academics inpublic institutions of higher learning, as they are part of the criteria forpromotion. For instance, they may be appointed to perform administrative
duties, such as the role of chair of an academic program, unit coordinator,
director or dean. They must also be involved in committees, for example, toorganise a conference or act as a task force either at the university or
school/faculty level. They are expected to contribute their expertise toacademic and non-academic local community and national development
programs. Academics in private higher education institutions are expected to
be involved in administrative duties, but community service is less common (Lee,1999).
Due to the introduction of an entrepreneurial, income generation role inpublic higher learning institutions, all academicians are expected to undertake
consultancy work that benefits the university and themselves, in addition toteaching, research and service. Corporatisation has a strong impact on the way
academics conduct their work today.
As a result of corporatisation,‘universities in Malaysia began to operate like business corporations andprofit-making centers’ (Lee, 2002, p.165). In this respect the academics
1
University colleges are higher education institutions which are smaller in all aspects.
Generally private higher education institutions register initially as university colleges and are
upgraded to universities upon the attainment of the required Ministry criteria.

Vincent Pang et al. 155

become not only knowledge providers but also entrepreneurs who face thechallenge of obtaining funding and revenue from external sources and generating
income for the universities. They are pressured to forge links with local
industry and the international intellectual community. The corporate culture
also places a lot of emphasis on performance, adopting corporate management
practices,such
asperformanceindicators,
benchmarking
andmanagement-by-objectives (Lee, 2002) and annual work targets, whichconsequently promote intense competition among academics for rewards,
recognition and promotion. One major challenge arising from this is how tocompete fairly and ethically. The need to gain funds from external sources
poses another challenge, that of creating a balance between entrepreneurial
activities and the many other roles that academics have to perform. Pressing
problems, such as rising graduate unemployment, the declining quality ofgraduates, inappropriate curricula (Morshidi, 2006), and rising student numbers
add more pressure on academics to ‘juggle’ effectively their various roles. The
ability to multi-task is now a necessity for them.
In relation to this, Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain, Munir Shuib and Mellissa
Ng (2010) found that academics in Malaysia, generally, were not engaging in theinternational arena, in terms of research and publication. Only a small numberof them conducted collaborative research with academics from outside of
Malaysia, presented papers at international conferences and published ininternational refereed journals.
Performance of Malaysian universities has also seen the scrutiny of the
public and political figures. The results of university ranking exercises, such as
Times Higher Education Supplement (THES), and more recently, QS ranking
have applied tremendous pressure on university top management, which is thenrippled down to the faculties. The Ministry of Higher Education, through the
MQA, has also formulated the rating criteria for the universities using the
SETARA Rating System. Apart from these, in recent years, the criteria forpromotion have also become more demanding, with the inclusion of criteria suchas Thompson ISI publications, whereas excellence in teaching may not be aswell recognized. These changes have started to show their impact in terms of abrain drain of faculties to other sectors, overseas, or from one institution toanother, which are deemed to be less demanding in terms of work load or
promotion expectations.
Given the increasing scope and complexity of their job description, it isessential to study their level of well being vis a vis the increasing demand placedon them. In light of the lack of understanding of the nature and extent of the156 The Academic Profession in Malaysia 2010changes experienced by Malaysian academics in recent years (2008-2010), thisstudy mainly aims to make comparisons between the findings of the Malaysian
Changing Academic Profession (CAP) 2006-2007 Survey and those of Academic
Profession Malaysia 2010 (APM) study.

Research objectives and research questions
The Malaysia Academic Profession 2010 (MAP) Project will examine thenature and extent of the changes experienced by the academic profession inrecent years (2008-2010). It will explore both the reasons for, and theconsequences of, these changes. It will consider the implications of thechanges for the attractiveness of the academic profession as a career, and for theability of the academic community to contribute to the further development of aknowledge society and the attainment of national goals.
In line with the aims stated above, the study seeks to answer to thefollowing questions:(i)What is the nature of the changes experienced by the academic profession
between 2008-2010?
(ii) To what extent are changes in various aspects of the academic profession(career and professional situation, general work situation and activities,
teaching, research, management, and extension/community services)
experienced by academics between 2008-2010?
(iii) To what extent does the experience of changes differ by gender, ethnicity,
academic rank, discipline, and types of higher education institutions(public vs. private; Apex university vs. Research vs. Comprehensive vs.
Technical universities)?
(iv) What are the possible associations among the six key aspects of thechanging academic profession (career and professional situation, generalwork situation and activities, teaching, research, management, andextension/community services)?
(v) What are the external and internal drivers of these changes?
(vi) How does the academic profession respond to changes in their external
and internal environment?
(vii) What are the consequences for the attractiveness of an academic career?
(viii) What are the consequences for the capacity of academics to contribute to
the further development of a knowledge society and the attainment of
national goals?

Vincent Pang et al. 157(ix) What are the consequences of the changes in academic jobs on the wellbeing of academics, measured by their work-commitment, job satisfaction,or general health?

Scope of research
The population for this research includes all 62 public and private
universities or university colleges in Malaysia.

Significance of the study
In this period of rapid change stimulated by globalisation and national
policies promoting the knowledge economy, it is essential to understand theorientations and actions of knowledge workers, especially those of the academic
profession, who occupy such a central position in the knowledge production
process. What are the academic profession’s views towards the increasing
relevance, internationalization, and managerial adaptations of their workplace,and how are these views changing? The APM project is especially well
positioned to answer these questions. The proposed study will build on theFirst International Survey of the Academic Profession carried out in 1991 in 14
nations and 2006-2007 CAP survey in Malaysia. Hence, many of the findings
can be directly compared to findings from this earlier period.

MethodThe research is divided into two phases. The first phase (which involves
Research Questions i to iv) adopts an ex-post facto research design, employing
quantitative methods.
The instrument: The main instrument will be modified from the original
Changing Academic Profession Questionnaire. This questionnaire consists ofsix sections: Section A: Career and Professional Situation; Section B: General
Work Situation and Activities; Section C: Teaching; Section; D: Research;
Section E: Management; Section F: Extension/Community Services; Section G:
Personal Background.
Samples: The study will be carried out on 3,000 academic staff in 30 public
and private IHLs Malaysia, which will be selected using a cluster sampling
method. Gender, ethnicity, academic rank, discipline, and types of IHLs will be
used as stratification variables for the selection of the sample. The sample size
will be determined based on Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) guide on minimum

158 The Academic Profession in Malaysia 2010

sample size.
Data Analysis: The Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS)
program will be used for quantitative data analysis. Descriptive statistics
involving frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations will be used.
Relationships among dependent variables and independent variables will beanalysed by using correlation and linear regression. As an effort to ensure all
the quantitative data are drawn from a normally distributed population,
numerical measures, such as skewness and kurtosis will be used to identify any
deviations from normal distributions (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998;
Miles & Shevlin, 2001). After the assumptions for using parametric techniques
in analysing quantitative data are met, statistical analyses which include
independent-sample t-test, one-way ANOVA, correlation and multiple regression
analysis will be used to test the stated null hypotheses at a specified significancelevel, alpha = .05.
In the second phase, four academics (1 professor, 1 associate professor, 1senior lecturer and 1 lecturer) from each of the selected institutions (1 Research
University, 3 Comprehensive Universities, 1 Technical University, 1 Overseas
branch campus university, 1 Government-Linked-Company university, and 3
private universities) will be invited to participate in a focus group discussion on
issues related to Research Questions (v) to (ix) listed above. The discussions
will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for qualitative data analysis.
Content analysis will be used to generate themes and findings for the fiveresearch questions.

Concluding remarks
This paper presents the proposal for a follow-up study on the changing
academic profession in Malaysia. Since a research grant has been secured, theproject commenced in June 2010.
To date, a literature review andinstrumentation for Phase 1 have been completed. The instrument will bepiloted in January 2011 and the actual data collection will be conducted upon thecompletion of the item analysis using the data of the pilot study in the early partof 2011. The research team hopes that the Changing Academic Profession Asia
Conference 2011 in Hiroshima will provide opportunities for strategic
collaboration on comparative Academic Profession studies between Malaysia
and other nations in Asia.

Vincent Pang et al. 159

References
Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain, Munir Shuib & Mellissa Ng. (2010). Presenting Malaysian
Academics to the World: What’s Holding Us Back? In Research Institute for Higher
Education (RIHE) (Ed.), The Changing Academic Profession in International andQuantitative Perspectives: A Focus on Teaching & Research Activities (Report of theInternational Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2010),
Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Brennan, J., & Lebeau, Y. (2002). The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies:
An International Project, Paper presented at the Consortium of Higher Education
Researchers, 15th Annual Conference, September 5-7, 2002, Vienna, Austria.
http://www.iff.ac.at/hofo/CHER_2002/pdf/ch02lebebren.pdf
Economic Planning Unit. (2010). The Tenth Malaysia Plan 2011-2015. Putrajaya: Prime
Minister’s Department.
Government of Malaysia. (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010. (Speech by the Prime
Minister in the Dewan Rakyat, March 31, 2006). Kuala Lumpur: Government of
Malaysia.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis(5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.
Educational & Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Lee, M.N.N. (1999). Private Higher Education in Malaysia. USM, Penang: School of
Educational Studies, USM.
Lee, M.N.N. (2002). The Academic Profession in Malaysia and Singapore. In P. Altbach (Ed.),
The Decline of the Guru: the Academic Profession in Developing and Middle Income
Countries (pp.135-165). New York: Boston College Center for International Higher
Education / Palgrave Publishers.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (2008). Code of Practice for Programme Accreditation.
Petaling Jaya: MQA.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (2009). Code of Practice for Institutional Audit. Petaling
Jaya: MQA.
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression and correlation. A guide for students andresearchers. London: Sage Publications.
Morshidi, S. (2006). Malaysia, in UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau of Education.
Higher Education in South-East Asia. UNESCO: Bangkok.
Najib Tun Razak. (2010). About 1Malaysia.
http://www.1malaysia.com.my/about/about-1malaysia/
Newton, R.R. (2002). For Profit and Traditional Institutions. Comparative International

160 The Academic Profession in Malaysia 2010
Higher Education, Spring 2002.
http://www.bc.edu /bc_org/avp/soe/ cihe/newsletter/News27/text008.htm
Saran Kaur Gill (2007). Country Paper for the Regional Research Seminar for Asia and PacificCompetition, Cooperation and Change in the Academic Profession: Shaping Higher
Education’s Contribution to Knowledge and Research: The Dynamics of Research andTeaching and Learning Demands in Research Universities: The Malaysian Case,
September 17-18, 2007, Zhejiang University.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011 161

The Korean Academic Profession Revisited:
Academic activity, performance, and governance

Jung Cheol Shin

1. Changing academic environments and the academic profession
Korean higher education has rapidly developed during last six decades.
The growth is impressive in its quality as well as quantity. The historicaccomplishments have been led by a strong demand for education, government
response to the policy, and economic development (Shin, 2011a). As many
people in Confucian countries do, Korean parents give priority to education in
their financial expenditures. It has long been a tradition of Korean culture thatparents sacrifice their wealth to educate their children. This cultural DNA
pushes and supports their child to get a college education. The first stage in the
education boom was elementary education in the 1960s and 1970s, followed bymiddle school in the 1970s and high school in the 1970s and 1980s. The rapid
increase of elementary and secondary education pushed the education laddertoward higher education in the late 1970s through 1990s. Currently, Korea
shows the highest tertiary enrollment rate of 98 percent worldwide according toOECD data. Moreover, higher education development has reached graduate
education in the 2000s.
Shin (2011a) discussed Korean higher education development from threeperspectives – the Confucian tradition, the Western university idea, andeconomic development. These three factors intertwined with one another toshape current Korean higher education. Among these threes, the economic
factor is critical in explaining Korean higher education development. Although
it is quite complicated to discuss causal relationships between economic
Associate Professor, Department of Education, Seoul National University, Korea, e-mail:jcs6205@snu.ac.kr

162 The Korean Academic Profession Revisited

development and education development, one clear fact is that education
development is not sustainable without economic development. In their study,
Shin, Lee, and Park (2011) found that education development is the antecedentfactor for elementary and secondary education development while economic
development is the antecedent one for higher education. In other words,
elementary and secondary education lead economic development and economic
development leads higher education development in Korea. This finding isrelated to the fact that government can lead education development through highschool, but not into higher education.
In the context of the fast growing higher education market, the academic
profession has been changing a lot during the last six decades. First of all, thenumber of its faculty members has been growing side by side with higher
education development. As Table 1 shows, the total number of facultyincreased more than tenfold from 6,064 in 1965 to 71,396 in 2010. Moreover,the qualifications or academic credentials of faculty, i.e., the share of PhDs
among them, has rapidly grown from 12 percent in 1965 when annual education
statistics began to be released to 80 percent in 2010.
Table1. Growth in tertiary enrollment, faculty numbers and academic
qualifications, South Korea, 1965-2010
Year

Tertiary students

Professors% PhD% Foreign PhD

1965

130,968

6,064

12

38

1970

170,151

8,667

16

35

1975

235,147

11,031

25

31

1980

597,687

20,456

23

36

1985

1,260,350

33,076

27

38

1990

1,466,862

41,416

42

37

1995

2,325,580

58,509

53

39

2000

3,359,688

56,851

74

39

2005

3,490,870

64,814

79

38

2010

3,540,367

71,39680

39

Source: Yearly Education Statistics from 1965 to 2010 (Korean Center for Education
Statistics)

The third indicator is the share of foreign PhDs. Interestingly, the share offoreign degrees has been remained around 40 percent since the 1960s. There
are advantages and disadvantages to having a relatively high share of foreign
degrees (Lee, 1989). The high proportion of foreign degree holders implies
that graduate education in Korea is not yet sufficiently developed; on the otherJung Cheol Shin 163

hand, it implies considerable openness to external degree holders and increased
benefits for internationalization. The weaknesses and benefits reverse to thepattern in other countries (e.g., Japan) where the proportion of foreign PhDs isquite low. Most of the foreign degree holders earned their doctoral degree froma competitive research university and they have contributed to the rapid growthof the academic productivity of Korean universities (Shin, 2011b). Among
Korean academics, 29 percent earned their doctoral degree from a US university.
Although the large share of foreign degree holders may or may not be a goodsign for Korean academic society, the fact implies that the academic
qualifications of Korean academics are not lower than that of advanced
countries.
Faculty life has been experiencing qualitative changes since the mid-1990s
when the Korean government aggressively adopted neo-liberalism-based
education reforms. In particular, the 5.31 Education Reform is a cornerstone of
Korean higher education as well as of elementary and secondary education.
Since then, new public management approaches have been widely introduced inhigher education in the interests of promoting accountability andcompetitiveness (Shin, 2011c). These changes brought remarkable changes tothe academic profession. The Carnegie International Faculty survey of
1991-1992 was conducted ahead of these changes and the 2008 CAP survey was
conducted 13 years after the changes. Therefore, comparing the academic
profession between the first and the second survey will provide invaluable
information on that how neo-liberalism-based education reforms have affected
contemporary academics. Although there are similarities with many othercountries, the Korean case has enormous value because Korean higher education
experienced such dramatic – and largely positive – changes between the
Carnegie and the CAP survey.
In addition, globalization has broadly affected higher education as wellsince the mid-1990s. Globalization and the emergence of the knowledge-based
economy have widely and profoundly affected higher education in many ways.
Higher education institutions struggle to attract more international scholars andinternational students to compete with their international counterparts.
University rankings, especially global rankings (e.g., Shanghai Jiao Tong
University ranking, Times QS ranking, Leiden University ranking, Webometrics,
and Taiwan Higher Education and Accreditation Council ranking etc.), haveemerged as a tool to measure global competitiveness among universities in the
mid-2000s. Universities, especially research universities, began to consider
their research productivity as a lever to enhance their rankings. Under the164 The Korean Academic Profession Revisitedpressure of globalization and the knowledge-based economy, Korean universities
began to emphasize research productivity. This trend has been accelerated by agovernment policy such as the Brain Korea 21 which was designed to build
world-class research universities in Korea as a hub of knowledge production.
Within this context, our main query of interest here is whether faculty job
satisfaction, their activities, and their role in governance and management havechanged between the two surveys. It might be expected that faculty job
satisfaction would decrease in the 2008 survey owing to the heightenedharshness of their job environment after the mid-1990s: Korean faculty work
harder and are required to perform better than before. From the governancepoint of view, they may have lost their influence in institutional governance, andthey may be isolated from institutional decision making. These hypotheses aretested based upon the empirical data in this study.

2. Data and analytical strategy
Data
The 2008 CAP data is based on a different population and sample from the
1992 Carnegie data, and the data was collected through a different survey
administration (Table 2). The total population for the 1992 survey was 26,365
academics and that for the 2008 survey was 52,763 academics. The gap
represents the growth of Korean higher education during the intervening 15
years. The 1992 data was collected through a paper survey and the 2008 data
was collected through an on-line survey.
Intervening technologicaldevelopments – which are part of the changing environment of higher education– enabled us to collect data through electronic methods. Digital libraries,
distance learning, on-line courses, and email communication with students wererare in 1992, but are widely available in contemporary higher education.
Table 2. Comparison of 1992 Carnegie and 2008 CAP surveys
Population/sample

1992

2008

Population

26,36552,763Sample

3,295

6,827

Response

1,211

900

paper survey

on-line survey

Survey Method

Analytical strategy
This paper has three foci of interest.

First of all, the changing environment

Jung Cheol Shin 165

of higher education may affect faculty’s job satisfaction. In discussing faculty
job satisfaction, attention will be paid to the work environment of Korean
academics because work environment is highly associated with job satisfaction.
Second, the changing academic environment may affect faculty preference intheir academic activities and also their workloads. Ranking competition may
lead Korean universities to place greater weight on research than teaching
because research is more highly valued by ranking indicators. Within thiscontext, faculty preferences and their time allocation may have been changed.
Third, the changing environment may affect institutional governance andmanagement. An increased emphasis on performance-based accountability
may weaken shared governance and may broadly promote increased
managerialism in Korean higher education. The following findings anddiscussions are based on these three main topics of interest.

3. Job satisfaction and the work environment
Faculty job satisfaction is affected by many factors, e.g., salary, working
hours, management and leadership styles etc. A groundbreaking study has been
conducted by Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman (1959) and his follow-up
researchers (e.g., Smerek & Peterson, 2006; Volkwein & Zhou, 2003). They
divided motivation between motivators and hygiene factors. The hygiene
factors are job environment factors and contribute to job dissatisfaction, while
the motivational factors are intrinsic factors such as job itself, empowerment,
recognition etc. Unfortunately, the CAP data include many hygiene factors but
few motivational factors, making a test of Herzberg’s theory impractical. The
best that we can do with current data is to discuss job satisfaction and the faculty
work environment. Interestingly, overall faculty job satisfaction has notchanged a lot: 76 percent reported high job satisfaction in 1992 compared to 77
percent in 2008). Indeed, on two indicators or survey items, it appears that
their job satisfaction has actually increased (e.g., “it is a poor time for young
person to be an academic,” “I would not become an academic if I have a choiceagain”). The vast majority of Korean academics replied that this is not a poor
time for young person to be an academic (80 percent), and they would be an
academic again if they had a choice (92 percent).
Nevertheless, more academics reply that their job is a source ofconsiderable strain (58 percent in 1992 vs. 68 percent in 2008). In general,
Korean academics are very satisfied with their current job even compared withthe 1992 survey, but they feel that their academic job is also increasingly166 The Korean Academic Profession Revisitedstressful. The finding is quite complicated to interpret. Presumably, theacademic job is a relatively good choice for them compared with other jobs forhighly educated people though it is accompanied by stress. Returning to
Herzberg’s dual factor theory, the academic job appears to provides moreinternal motivation than environmental satisfiers (hygiene factors). Academics
enjoy academic freedom in their teaching and research, even as they enjoy
freedom in their service activities. Many academics are actively involved insocial services such as community service, holding a public official’s position, a
top-administrator position at a government agency and even elected political
positions. While academics serve in these positions, most of them maintaintheir faculty position even when they are employed full-time in the service jobs.
In addition, their social status is relatively higher than other jobs, such as
business, public officials etc. The value of academics rarely competes against
other jobs. This may need further analysis in the future because job satisfaction
explains why Korean universities attract talented people into academia.
Table 3. Percent faculty reporting high job satisfaction and high satisfaction
with aspects of the work environment, 1992 vs. 2008
Job Satisfaction & Environment

Job Satisfaction

Job Environment

1992

2008

Job satisfaction

76

77

This is a poor time for young person

35

20

I would not become an academic if I had it to doover again?

17

8

My job is a source of considerable personal strain

58

68

Classroom

21

48

Technology for teaching

7

44

Laboratories

8

26

Research equipment and instruments

824Computer facilities

1350

Library facilities & Services

843Your office spaces

25

48

Secretarial supports

10

19

Notes: % of faculty who agree or strongly agree with the survey item.

Alternatively, high job satisfaction (or, strictly speaking, lower job
dissatisfaction) may come from improved work environments. As shown in
Table 3, the job environment has been impressively improved during the last 15
years. The changes are related to increased financial investments. Some of
the investments came from student tuition increases as well as government

Jung Cheol Shin 167

supports. The Korean government has invested a lot into elementary andsecondary education, but quite less in higher education (Shin, 2011a). Instead,the Korean government has used evaluation-based budget allocation policy toimprove education environment. The evaluation-based budget policy has beenworking as a strong policy tool to lead investment in the education environment
in Korean higher education. Another major policy initiative to improve thework environment is the introduction of a quality assurance framework. The
Korean government adopted an accreditation framework to enhance the qualityof education in 1994. However, most of evaluation indicators are input
indicators and consist mostly of environmental factors (e.g., building, library,computer etc.). These initiatives contribute a lot to improving the work
environment with minimum investment by the government.
Another factor that contributed to improving the education environment isstudent tuition. During the past 15 years, student tuition also has increased
enormously. Students, actually parents were able to pay increased tuition
owing to the country’s economic growth. Through the tuition increase, Korean
universities upgraded their facilities and information technology, remodeled
buildings, and increased faculty salaries. Once the job environment has been
improved, dissatisfaction may be decreased although the improved job
environment does not directly contribute to faculty motivation according to
Herzberg’s theory. Although theoretically hygiene factors can be split frommotivational factor, both may be interrelated in practice. Therefore, academic
freedom and job security, and job environment are mutually reinforcing andcontribute to faculty job satisfaction.

4. Teaching and research activities: moving toward research
Globalization and the emergence of the knowledge economy have pushed
universities to focus more on their research than teaching functions. Since theUniversity of Berlin was established in 1810, the modern university has been
conducting three main functions í teaching, research, and social service. The
weight among these three functions has been assigned differently by different
types of institutions. The research-focused university places more emphasis on
research while the teaching-focused university weights teaching more. The
service function has been conducted at both research and teaching focused
universities though it depends on how one defines “social service.” However,
the relative weight between teaching and research has been moving toward
research since the 1990s. Since then, academic productivity has been

168 The Korean Academic Profession Revisited

considered as the main indicator of institutional competitiveness. Eventeaching-focused universities emphasizes research productivity in their faculty
hiring and promotion decisions. In addition, financial incentives are given to
research productive faculty.
These changes shift faculty preferences towards research because faculty
tend to align their preferences with available incentives. Beyond faculty
preferences, academics may shift their workloads from teaching to research.
These changes contribute to academic productivity at the institution as well as at
the individual faculty levels. Previous research (e.g., Porter & Umbach, 2001;
Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo & Dicrisi III, 2002; Shin & Cummings, 2010) has
found that faculty preferences has positive effects on their academic productivity
as measured by research publication. In addition, their increased time on
research is closely associated with their academic productivity (Shin &Cummings, 2010). These findings support the proposition that academics
produce more papers when they spend more time on research than teaching orservice activities.
Table 4. Faculty preference for teaching vs. research (percent), time allocation(percent), and academic productivity (mean), 1992 vs. 2008
Teaching/ResearchPreference

Workloads

1992

2008

Teaching

4.7

3.0

Both but teaching

45.6

29.0

Both but research

45.5

61.0

Research

4.2

7.0

Teaching

22.9

21.1

Research

16.9

18.1

Service

4.5

4.7

Administration

4.8

6.0

Others

3.4

3.3

Total

52.5

53.2

Scholarly books authored

0.46

1.0

Scholarly books edited

0.3

0.7

Articles

4.77

10.6

1.52

2.6

Paper presented at a scholarly conference

2.45

7.6

Professional article written for newspaper or magazine

1.08

1.1

Patent secured on a process or invention

0.05

0.7

Academic Productivity Research reports

Notes: workloads is hours per week during the semester, while academic productivity is themean number of outputs over the past three years.

Jung Cheol Shin 169

In the 1992 survey, academics reported a balance between teaching (50.3
percent) and research (49.7 percent), but they leaned toward research (68 vs. 32
percent) in the 2008 survey. The changes may or may not be a good sign for
the university and the larger society. The strong emphasis on research takes
faculty time away from class preparation and may result in decreased teachingquality. Although academics may argue that faculty reduce their social andfamily activities to increase their time to work on research (e.g., Harry &Goldner, 1972), the CAP data shows that increased time allocated to research
reduced their time on teaching. During the period between the Carnegie andthe CAP surveys, faculty time on teaching has been reduced 1.8 hours per week
and time on research has been increased 1.2 hours per week, while faculty
workloads have been increased only 0.7 hours per week from 52.5 hours to 53.2
hours. The finding implies that academics tend to decrease their time onteaching and increase their time on research in response to the incentives in theirjob environment.
If academics decrease their teaching preparation to increase their time on
research, does it result in decreased teaching quality? The literature does notprovide definitive conclusions on this topic. According to the higher education
literature, time on research has an impact on academic productivity. However,time on teaching may or may not affect teaching quality (Marsh & Hattie, 2002).
Teaching quality may be related to the training in teaching skills or personal
preference, but not much to course preparation hours. From that vantage point,
increased time on research may or may not affect faculty classroom teaching.
However, simultaneous increases in teaching and administration loads lead to adecrease in research hours for Korean academics. As Table 4 shows, Korean
academics are spending 1.2 additional hours per week on administrative work.
With the increased research emphasis and time allocation to research, theproductivity of Korean academics has increased considerably in most areas.
Noticeable change has been reported in patents which show a 13-fold increasesince the 1992 survey. This may be related to the fact that the Korean
government has encouraged academics to apply for patents to support industrial
development through technological innovation. The next question is whether
increased faculty productivity has positive effects on their teaching quality.
Academics tend to perceive that research has positive effects on their classroom
teaching. However, empirical evidence does not support that perception.
According to quantitative studies, research has near zero association withteaching quality (e.g., Feldman, 1987; Friedrich & Michalak Jr., 1983; Hattie &170 The Korean Academic Profession Revisited

Marsh, 1996; Marsh & Hattie, 2002); on the other hand, many qualitative studies
found that faculty research has positive impact on their classroom teaching (e.g.,
Durning & Jenkins, 2005; Robertson, 2007). Although the association may
differ by faculty career stage, types of research productivity (e.g., articles, book),and level of education (undergraduate and graduate education) (Shin, 2011d),
faculty research may not contribute to undergraduate teaching. If research does
not contribute to classroom teaching, to what does it contribute? Knowledge
can be used for technological development and management skills. The
contributions of knowledge production to society have been addressed in various
ways. One is the Triple-helix approach which was developed in the late 1990s
and applied to analyze the social utility of knowledge production (Etzkowiz &Leydesdorff, 1997). The Triple-helix theory assumes that knowledge produced
through collaboration between university-industry-government agencies has
more utility to society than the knowledge produced only in university settings.
The Triple-helix approach can be broadly applied in analyzing the health ofresearch production in a country. According to a Triple-helix framework, thepattern of research production by Korean academics was less healthy i.e. current
research is less useful to society in the 1990s and 2000s than in the 1970s (Park& Leydesdorff, 2010).

5. Governance and management
The environmental changes between 1992 and 2008 may affect governanceand institutional management. The Korean government has widely deregulated
its administration in the 1990s and 2000s. These changes are related to the
neo-liberal policy of the Korean government. With the deregulation, a large
share of administrative power has devolved to individual universities. Thismay be an opportunity for institutional leaders to more effectively manage their
institution or it may be an unwelcome challenge to them. This section focuseson the changes in governance and management between the two surveys.
Institutional governance may have changed considerably between the twosurveys. The new public management has been broadly applied since themid-1990s when the Korean government adopted the 5.31 Education Reform.
The reforms sought to minimize government involvement in higher education
institutions and use a quality assurance and accountability framework as themain policy tool to reform higher education institutions. The Korean
government began to allocate budgets to higher education institution based on an
evaluation of their performance. Among the survey items, academics perceiveJung Cheol Shin 171

that they have lost influence in three areas of institutional governance selecting
key administrators, determining overall teaching loads, and setting admission
standards. These changes may be related to increased managerialism in the
Korean university. The university president tends to have stronger power underthe evaluative states, under neo-liberal policies, in many countries (Neave, 1998).
Performance-based accountability empowers top managers to work efficiently
rather than empowering collegiate-based decision making.
Table 5. Percent reporting faculty have primary influence in seven governanceareas and percent agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements on
institutional management, 1992 vs. 2008
Governance & Management

Institutional
GovernanceInstitutional
Management

1992

2008

Selecting key administrator

70

83

Choosing new faculty

26

22

Faculty promotion and tenure

43

42

Establishing budget priority

72

77

Determining overall teaching load

18

55

Setting admission standard

39

59

Approving new academic program46

44

Top administrators show competent leadership

48

27

Keep information on what is going on at this institution

48

42

Lack of faculty involvement is a real problem

53

38

Administration support academic freedom

59

50

Among various areas, academics may lose their power those that are“in-between” academic and administrative affairs. University managers may
assume increasing influence on in-between affairs in the performance-based
accountability regime. As shown in Table 5, the three items on which
academics report losing their influence are in between items: “selecting key
administrator,” “determining overall teaching load,” and “setting admission
standard.” The primary consideration in selecting administrative staff iswhether he/she works efficiently rather than whether he/she is recommended byor acceptable to academics. From this perspective, a top-manger might have abetter view on these matters than a group of faculty colleagues. It is also noteasy to reflect collective opinion in determining the teaching load of anindividual professor; rather it is the university authorities who assign appropriate
credit hours for their faculty to teach. Admission standards are also difficult todetermine based on a compromise between academics because academics tend tobe negative toward reform initiatives in admission affairs. In addition,

172 The Korean Academic Profession Revisited

admission affairs have serious financial implications. Thus, decision making
on these in-between items has moved from the faculty collegium to top decision
makers in performance-based accountability contexts.
On the other hand, pure administrative affairs and pure academic affairs
have not changed much in terms of the locus of decision making power.
Academic affairs are still addressed collegially while administrative affairs are
addressed by administrators. For example, choosing new faculty, approving
new academic program, and faculty promotion and tenure are decided oncollegially.
On the other hand, budget priorities are determined byadministrative decision.
These trends in institutional governance show that decision making poweris moving toward top administrators from the faculty collegium. This isoccurring not only in Korean higher education. In other Western countries,
including those in Europe where faculty collegiality has a strong tradition,
faculty power is eroding in the face of emerging academic managerialism.
Academics are becoming a functional part of the university rather than an active
stakeholder in many countries. Even academics perceive that lack of active
participation in university affairs is not a serious problem. Although shared
governance is a main feature of modern university governance, it is being eroded(Shin, 2011c). As discussed, however, faculty have maintained control overly
purely academic affairs, including appointments and promotion. In the new“managerial” university, top administrators have greater influence in decision
making and they are expected to show competent leadership. Surprisingly,
however, a lower portion of faculty report that top administrators showcompetent leadership in 2008 than in 1992. This finding implies that top
administrators have stronger influence on their campus, but show less effective
leadership than in 1992. What happened during this period? This is difficult
to interpret. Shin (2011c) attributed the weak leadership of top-administrators
to the voting systems for university president. Many Korean universities,
especially national universities, elect their president by direct faculty voting
which is quite rare in many advanced countries. The election system has been
adopted since the democratization of Korean politics in the late 1980s and early
1990s. Under the direct voting system, the university president may not object
to faculty opinion on critical matters. Thus, presidents tend to organize many
committees to escape blame from his/her supporters in the election. This is aserious problem in many Korean universities, especially in the national andpublic universities. As usual, however, the committees produce a compromiseamong different entities that represent different units (e.g., college orJung Cheol Shin 173

department). The compromise among committee members may not besatisfactory to most academics. On the other hand, the decision by committee
is often not arrived at in a timely fashion. In this context, top administrators
tend to miss timely decisions and fail to satisfy their faculty constituencies.
Although this interpretation needs more in-depth follow-up research and further
elaboration, this appears to be what is occurring at many Korean universities.
Current governance patterns represents a case of decentralized
centralization in Shin and Harman’s term (2009), but such centralized
management is not efficient owing to the presidential selection system. The
Korean government has initiated many policy initiatives to address thisshortcomings since the early 1990s. One policy proposal was to exclude
faculty from the voting systems for president and academic deans. However,there were strong objections from academics because they perceive the election
as a sign of campus democracy. On the other hand, there is strong socialpressure to change the election system. Finally, the Korean government
adopted a policy to have deans appointed by the president instead of having themelected by the faculty. The new policy will be implemented beginning in 2012.
Another policy proposal was to incorporate the national university as anindependent entity along the lines of the U.S. model. The Korean government
has sought to transform university systems from a part of government to anindependent entity which is an incorporated and independent body fromgovernment. Although the government aggressively addressed the policy in the
mid-2000s, only one new university under the Ministry of Education has been
established as an incorporated body. Recently, the Korean National Assembly
passed a law to transform Seoul National University into an independent
incorporate body in 2012. According to the law, the president of Seoul
National University is not elected by faculty voting. Instead, the board oftrustees is authorized to appoint university president. These changes may
enable presidents to have greater power and to show more competent leadership.
Nevertheless, these policy efforts and policy changes bring with them many
challenges. These governance changes empower top administrators and reduce
faculty power on campus life. Faculty participation is a critical component ofshared governance. Although academics maintain their influences on academic
affairs, they are wondering if and when they may lose their influence on
academic affairs. Top-administrators may make appropriate and timely
decisions without caring much about their former “voters”, but they may makeless wise decisions without faculty participation. As checks and balances are
critical to government, they may also be to the university. Under the new174 The Korean Academic Profession Revisited

governance system (incorporation of a national university), policymakers should
pay attention to the balance between efficiency and academic freedom.
Academic freedom should not be compromised in any situation because, as thisauthor would argue, academic freedom is 99 percent of the university and theremaining 1 percent is also academic freedom.
With these governance changes, academic managerialism has been broadly
expanded to many dimensions of academic life. The Korean government hasapplied performance-based accountability since the mid-1990s.
Koreangovernment allocated 90 percent of its budget based on institutional evaluationsin 2008. The performance-based resource allocation approach may ultimately
influence resource allocation at the institution level; however, resource allocation
at the institution level is currently still based on head count of students andfaculty.
Recently, an aggressive policy was proposed by the Korean
government in 2010 – an annual salary contract system. The system is quite achallenge to Korean academics though it is common to the US, the UK, Australia,
Hong Kong, Singapore and some other countries. Although Korean academics
used to sign a salary contract with their university, the contract is based on theircareers (e.g., years of teaching, years of working etc.). However, the newcontract systems place greater weight on their current academic performance
than their previous working careers. These changes have potentially huge
impacts on academics. Korean academics are wondering whether thesechanges may bring severe competition among academics and result in loss ofacademic values on campus.

6. Concluding remarks
There have been many environmental changes for higher education during
last 15 years between the 1992 Carnegie and the 2008 CAP surveys.
Academics explain these changes with various expressions such as globalizationand the knowledge-based economy, performance-based accountability, newpublic management, academic capitalism etc. These environmental changes
have had enormous impacts on higher education and its academics. Thechanges require academics to respond in a certain way. For example,
academics are required to work harder to satisfy social demands, to publish more
papers, to educate larger size classes, to use diverse instructional methods intheir classroom, and to do better service to their society. These changes may be
a sign of increasing competitiveness of university education and may represent
increasing educational quality.

Jung Cheol Shin 175

One of queries has been how these changes affect academics. The 1992
Carnegie and 2008 CAP surveys enable us to compare faculty life before andafter the academic environmental changes of the mid-1990s. This study
provided a snapshot of the differences between the two surveys. As expected,
this study showed Korean academics preference has moved from a balance
between teaching and research toward research; they spend more time on
research than teaching; they publish more than twice as many books and articles
as they did; and they are losing their influence on campus-wide decision making.
These environmental changes may lead to reduced academic job satisfaction.
Surprisingly, however, Korean academics feel satisfied with their current
job. Among the 19 countries that participated in the 2008 CAP survey, job
satisfaction of Korean academics is the second highest after Mexican academics.
What makes Korean academics satisfied with their current job? This may or
may not be related to their physical working environments (e.g., new building,
computer equipment, lab, personnel supports, salary etc.). Alternatively,
Korean academics may be satisfied with their job security and the social status ofacademics in Confucian culture. Presumably, these all together affect their job
satisfaction. That job satisfaction should be further studied in the future.

References
Durning, B., & Jenkins, A. (2005). Teaching/research relationships in departments: The
perspective of built environment academics. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (4),407-426.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A
Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Francis Pinter.
Feldman, K.A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college
teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration. Researchin Higher Education, 26 (3), 227-298.
Friedrich, R.J., & Michalak Jr., S.J. (1983). Why doesn’t research improve teaching? Someanswers from a small liberal arts college. Journal of Higher Education, 54 (2), 145-163.
Harry, J., & Gouldner, H. (1972). The null relationship between teaching and research.
Sociology of Education, 45, 47-60.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H.W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66 (4), 507-542.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

176 The Korean Academic Profession Revisited
Lee, S. (1989). The emergency of the modern university in Korea. Higher Education, 18,
87-116.
Marsh, H.W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teachingeffectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal ofHigher Education, 73 (5), 603-641.
Neave, G. (1998). The Evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33 (3),265-284.
Park, H.W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industrygovernment relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research
Policy, 39 (5), 640-649.
Porter, S.R., & Umbach, P.D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel
modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42 (2), 171-196.
Robertson, J. (2007). Beyond the ‘research/teaching nexus’: exploring the complexity ofacademic experience. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (5), 541-556.
Sax, L.J., Hagedorn, L.S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi III, F.A. (2002). Faculty research
productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher
Education, 43 (4), 423-446.
Shin, J., & Harman, G. (2009). New challenges for higher education: Asia-Pacific and global
perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10 (1), 1-13.
Shin, J.C. (2011a, in press). Higher Education Development in Korea: A Comparative
Perspective from East Asian Higher Education.
Shin, J.C. (2011b, in press). How Foreign PhDs are Different from Korean PhDs in Their
Academic Activity, Performance, and Culture.
Shin, J.C. (2011c). South Korea: Decentralized Centralization—Fading Shared Governanceand Rising Managerialism. In W. Locke, W. Cummings, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Governanceand Management in Higher Education: The Perspective of the Academy. Springer.
Shin, J.C. (2011d). Teaching and research nexuses in a research university in South Korea.
Studies in Higher Education, 36(5). Doi: 10.1080/03075071003759052
Shin, J.C., & Cummings, K.W. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing acrossdisciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85(2), 581-594.
Shin, J., Lee, U., & Park, D. (2011, in press). A Triple Helix in the Success of Korean
Education: Policy, Education & Economy.
Smerek, R.E., & Peterson, M. (2006). Examining Herzberg’s theory: Improving job
satisfaction among non-academic employees at a university. Research in Higher
Education, 48 (2), 229-250.
Volkwein, J.F., & Zhou, Y. (2003). Testing a model of administrative job satisfaction. Researchin Higher Education, 44 (2), 149-171.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011 177

The Internationalization of Universities in South
Korea: Networking strategies and research
performance

Soo Jeung Lee and Yangson Kim

1. Introduction
Most universities in South Korea are being pressured by stakeholders to
become international and global universities. Indeed, Korean universities now
widely use words and phrases related to internationalization, such as
international, global, world class, leading the world and top of the world, in their
university strategy and vision statements. Moreover, there are many programs
and projects for internationalization of higher education institutions not only at
the institutional level but also at the national level such as “Brain Korea 21”,“Study Korea”, and “Humanities Korea”.
Now more than ever, internationalization means improving academic
quality and the position of universities in the world rankings because“internationalization” is one factor used to evaluate universities. When it was
originally introduced by the “Study Korea project” in 2004, theinternationalization strategy focused more on mobility of students and faculty.
The government and universities sought to recruit foreign students and faculty toenhance the international competitiveness of universities and generate tuition
revenues. However, the scope of internationalization has been enlarged frompersonal mobility to academic exchange. Personal mobility is the mobility offaculty and students through exchange programs, recruitment, and training
programs. Academic exchange promotes international collaboration and
PhD candidate, Seoul National University, South Korea, e-mail: maniere25@snu.ac.kr
PhD student, Seoul National University, South Korea, e-mail: febrero@snu.ac.kr

178 The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea

cooperation in research through joint research projects, systems for collaboration,international seminars and conferences and partnerships between universities.
Insofar as a cooperative climate and collaborative work enhance research
productivity (Shin & Cummings, 2010; Smeby & Try, 2005), international
collaboration is one critical factors in research performance. Increasing
international higher education consortia and various networking strategies havebeen established as processes of globalization (Beerkens & Derwende, 2007).
Despite the increased interest in the internationalization of higher education
institutions, relatively few studies have focused on the effects ofinternationalization strategies. Previous studies have attempted to define theconcept of internationalization (Hayden & Thompson, 1995; Knight, 2003; Van
der Wend, 1997; Yang, 2002) and to analyze strategies of internationalization at
the national and institutional level (De Wit, 1995; Douglass, 2005; Knight, 2004;
Rudzki, 1995).
This research led us to explore the effects of internationalization strategies
on international collaboration and research performance.
In particular,internationalization strategies focus on networking strategies at an institutional
level and departmental level. Since Knight (2004) discerned that the “realprocess” of internationalization is actually taking place in institutions, it isimportant to examine networking strategies within as well as between
universities.
In this study, the goal is to analyze how individual and institutional
characteristics affect international collaboration patterns and research
performance and to evaluate the impacts of networking strategies on researchcollaboration and research performance at the institutional and departmental
levels.

2. Literature
The literature review is organized into three sections. First, we overview
definitions of internationalization and distinguish between internationalizationand the related concept of globalization. Second, we discuss approaches tointernationalization focusing on strategies for internationalization in higher
education institutions. Third, the determinants and measures of research
performance are reviewed.
2.1 Definition of internationalization
There exist different definitions of internationalization of higher education

Soo Jeung Lee & Yangson Kim 179

is taking place in different nations, and involving different stakeholders andlevels (Kehm, 2003; Knight, 2005).
Knight (1994) describedinternationalization as the “process of integrating an international or interculturaldimension into the teaching, research and service functions of the institutions”;
and Arum and Van de Water (1992) defined the internationalization of higher
education as many activities, programs and services including international
learning, interchange of curriculum and alliances of technology. Definitions ofinternationalization are broadly divided into two types: some definitions are
related to institutional responses to a specific phenomenon and other are more
specifically related to border crossing activity. First, internationalization is thesystematic effort by which an institution responds to demands and challenges forsocial change such as globalization (UNESCO, 2004; Van der Wende, 1997).
Second, internationalization is activities to cooperate and develop internationalviews by crossing borders and boundaries of nations and societies.
To understand different views and definitions of internationalization, it isimportant to distinguish between internationalization and globalization.
Researchers and administrators frequently use internationalization andglobalization interchangeably. However, several researchers think globalizationand internationalization are distinctive, albeit related, concepts.
Internationalization is defined as activities to cross borders as an institutional
level response, but globalization is a tendency towards the blurring of borders
and is a macro phenomenon. Therefore, globalization is a status quo that isnever affected by influences from institutions and an external process that has
all-inclusive, social, and economical characteristics (Van de Wende, 1997).
Moreover, globalization is blurring the boundaries between nations, eveneliminating the borders, and emphasizes the processes of economic integration(Friedman & Ramonet, 1999; Teichler, 2004).
In this study, internationalization is defined as the internal efforts andactivities of higher education institutions such as exchange and cooperation
responses to the phenomenon of globalization.
2.2 Strategies for internationalization
Researchers have proposed a variety of strategies for internationalization.
Knight (2004) suggested four institutional-level programs and organizational
strategies: academic programs, governance, research and scholarly collaboration,and operations. Harman (2005) suggested that internationalization is acombination of activities which include the movement of students, themovement of academic staff and researchers, the exchange of higher education

180 The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea

curricula, and links between nations. In addition, Rudzki (1995) identified thefactors critical to successful internationalization as: favorable staff attitudes,
having the active support of senior management, having staff with a specificinternational agenda, having staff who are fluent in foreign languages,
availability of additional funds internally, having good partner institutions,having staff development focused on internationalization, access to information
on good practice, having staff experienced in teaching overseas, and remission
from teaching.
Networking is one of the key strategies for internationalization in tertiary
education institutions (Douglass, 2005; Knight, 2004; de Wit, Jaramillo,
Gacel-Ávila & Knight, 2005; Rudzki, 1995) when the core concept ofinternationalization is cooperation. Cooperation between universities is set up
to gain access to various resources such as research facilities, library collections,educational resources, human resources, or reputation and prestige in terms of
the resource-based view (Beerkens & Derwende, 2007). Networking strategies
are divided into individual level, department level, institution level, sector leveland national level (Sanderson, 2008; Katz & Martin, 1997).
2.3 Research performance
Research is one of the primary duties of faculties in universities; andresearch performance is getting increased attention from policy makers andheads of higher education institutions as a criterion for faculty evaluation andrecruitment. Therefore, indicators of research performance need to reveal
accurately the amount and quality of research for a proper evaluation (Print &Hattie, 1997). Research performance usually includes published books andjournal articles, patents, presentations at conferences, and so on (Yuker, 1974).
Among the available indicators, the number of articles included in Science
Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Art and Humanities
Citation Index (A&HCI), and SCOPUS have been used for the quantitative
analysis of research performance.
The dynamic processes that generate research productivity are alsoemphasized as well as the quantity and quality of publications. Productivity is
typically viewed as stemming – at least in the natural and social sciences – frominteractions based on the collaboration among researchers. Researchers affecteach other socially and interact intellectually to discover new academic
knowledge through working in collaboration (Edge, 1979; Katz & Martin, 1997;
Stokes & Hartley, 1989). Therefore, beyond the number of articles published ininternational journals, the documentation of research collaboration is also

Soo Jeung Lee & Yangson Kim 181

important to represent research performance.
In research performance, many studies have reported that individual factors– age, gender, academic training, family situation, etc. – have an effect on faculty
research (Horta, 2009; Over, 1982; Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo & Dicrisi, 2002;
Stack, 2004). Not only individual factors but also organizational contexts affectfaculty research productivity. Faculty research productivity is positively related
to the reputation of higher education institutions (Porter & Toutkoushian, 2006)
and their mission (Rerry, Clifton, Menec, Struthers & Menges, 2000; Shin &Cummings, 2010). On top of that, a cooperative climate and collaborative
work have impacts on research performance. The climate of cooperation at the
departmental level has a positive impact on research performance andinternational collaboration is a critical factor in predicting research performanceeven though domestic collaboration does not have significant effects (Shin &Cummings, 2010; Smeby & Try, 2005).

3. Internationalization of higher education
The status of internationalization in higher education is examined focusingon personal mobility owing to the limitations imposed by available statistics.
3.1 Foreign students in higher education
The status of foreign students in Korean higher education compared to theG8 countries is shown in Figure 1. The mean proportion of foreign students asa percentage of all tertiary enrollments is 8.7 percent for all OECD countries,
with the UK (19.5 percent) highest, followed by Canada (14.8 percent), France(11.3 percent), Germany (11.3 percent), and others. In South Korea’s case,foreign students constitute only 1.0 percent of all tertiary enrollment –significantly less than the OECD average, but the rate of change of foreign
student ratio is the highest among the OECD countries (KEDI, 2009). Thisshows that internationalization in South Korea is advancing rapidly.
Figure 2 shows the number of foreign students in higher education in South
Korea by year since 2001. After 2005-2006, the number of foreign students inSouth Korea increases rapidly. This growth is related to the policy of thegovernment and efforts of universities to attract foreign students after 2000.
The Korean government set up the ‘Study Korea Project’ in 2004 to enhanceinternational competitiveness of universities and correct the imbalance ofinternational payments.
Table 1 shows the distribution of foreign students in Korean higher

182 The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea

Soo Jeung Lee & Yangson Kim 183

Table 1. Foreign students in Korean higher education by country of origin (2005)
China

Japan

US

TaiwanVietnam Mongolia

Number of
students

13,091

2,789

982

827

705

%

58.1%

12.4%

4.0%

3.7%

3.1%

others

total

510

3,712

22,526

2.3%

16.4%

100%

Source: MEST (2006) Study Korea Project.

3.2 Citizens studying abroad in higher education
The number of citizens studying abroad in G8 countries is shown in Table 2.
About three-fifths of students studying abroad are studying in the U.S., followed
by Japan (20.6 percent) Germany (4.9 percent), U.K. (4.0 percent), and other.
In another analysis examining the distributions of foreign students in U.S. higher
education in 2003 (MEST, 2006), India constitutes the highest proportion (12.7
percent), followed by China (11.0 percent), and Korea is the third highest (8.8
percent).
Table 2. Citizens studying abroad in higher education by country ofdestination (2007)
OECD (G8)CanadaFrance Germany

Italy

Japan

UK

US

Total
Total allpartnerTotalreportingcountryOECD
destinations
destinations destinations

OECD

3.0

5.8

12.2

1.8

3.2

16.5

24.4

96.4

3.6

100

Korea

0.7

2.3

4.9

0.3

20.6

4.0

59.5

98.7

1.3

100

Source: KEDI (2009); OECD (2009)

4. Method
4.1 Data
The data for this study is drawn from the Korean Changing Academic
Professions (CAP) survey í an international comparative study on academic
professions. The population in this study was 52,763 full-time faculty members
affiliated with 4-year universities in South Korea. The data was collected
through an on-line survey to which 900 faculty members responded. The
sample is broadly representative of the population of Korean professors by
discipline, gender, faculty rank, and institutional type. The data for type ofuniversity, including mission and location is drawn from Korean Educational

184 The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea

Development Institute (KEDI) and Ministry of Education, Science, &Technology (MEST).
4.2 Variables and analytical strategy
This study explores the effect of networking strategies on international
research performance. The independent and dependent variables in this study
are listed in Table 3. The independent variables were divided into thecharacteristics of faculty members and of universities, and international
networking strategies. The characteristics of faculty members were gender, age,rank, and discipline. Rank of the faculty was divided into senior rank, andjunior rank. Discipline was divided into hard and soft disciplines according to
Braxton and Hargens (1996). The characteristics of universities were type,location, and mission.
The mission of universities was divided into
research-intensive universities and teaching-intensive universities. This
classification was followed by Shin (2008). International networking strategies
were divided into department networks and university networks – i.e. according
to the level. The department network was defined to include relations with thesame department in foreign universities, and the university network was defined
to include various international exchange programs at the university level. The
dependent variables are collaboration with international colleagues and research
productivity, such as number of articles in journals covered by SCIǂSSCIǂ
A&HCI.
Table 3. Independent and dependent variables
VariablesThe
characteristics
of faculty
members
Independent
variablesThe
characteristics
of universities
Networking
Strategies

Dependent
variables

Research
performance

Measurement
Gender

Male=1, Female=0

Age2008 – birth year

Rank

Senior rank=1, Junior rank=0

Discipline

Hard discipline=1, Soft discipline=0Type of Univ.

Private=1, Public=0

Location of Univ.

The capital and its environs=1,
others=0

Mission of Univ.

Research univ.=1, Teaching univ.=0

Department level

Yes=1, No=0

University level

Yes=1, No=0

Collaboration

Collaboration with international
colleagues (Yes =1, No=0)

Publication

Number of SCI·SSCI·AHCI articles(2005-2007)

Soo Jeung Lee & Yangson Kim 185

To examine the differences in research performance associated with thecharacteristics of universities, Chi-square analysis and t-test analysis were used,
and to analyze the effect of international networking strategies, regression
analysis was used in this study. To be more specific, as the dependent variableof collaboration is a binary variable, logistic regression analysis was used. The
dependent variable of SCIxSSCIxA&HCI articles is a count variable. Hence
this study applied zero-inflated negative binominal regression analysis to
examine the effect on research performance. STATA 10.0 tools were used to
conduct these statistical analyses.

4.3 Framework and hypothesis
The framework for this study considered how the characteristics of faculties
and universities, and international networking strategies affect collaboration withinternational colleagues, and research performance. This study focused on theeffect of networking strategies along the dimensions of the department and theuniversity.

Figure 3. Framework of this study

The research hypotheses examined in this study are as follows:(1) The senior faculty will generate higher international research
productivity and greater collaboration with foreign colleagues.
(2) International research performance will vary according to the186 The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea

characteristics of universities. Private or research-intensive universities will
have a higher standard of international research performance. Universities in
the capital and its environs will show higher international research performance.
(3) Employment of networking strategies will be associated with greatercollaboration with foreign colleagues and higher international research
productivity.
(4) The effect of department networks on international research
performance is more significant than the effect of university networks.

5. Findings and discussions
5.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 4 provides basic descriptive statistics for the sample on the study
variables.
For the characteristics of faculties investigated, the sample included 734
males (81.6 percent), and 166 females (18.4 percent). The mean of age isapproximately 48 years old. Sixty-three percent of the sample are in seniorrank, while 36.4 percent are in junior rank or other position. Forty-six percentof the sample are in hard disciplines, while 53.6 percent are in soft disciplines.
The faculty sample included N=373 in private universities (41.5 percent), and
527 in public universities (58.5 percent). Forty-five percent of the sample is in
the capital and its environs, while 54.8 percent are not in the capital and its
environs. The faculty sample included 328 in research-intensive universities(36.5 percent), and 572 in teaching-intensive universities (63.5 percent).
Regarding having explicit networking strategies, the number involved indepartment networks is 391 (43.4 percent), while the number involved in various
international exchange programs at the university level is 694 (77.1 percent).
This indicates that department networks are less vigorous than university
networks.
Twenty-nine percent of respondents reported collaborating withinternational colleagues for the last year (N=262) while almost three-fifths of thesample reported no collaboration with foreign colleagues.
The mean numbers of SCIкSSCIкA&HCI articles published in the past
three years (2005-2007) is 3.72, while the proportion of respondents who havenot published in international journals is 54.8 percent (N=494). It is surmisedthat because of language differences, and because the research in soft disciplines
is based in a social context, it is more difficult to publish in international
journals.

Soo Jeung Lee & Yangson Kim 187

Table 4. Descriptive statistics
Binary Variables

No (%)
GenderThe characteristics
of faculties

Rank
Discipline
Type of universities

Independent
The characteristics
of universities

Location of universities
Mission of universities

Networking
strategies

Dependent

Research
performance

Department level
University level
Collaboration

Continuous Variables
Independent

The characteristics
of faculties

Dependent

Research
performance

Male
FemaleSeniorJuniorHard
Soft
PrivatePublic
The capital
OthersResearch
Teaching
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes

734 (81.6)
166 (18.4)
572 (63.6)
328 (36.4)
418 (46.4)
482 (53.6)
373 (41.5)
527 (58.5)
406 (45.2)
494 (54.8)
328 (36.5)
572 (63.5)
391 (43.4)
506 (56.2)
694 (77.1)
201 (22.3)
262 (29.1)

No

638 (70.9)

Mean

Std. Dev

Min

Max

Age

48.09

7.13

32

74

Publication

3.72

7.86

0

90

5.2 Characteristics of universities and research performanceChi-square analysis was employed to examine the differences incollaboration with international colleagues according to characteristics of theuniversities.
The results of Chi-square analysis showed a statisticallysignificant difference in collaboration with international colleagues associatedwith the location and mission of the universities. It was found thatcollaboration with international colleagues was higher in research-intensive
universities and in universities located in the capital and its environs.
This study employed t-test to test for the statistical significance ofdifferences in research productivity – a continuous variable – according tocharacteristics of the universities. Only the mission of universities was
statistically significant (p<0.001). The mean number of SCIкSSCIкA&HCI
articles was 6 in research-intensive universities, and 2 in teaching-intensive
universities.

188 The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea

Table 5. Analysis of universities’ characteristics and research performanceType

Collaboration
(n)

Area

MissionDiscipline

PublicPrivateCapitalOthers Research Education

Hard

Soft

Yes

119
(32%)

143
(27%)

139
(34%)

123
(25%)

119
(36%)

143
(25%)

123
(29%)

139
(29%)

No

254
(68%)

384
(73%)

267
(66%)

371
(75%)

209
(64%)

429
(75%)

295
(71%)

343
(71%)

373

527

406

494

328

572

418

482

Total (n)Chi-square

Research performance(average)

2.41
4

9.42**
3

4

12.85***
3

6

0.04
2

4

3

**p<0.01, ***p<0.001

5.3 Networking strategies and collaboration with international colleagues
Logistic regression analysis was employed to examine the effect of
networking strategies on collaboration with international colleagues. Table 6
summarizes the results of the logistic regression analysis. The model fit for thisstudy was statistically significant (p<0.001).
Age and rank among the characteristics of faculty members were
statistically significantly (p<0.01) associated with collaboration withinternational colleagues. Younger faculty members and senior rank faculty
members were positively associated with the likelihood of collaboration with
Location and type among the characteristics
international colleagues.
examined of universities were statistically significantly (p<0.05) associated withcollaboration with international colleagues. Universities in the capital and its
environs and research-intensive universities were positively associated with thelikelihood of collaboration with international colleagues. Public universities
were more active in such collaboration than private universities.
Regarding the examined effect of networking strategies, department
networking was positively related to the likelihood of collaboration withinternational colleagues (OR=1.45, p<0.05). However university networking
was not statistically associated with likelihood of collaboration with international
colleagues. In general, the effect of networking strategies is small, but it isstatistically significant that the more that a department network is established,
the more likely is collaboration with foreign colleagues. Thus the findings
suggest that networking strategies at a department level are more important thanat a university level to promote collaborative relations between academics. As

Soo Jeung Lee & Yangson Kim 189

the perspectives of internationalization are enlarged from personal mobility toacademic exchange, networking strategies at the department level are morecritical.
Table 6. Networking strategies and collaboration with international colleagues

The
characteristics
of faculties

The
characteristics
of universities
Networking
Strategies

Variables

Odds Ratio

Std. Err

P>㨨z㨨

Gender

0.99

0.19

0.954

Age

0.96

0.01

0.004**

Rank

1.64

0.33

0.015*

Discipline

1.05

0.16

0.727

Type of universities

0.72

0.12

0.040*

Location of universities

1.43

0.25

0.039*

Mission of universities

1.30

0.22

0.125

Department level

1.45

0.23

0.021*

University level

0.85

0.16

0.392

Log likelihood-520.22LR chi2(9)

34.36

N

892

* p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

5.4 Networking strategies and research productivity
Zero-inflated negative binominal regression analysis was used to analyze
the effect of networking strategies on research performance according to thecount variable. Table 7 presents the results of the regression analysis. Modelfit for this study was statistically significant (p<0.001).
In terms of age, younger age was positively associated with international
research productivity. And senior rank increased the likelihood of moreinternational research productivity.
Only mission among the university characteristics examined was astatistically significant (p<0.01) predictor of research productivity.
Research-intensive universities increased the likelihood of faculty research
productivity. It is hypothesized this is because research-intensive universities
emphasize the research productivity in the university vision, the facultyevaluation system, and so on.
Department networks had positive effects on research performance (p<0.05).
However, university networks were negatively associated with research
productivity (p<0.05). The reason suggested is that most universities try to
expand various international exchange programs in terms of personal mobility.

190 The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea

These results suggest that universities should also try to push ahead with various
international exchange programs in terms of academic exchanges to enhanceinternational research productivity.
Table 7. Networking strategies and research productivity
Variables

The characteristics
of faculties

The characteristics
of universities

Networking
Strategies

Coef

Std. Err

P>ಒzಒ

Gender

-.00

.17

.999

Age

-.05

.01

.001**

Rank

.45

.18

.013*

Discipline

.14

.13

.276

Type of universities

-.17

.14

.215

Location of universities

-.16

.15

.267

Mission of universities

.47

.15

.002**

Department level

.30

.14

.029*

University level

-.37

.16

.022*

Log likelihood
LR chi2(9)N-1786.341
32.74
892

* p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

6. Concluding remarks
International student mobility continues to grow rapidly, and government
and university authorities seek to attract foreign students and faculty members.
Most universities try to enhance their research performance and raise theirworldwide ranking in the competitive environment of globalization. As thecontext of internationalization has changed from quantitative enlargement (i.e.
massification) to qualitative distinction, various networking strategies to support
internationalization become more crucial. Therefore this study investigated thestatus of internationalization in tertiary education and examined the relationshipof international networking strategies to faculty research performance.
The results of this study are as follows:
According to the descriptive statistics, internationalization in South Korea
is advancing rapidly. While the proportion of foreign students in all of Korea’s
tertiary enrollment appears small – 1.0 percent compared to the mean of 8.7
percent among OECD countries – the number of foreign students in South Korea

Soo Jeung Lee & Yangson Kim 191

grew rapidly from 11,646 in 2001 to 63,952 in 2008. It is suggested that the
Korean government’s consistent efforts to attract foreign students to enhance theinternational competitiveness of universities is largely responsible for the recent
dramatic increase. However, most of the foreign students in South Korea comefrom East Asia, and the distribution of countries of origin of students has alimited range.
Second, this study analyzed the effect of networking strategies oncollaboration with international colleagues. Networking strategies examined inthis study were divided into department networks and university networks
according to their level. The results showed that universities in the capital andits environs; and public universities were positively associated with thelikelihood of collaboration with international colleagues. In terms of thecharacteristics of faculty members, younger faculty members and senior ranked
faculty members were positively associated with the likelihood of collaboration
with international colleagues. Department networks were positively related to
the likelihood of collaboration with international colleagues, but university
networks were not. It appears that social and spatial proximity encourages
collaboration since it tends to generate more formal and informal communication(Katz & Martin, 1997).
Third, this study examined the effect of networking strategies on research
productivity such as numbers of SCIxSSCIxA&HCI articles. From theseresults, it was found that only the mission of universities among thecharacteristics examined of universities and age and rank among thecharacteristics of faculty members were statistically significant. In terms of
networking strategies, department networks had positive effects on research
productivity, but university networks were negatively associated with research
productivity.
The findings of this study indicate that networking strategies at the
department level are more important than at the university level to promote
relations between academics and to enhance their research performance.
Meanwhile university authorities have tried to expand personal mobility andattract foreign students and faculty members in order to increase the enrollmentof students and raise their worldwide ranking. However, serious competition to
attract foreign students causes side effects. For example, problems have arisenwith foreign students who have not fulfilled requirements of their scholastic
course (Ahn, 2009). This study suggests the government and university
authorities should pay attention to the exchange of academics (incontradistinction to personal mobility) to improve research performance and to192 The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea

strengthen the competitiveness of universities as well as to the mobility offoreign students.
Moreover, university authorities should establish international networking
strategies based at the departmental level to encourage international cultural
exchange, to contribute to the improvement of teaching and research, and to
facilitate human resource development. As Knight (2004) remarked, the “realprocess” of internationalization is actually taking place in institutions; it isemphasized that the various networking strategies within institutions are key
factors in enhancing international research performance and promotinginternational collaboration.
In conclusion, internationalization does not mean just personal mobility.
When internationalization is a focus of the internal efforts and activities ofhigher education institutions and exchange and cooperation are responses to thephenomenon of globalization, the importance of networking, communication andcollaboration is emphasized.

Reference
Ahn, Y.J. (2009). A Study on Incoming International Students’ Immigration Process andBackgrounds. Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea, 12 (4), 344-363.
Aronowitz, S. (2000). The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University andCreating True Higher Learning. Boston: Bacon Press.
Arum, S., & Van de Water, J. (1992). The Need for a Definition of International Education in
U.S. Universities. In C. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the Futures: Strategies forInternationalizing Higher Education (pp.191-203). Carbondale, IL: Association ofInternational Education Administrators.
Beerkens, E., & Derwende, M. (2007). The paradox in international cooperation:
Institutionally embedded universities in a global environment. Higher Education, 53,
61-79.
Braxton, J.M., & Hargens, L.L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analyticalframeworks and research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 11,
1-46.
Clark, B. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial University. Organizational Pathways ofTransformation. London: Pergamon Press.
Douglass, J.A. (2005). All globalization is local: countervailing forces and the influence onhigher education markets (Research & occasional Paper Series, 1.05, pp.1-26). CSHE.
Edge, D. (1979). Quantitative measures of communication in science: A critical review.

Soo Jeung Lee & Yangson Kim 193
History of Science, 16 (1), 102-134.
Friedman, T.L., & Ramonet, I. (1999). Dueling Globalizations: A debate. Foreign Policy, 116,
110-127.
Huang, F. (2006). Internationalization of curricula in higher education institutions incomparative perspectives: case studies of China, Japan, and the Netherlands, Higher
Education, 51, 521-539.
Harman, G. (2005). Internationalization of australian higher education: A critical review ofliterature and research. Internationalizing Higher education, 16, 119-140.
Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (1995). International education : The crossing of frontiers.
International Schools Journal, 15 (1), 13-20.
Horta, H. (2009). Holding a post-doctoral position before becoming a faculty member: Does itbring benefits for the scholarly enterprise?. Higher Education, 58 (5), 689-721.
Katz, J.S., & Martin, B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.
Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI). (2009). Education Statistics Analysis
2009.
Kehm, B. (2003). Internationalisation in higher education: From regional to global. In R.
Beggs (Ed.), The Dialogue between Higher Education Research and Practice(pp.109-119). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
King, R. (2010). Policy internationalization, national variety and governance: global models
and network power in higher education states, Higher Education, 60, 583-594.
Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and Checkpoints (Research MonographNo.7). Ottawa: Canadian Bureau for International Education.
Knight, J. (2003). Updated Internationalization Definition. International Higher education(Boston College), 33, 2-3.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: definition, approaches, and rationales.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 5-31.
Knight, J. (2005). An Internationalization Model: Responding to New Realities andChallenges. In H. de Wit, I.C. Jaramillo, J. Gacel-Ávila, & J. Knight (Eds.), Higher
education in Latin America: The International Dimension. (pp.1-38). Washington DC:
World Bank Publications.
Ministry of Education, Science, & Technology (MEST). (2006). Study Korea Project.
Ninomiya, A., & Knight, J., & Watanabe, A. (2009). The Past, Present, and Future ofInternationalization in Japan. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13 (2),117-124.
OECD. (2009). Education at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators.
Over, R. (1982). Does reserch productivity decline with age? Higher Education, 11 (5),511-520.
Porter, S.R., & Toutkoushian, P.K. (2006). Institutional research productivity and the194 The Internationalization of Universities in South Korea
connection to average student quality and overall reputation. Econoomics of Eudcation
Review, 25, 605-617.
Print, M., & Hattie, J. (1997). Measuring quality in universities: An approach to weighting
research productivity. Higher Education, 33, 453-469.
Rerry, R.P., Clifton, R.A., Menec, V.H., Struthers, C.W., & Menges, R.J. (2000). Faculty intransition: A longitudinal analysis of perceived contorl and type of institution in the
research productivity of newly hired faculty. Research in Higher Education, 41 (2),165-194.
Rudzki, R.E.J. (1995). The Application of a Strategic Management Model to theInternationalization of Higher Education Institutions, Higher Education, 29 (4),421-441.
Sanderson, G. (2008). A Foundation for the Internationalization of the Academic Self. Journalof Studies in International Education, 12 (3), 276-307.
Sax, L.J., Hagedorn, L.S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi, F.A. (2002). Faculty research
productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research inHigher Education, 43 (4), 423-446.
Shin, J.C. (2008). Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: a performance-based
approach. Higher Education, 55 (60), 719-734.
Shin, J.C., & Cummings, W.K. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing acrossdisciplines: research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometirics, 85,
581-594.
Shore, S., & Groen, J. (2009). After the ink dries: doing collaborative international work inhigher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (5), 533-546.
Slaughter, S.A., & Leslie, L.L. (1997). The development and current status of market
mechanisms in United States postsecondary education, Higher Education Policy, 10(3/4), 239-252.
Smeby, J.C., & Try, S. (2005). Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway.
Research in Higher Education, 46 (6), 593-619.
Stack, S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education,
45, 891-920.
Stokes, T.D., & Hartley, J.A. (1989). Coauthorship, social structure and influence within
specialities. Social Studies of Science, 19 (1), 101-125.
Stromquist, N.P. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts inuniversity environments. Higher Education, 53, 81-105.
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher
Education, 48, 5-26.
UNESCO. (2004). Higher Education in a Globalized Society. UNESCO Education Position
Paper (pp.5-28). Paris: UNESCO.

Soo Jeung Lee & Yangson Kim 195
Van der Wende, M. (1997). Missing Links: The relationship between National Policies forInternationalisation and Those for Higher Education in General. In T. Kalvermark, & M.
Van der Wende (Eds.), National Policies for the Internationalisation of Higher
Education in Europe (pp.10-31). Stockholm: National Agency for Higher Education(Högskoleverket).
de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies or Internationalization of Higher education: A Comparative
Study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States. Amsterdam: European
Association for International Education.
de Wit, H., Jaramillo, I.C., Gacel-Ávila, J., & Knight, J. (2005). Higher Education in Latin
America: The International Dimension. Washington DC: World Bank Publications.
Yang, R. (2002). University internationalisation: its meaning, rationales, and implications.
Intercultural Education, 13 (1), 81-95.
Yuker, H.E. (1974). Faculty workload: facts, myths and commentary (Higher education Report6). Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.

196

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011 197

The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession:
From regulation to supervision

Hsiou-Hsia Tai and Chia-Yu Chen

Introduction
This paper argues that the governance of higher education in Taiwan has
shifted from a government regulation type to a government supervision model,
with resulting pressures on the Taiwanese academic profession from widening
participation, a call for internationalization, salary incentives, and increasing
demands for individual accountability. The government’s role becomes morecritical than ever in this supervision model.
Taiwanese universities hardly functioned as agents of social and economicchange until the abolishment of Martial Law in 1987. Indeed, academia
preferred stability to change. Before the mid-1990s, the entire education
system in Taiwan was under centralized control of the government. Yet, thehigher education has gone through dramatic changes in the past two decades
because of political and economic liberalization. Notable policy changes
include (1) diminishing state subsidies for the sector and the modification of its
funding mechanism, (2) growing demands for accountability from colleges anduniversities, (3) strengthening linkages between universities and industry, (4)promoting stronger ties with the international academic community, (5) pursuingprestige in worldwide rankings, and (6) the shifting in state controls from
regulation to supervision.1
Dean & Professor, Chung-Hua University, Taiwan, e-mail: hhtai@mail.nctu.edu.tw
Doctoral student, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA, e-mail: cchiayu@umich.edu
1
The impetus for the transition from a regulation to a supervision model in this paper is a setof social and political changes which took place in the mid-1990s, in response to publicdemands for greater access to higher education. Moreover, the Amendment of the University
Act announced in 1994 granted institutions and faculty more autonomy. Therefore, we argue

198 The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession

To improve the quality of university education, the Taiwanese government
has launched a series of major higher education initiatives since 2000. These
projects came with large government investments, a rarity in the history of thehigher education. Accordingly, the Ministry of Education (MOE), attached along list of conditions to the receipt of grants, composed of plans to improve
university governance, institutional infrastructure, and accountability in teaching
and research.

Contextual factors affecting the academic profession
Widening participation
Proceeding from a long tradition of “credentialism” and demands for
economic development, higher education in Taiwan underwent three stages of
expansion. From the supply perspective, Figure 1 shows a linear increase in thenumber of institutions since 1987. The first, and larger, expansion phase began
in 1987 and ended in 2001, with 49 new institutions established. During thesecond phase, 2002 to 2010, the growth in the number of institutions has slowed
down slightly. Currently, there are 164 higher education institutions, including
military and police academies (MOE, 2010a). In fact, the increased provisionof higher education achieved the goals such as “widely establishing higher
education institutions” and “widening the pathway to higher education” called
for in the “410 Demonstration for Education Deregulation” by the public in
1994.
From the demand perspective student enrollment in higher education has
tripled during the same period from about 400 thousand to more than 1.3 million
as shown in Figure 2. Some characteristics of the growing participation rate are
noteworthy. First, the growth of student participation from 1987 to 2010 ismainly accounted for by undergraduate students. The growth of undergraduate
students was especially strong during the period from 1978 to 1997 and from1997 to 2005 with average annual growth rates of 6.42 percent and 14.81 percent,respectively. However, the average growth rate of undergraduate enrollment
declined to 3.98 percent during the period 2003 to 2010. Total student
enrollment (including graduate students) reached 1 million in the academic year
1999-2000 for the first time and exceeded 1.3 million in the academic yearthat government control of academia gradually shifted since the mid-1990s from a more rigid
regulation model to a more flexible model based on accountability for performance, what wehave referred to as the supervision model.

Hsiou-Hsia Tai & Chia-Yu Chen 199

2006-2007. Second, the enrollment growth rate turned negative for the firsttime in academic year 2009 to 2010. The number of full students decreased by863, after taking undergraduate, master and doctorate levels into account.
Third, both graduate and doctoral student enrollment grew substantially sinceacademic year 1999 to 2000 – 28 percent and 13 percent, respectively – actually
exceeding the growth rate for undergraduate enrollment from 1999 to 2010.

Source: MOE (2010a)

Figure 1. Growth of higher education institutions in Taiwan (1987-2010)

Source: MOE (2010a)

Figure 2. Trends in student enrollment (1987-2010)

200 The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession

The quantity of institutions and student enrollment reached their peak inrecent years because of several policies in the 1990s responding to social
demands for higher education opportunity. However, the crisis of low birthrates, which has been ongoing since 1984, started to strike the higher education
system in recent years. The declining population of potential students notably
influences the higher education market and the academic professions.
Internationalisation
For decades, Taiwan has been one of the top nations sending students
abroad; primarily to the United States. For example, in 2009, there were33,339 students studying abroad, of which 15,594 (47 percent) were in the U.S.
However, at the same time, the number of international students studying in
Taiwan, has been relatively low, only 19,376 for 2009 (MOE, 2010b).
The Ministry of Education in Taiwan now faces the challenges ofglobalization and feels pressured to promote the internationalization of higher
education at the institution level to extensively boost integration with the global
academic mainstream. The pressure to internationalize higher education ispartly due to Taiwan’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001
and the subsequent General Agreements on Trade and Services (GATS), in
which the Taiwanese government agreed to open the higher education market toforeign trade partners. These agreements alarmed the MOE. It was necessary
to aggressively compel colleges and universities to become moreinternationalized, as local higher education institutions could face serious
challenges from foreign universities once the latter begin to recruit Taiwanese
students through various cross-border activities permitted by GATS. It isbelieved that foreign competition will exacerbate existing problem of the higher
education in Taiwan, such as the shrinking pool of local students. In responseto the potential problem, the MOE has attempted to explore various options suchas recruiting university students from other countries.
As global competition among universities becomes evident and the Taiwan
government continues to perceive university competitiveness as a crucial
contributing factor to the country’s economic prosperity, the MOE has realized
the importance of elevating the overall performance of Taiwanese universities in
the international academic community. The level of internationalization,
therefore, is regarded as one of the decisive features in a university’s ability tocompete, and this in turn translates directly into the country’s future productivity.

Hsiou-Hsia Tai & Chia-Yu Chen 201

Quest for academic excellence
The pressure to establish world class universities in Taiwan is attributable totwo factors: (1) the rapid expansion of the higher education sector since themid-1980s, which has raised a series of concerns about the scarcity of resources
available to individual universities and students; and (2) the fact that rising
investment in top universities in other countries, such as Singapore and Korea,
has been perceived by the Taiwanese government as a potential threat to thecountry’s competitiveness in the long run.
The state is alarmed by the recent decline in universities’ average per
student spending as a consequence of substantial expansion in higher education.
It is particularly concerned given that neighboring countries such as Japan,
Korea and China have launched significant projects which invest heavily inhigher education.
The MOE therefore perceived the need to introduce large competitive
grants in order to encourage excellence and diversified development among
higher education institutions. It should be noted that the state’s quest forworld-class universities became even more definite after 2003 when the Macro
Planning Committee presented its final report on the prospects of Taiwanesehigher education. The Macro Planning Committee was an ad hoc committeeorganised in 2001 by the Executive Yuan, the top executive branch of thecountry’s central government, to conduct an overall review of Taiwan’s higher
education development. It had seven members which included prominent
figures in the country, current and former university presidents, an entrepreneur,an academician from the Academic Sinica, and a university professor. All
committee members had either studied and/or worked overseas and most did soin the U.S. In their report, they suggested that Taiwan higher education focus
on diversifying its universities’ missions and goals, promote university autonomy,
develop technological integration and innovation, elevate the quality of elite andoverall education, establish world class universities, and underscore professionaland general education.
Rigid salary scheme
In principle, economic theory suggests that all individuals should be paid
based on their performance (Cohn, 1996). For teachers, basing salarydifferentials on subject-matter area may serve to reduce some shortages in key
disciplines (Kershaw & McKean, 1962), and balance the supply and demand of
the teachers. Compared to the merit based remuneration scheme in othercountries, the faculty remuneration system in Taiwan is rigid and does not202 The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession

differentiate among teachers in various disciplines.
The Ministry of Education in Taiwan is the authority for salary allocation
for all teachers, including faculty members in public universities and colleges.
Three pieces of legislations are regarded as the legal basis for teachers’ salaries.
These three pieces of legislations stipulate that a teacher’s salary is determinedby his or her educational level and official working experience in schools andinstitutions. The salary of teachers working in public institutions and schools is
distributed based on three components: the salary rank, salary ladder, and job
title (see Table 1). The salary rank denotes the hierarchy of teacher’s salary andranges from #1 to #26. The salary ladder labelled with a three-digit-number
refers to the amount of money a teacher shall earn, although nowadays thenumerical amount on the ladder no longer represents the real amount a teacher
earns. Currently, each level on the salary ladder can be transformed to a
specific amount of monetary compensation through mathematical computation.
Typically, an assistant professor will earn the salary at level 310 or 330 on theladder when he or she is initially employed as full-time faculty in the institution.
His or her salary level will rise by 1 level each year automatically up to the
maximum level of 650, after being employed for 15 years. Likewise, aprofessor’s salary begins at level 475, and is assumed to reach the top of thesalary ladder at level 770 after being promoted to the status of full professor for
twelve years.
It is recognized that the monthly salary for faculty members in the public
education system in Taiwan is composed of two types of salaries: basic pay andacademic research pay. These two salaries are allocated according to theirstanding points on the salary ladder.
What is remarkable about the salary structure for faculty members is thatthe overall range in salary is slight. For instance, the difference in highestsalary received by a professor and an associate professor only equals to 11
percent of an associate professor’s salary. Likewise, the salary difference
between an associate professor and an assistant professor is just 10 percent of anassistant professor’s monthly compensation. This tendency can also be foundin professors who have same job titles. The salary change coming fromteaching years of service is 14.9 percent for professors, 23.2 percent for associate
professors, and 27.4 percent for assistant professors. It is apparent that such asalary structure doesn’t serve as a strong incentive for faculty members to pursue
higher academic achievement. Furthermore, a faculty could possibly takeadvantage of the salary system by putting the least effort on research andteaching since the salary structure is seniority-based rather than

Hsiou-Hsia Tai & Chia-Yu Chen 203

performance-based.
Due to the lack of flexibility and competitive incentive embedded in thesalary scheme, (and other possible individual reasons), there has emerged a
recent trend of faculty crossing nations. For example, three distinguishedscholars left their tenured positions and took new positions in other institutionsin Asia in 2006. As neighboring nations such as Japan, Korea, China, andSingapore recruit research talent with attractive salaries and benefits, the issuesof potential brain drain needs to be taken into consideration more seriously.

Table 1. Teacher’s salary ladder in public educational institution in Taiwan
Salary
Rank

#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26

SalaryLadder
770
740
710
680
650
625
600
575
550
525
500
475
450
430
410
390
370
350
330
310
290
275
260
245
230
220
210
200
190

Job Title

Professor

Associate
Professor*with PhD
degree*with master
degreeAssistant
Professor

Teacher
at primary,middle,and highschools
Instructor*withbachelor
degreeResource: Law and Regulations Database of the Taiwan.
Retrieved and summarized on Oct. 20, 2010 fromhttp://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContentDetails.aspx?id=FL008489&KeyWordHL=&StyleType=1

204 The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession

Responding policy initiatives
Excellence-oriented competitive funding for research and teaching
Based on the recommendation of the Higher Education Macro Planning
Committee, “The Project for Developing First-class Universities” wasintroduced as part of the Ten New Major Construction Projects plan2. The
Construction Projects plan was budgeted at NT$948 billion (approximately
US$29 billion) over five years, aiming to improve major infrastructures in higher
education, culture, transportation, technology, and water resources. Seeing
colleges and universities as a major agency to cultivate first-class talent andstrengthen innovative research and development, the government generously
allocated NT$50 billion (US$1.6 billion) to the project over five years on top of
its regular allocation to the higher education sector.
Owing to the unprecedented large sum ascribed to it, the Project became
one of the most eye-catching available to universities. Often nicknamed the“Five-Years-50-Billion Project,” the project aims to establish first-classuniversities and top research centers. To be specific, the government hopes tohave at least 15 program areas or cross-university research centers ranking firstin Asia within five years and at least one university ranking among the world’s
top 100 within ten years. The major strategies to develop first-class universities
included fortifying university management, elevating the effectiveness ofteaching and research resources, integrating human resources, merging into an“appropriate” scale in terms of size, etc. Accordingly, the MOE invested
efforts to improving university governance, institutional infrastructure, andaccountability in teaching and research (Song & Tai, 2007). In the end, 12
universities were selected out of the 49 applicants in 2006, and 11 of the 12
universities were re-selected for the second-stage of the project in 2008 to sharethe largest sum of block grants in the history of Taiwanese higher education.
To improve educational quality at the majority of the 147 higher education
institutions, the MOE launched a project entitled “The Project for Pursuing
Teaching Excellence”. The objectives of this project include (1) implementing
teacher evaluation mechanisms, (2) establishing a teaching assessment system,(3) promoting well-rounded curriculum planning, (4) reinforcing the willingnessof students to study, guiding and improving their study habits, and raising2

The plan, the Ten New Major Construction Projects, was initiated by the government in2004 in an effort to expand public infrastructure investment to enhance Taiwan’s overall
international competitiveness and accelerate the development of the economy.

Hsiou-Hsia Tai & Chia-Yu Chen 205

academic standards, and (5) establishing systems to raise employability throughthe provision of various forms of workplace experience.
A NT$1 billion (roughly US$32 million) budget was allocated for 2005 to
set up an incentive mechanism to encourage wide participation. After stringent
screening, 13 universities were chosen for 2005. Due to the wide recognitionof the project, the annual budget was increased to NT$5 billion since 2006. In
2006, 2007, and 2009, 58, 60, and 63 higher education institutions received
subsidies, respectively.
Flexible salary scheme
Facing a potential brain drain and difficulty in recruiting top researchpersonnel, the Taiwan government designed a possible solution í adopting aflexible salary scheme that encourages and rewards excellence. The Ministryof Education has recently unveiled a plan to replace the existing flat salarystructure for public university faculty with a flexible structure, and a formal
announcement of the policy was made in July 2010. Four purposes in thisflexible salary scheme could be noted (1) to renovate the salary structure forfaculty in public education system, (2) to enhance the incentive for faculty toachieve academic excellence, (3) to improve national academic competitiveness,and (4) to attract international research and teaching talent (MOE, 2010c).
The new scheme will function as an additional design that distributes extra
monetary reward to those who are worthy, in terms of their contribution toacademia. Yet, the existing salary system, basic pay and academic research pay
components and computation of regular compensation will remain stable after
the flexible salary scheme is implemented in the future. The application of aflexible salary scheme is institutionally based.
Three occasions arerecommended for selected institutions to employ the new scheme, including
recruiting new teaching and research talent, retaining outstanding teaching andresearch faculty, and also recruiting professional managerial talent for the
institution’s future development. By increasing monetary incentives, theinstitutions are expected to compete more effectively for global talents and retain
outstanding faculty members.
The Taiwan government realized the importance of establishing an effective
merit pay system. Two types of institutions are expected to adjust the salaryrange for faculty in different ways. For institutions that are selected to be in the“Project for Developing First-class Universities” and the “Project for Pursuing
Teaching Excellence”, they are able to use up to 10 percent of the above twofunds allocated by the Ministry of Education to increase the salary for selected206 The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession

faculty who fit the institutions’ targeted interests. For other universities andcolleges that are not awarded funding in the above projects, the MOE will
provide NT$100 million (US$3.3 million) as a special fund for them to employ
to hire and retain outstanding faculty members. Moreover, all institutions are
urged to flexibly allocate self-raised funds including donations, facilities income,extension education income, funding from collaboration with industry, andinvestments to make salary and benefit packages attractive to academic job
candidates. The National Science Council (NSC) also provides funds for
institutions to reward excellent researchers for their contributions in academia.
The flexible salary scheme will break down the assumption that faculty
members are homogenous in terms of their academic performance and researchcontribution, and assume rather that incentive pay does matter and influence
behaviors (Murnane & Cohen, 1986). Yet, the extent to which institutions takeadvantage of this policy change to recruit better talents, and the extent to which
this new flexible salary scheme offsets brain drain, and actually attracts global
talent remains to be seen.
Quality assurance programs
There was no regular evaluation authority in Taiwan until 2005. The
Ministry of Education and universities established the Higher Education
Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT) through joint
endowment, aiming to conduct higher education evaluation studies and maintainquality standards in the education provided by universities and colleges in
Taiwan. It is the main institution charged with creating a university evaluation
system. The Regulation of University Evaluation released in 2007 served as
the legal foundation for HEEACT to plan and conduct evaluations of four year
colleges and graduate programs for the purpose of diagnosing their quality andproviding a basis for the Ministry of Education to consider fund allocation
decisions (HEEACT, 2010). The quality assurance of Taiwan higher education
is examined and maintained through binding government funding decisions andthe results of evaluation of institutions.
The quality assurance mechanism changed the climate of the academic
profession for two reasons. First, the universities and colleges could not be
exempted from regular public examination. Although the Amendment of the
University Act in 1994 granted institutions the autonomy to operate withacademic freedom in terms of administration, research and teaching, the later
Amendments in 2005, 2007, and 2010 showed the government’s attempt topromote university and college accountability and responsiveness to national

Hsiou-Hsia Tai & Chia-Yu Chen 207

goals through legal and practical perspectives. The quality assurance program,namely, the mechanism of university evaluation is one of these cases.
Second, the quality assurance mechanism has taken the form of a regularexternal evaluation of higher education institutions.
There were 70
comprehensive universities, and 1,843 departments and programs participatingin the evaluation for the first run from 2006 to 2010 (Control Yuan, 2010).
Since the results of evaluation will be connected to the government’s decision toallocate future funds and the annual student quota for each institution, mostinstitutions conducted their internal evaluations to ensure gaining theaccreditation from HEEACT’s external evaluation. Institutions and programs
are expected to provide delicate self-reports with quantitative and qualitative
evidence for each examined domain for HEEACT’s peer review and group visit.
Given the indicators that HEEACT requires when evaluating departments andprograms, the breadth as well as the depth of analysis is remarkable.

A more stressful academic profession
Evaluation anxiety
The phenomenon of striving for accreditation by HEEACT is mainly for
reputation and funding support. Interestingly, although the evaluation isconducted every five years, institutions tend to prepare for it early, including
self-evaluation one year ahead and submitting the report to the HEEACT
committee before their official visit. The three types of results, “accredited”,“accredited conditionally”, and “failure” of evaluation are announced to the
public as well. In case a department is acknowledged as being “accreditedconditionally” or failed by HEEACT, it will need to prepare for anotherfollow-up evaluation to prove its improvement after one year, but it will still beon the list of regular five-year evaluations after HEEACT’s first visit. Taking
into consideration the cost of failing an external evaluation by HEEACT,
therefore, the pressures of preparing for regular five-year evaluations andadditional follow-up evaluations have led institutions, departments, andprograms to take serious and long-term actions to assure positive results from
quality assurance evaluation.
The cases of spending NT$10 million(US$330,000) and conducting more than 100 intra-institutional meetings within
the individual university, simply to prepare fully for the evaluation, have been
identified during past few years (Control Yuan, 2010).
Three examples illustrate the anxiety of evaluation. First, at the
department level, faculty members and administrators are expected to provide

208 The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession

rich information to finish the self-evaluation and to demonstrate students’learning outcomes to the HEEACT committee members (HEEACT, 2007). The
quantitative part is shown as Table 2:

Table 2. The suggested quantitative information of department for the evaluation
Overall

Teachers

Students

Alumni

The enrollment rate, the retention rate, the number of transfer students, theminimum credit requirement for graduation
The full time and part time teacher ratio, the full and associate professor ratio,
the ratio of teachers with Ph.D. degree, teaching load per teacher, the amountof grant and fund raised per teacher, the number of academic publication perteacher, the frequency of joining international research project per teacher, theforeign teacher ratio, and the frequency of international scholar visits
The performance of competitions on-campus and out-of-campus, The passrate of certificates examinations, the pass rate of taking national-levelexaminations, the number of international exchange students, the number ofstudent granted M.A./Ph.D. degrees, and the number of thesis anddissertation publication
The further graduate study rate, the employment rate

Note: retrieved from the example offered by the HEEACT to institutions, and summarized by
the researchers

Table 3. Documents for demonstrating the quality of curriculum design and teaching
Category
Teaching plan

Information
Showing the course syllabi and design for lessons

Teaching and student
attendanceDocumenting a faculty member’s teaching load, including his or her
weekly teaching hours, records of student attendance, class general
information, and records of office hour.

Teaching content

Demonstrating the teaching material designs and renovation ofteaching handouts, course syllabi, relative textbooks and teachingsupplements made by the instructors

E-learning materials

Establishing individual teaching and research websites and having
e-learning resources available to students

Professional
development

Listing the teaching-methods seminars that a faculty member takes
part in, the various efforts to improve teaching techniques and helping
students to learn

Resource: summarized from reviews of evaluation reports of institutions by the researchers

The department-based information aims to demonstrate how departments
are operated. More descriptive information about department operation must

Hsiou-Hsia Tai & Chia-Yu Chen 209

be provided as well. It is likely that institutions could spend half to more than
one year to prepare these data, and further descriptive evidence of the quality of(1) goals, characteristics, and improvement, (2) curriculum design and teaching,(3) student learning and student affairs, (4) faculty research and professional
performance, and (5) alumni performance in the labor market and in professional
fields. Taking the second indicator, curriculum design and teaching, as anotherexample, institutions may encourage or ask faculty members to prepare
documents that might be accredited by HEEACT committees as shown in Table
3. Faculty members are not only expected to demonstrate their research
performance but also required to more carefully organize syllabi and designteaching activities.
Third, at the institutional level, administrators have even created a set oftutorials for guiding all departments through the accreditation process
successfully. One document named “important notice” announced by the officeof academic affairs, in one of the top research universities, is cited as below:[We suggest] the instructors should collect records of five students’ scoreson midterm, final and key assignments, through low to middle and highperformance groups, at your class. It will be very beneficial for passing
the external evaluation held by HEEACT. Even though it is not required
by HEEACT, we believe it would be a plus.
[We suggest] the departments should have instructors to prepareindividual teaching and research portfolio.
[In an interview with the HEEACT committee,] it is proper to respond tothe committee’s comments with care; however, there should not too many
negative views on departments, lest the committee will have an
unfavorable comment on their reports.
[To well prepare the presentation to committees,] it will need many
practices and rehearsals before the evaluation day since it is difficult togive a briefing properly in 20 minutes. Besides, a presentation should
be concluded by reviewing all the aspects impressing the evaluators.
Office of Academic Affairs (2007)

It is evident that the university is worried about the evaluation, including
the possibility of the faculty’s inappropriate speech during an interview and how
the faculty and administrators of each department will perform on the evaluation
visit days. From the financial and student recruitment perspective, passing theuniversity evaluation is the best way for an institution to maintain its resources.

210 The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession

Thus, I argue although the quality assurance designs used by the government
might seek to raise the quality of higher education at the beginning, they more
importantly lead to a government supervision model.
New mode of higher education employment
The total population of faculty in the entire higher education system has
increased dramatically since the 1990s. In 1990, the number of total full time
faculty was 7,585, and it grew to 20,906 by the end of 1995 with the growth of
institutions and students. By 2000, the number of faculty in institutions
reached nearly 40,000; and by 2005, the population of the faculty exceeded
48,000. Beginning in 2006, however, the growth slowed due to the predictable
shortage of student enrollment. For the first time, one four-year college tried tolay off 40 faculty members due to insufficient student enrollment in fall 2009
without any advance notice (Liberty Times, 2009).
In fact, the MOE regulates the capacity of faculty in public universities.
For public universities, the number of tenure track position has been limited dueto the prospect of insufficient student enrollment for the coming 10 years
following the dramatic growth in faculty in the previous 15 years. One of thealternatives that the institutions adopt widely is to recruit contract teachingfaculty who will not be counted into the full-time faculty and staff members.
By doing that, universities could keep the flexibility of obtaining the talents
without violating the recruitment regulation established by the MOE. However,this practical policy threatens the benefits of new employees of universities.
The source of salary for contract faculty members is mainly from university
funds, rather than from the government. If the funds raised by the institution
are lower than expected, the contracted faculty’s work opportunity will be risky.
Likewise, some universities offer post-doc positions to meet the institutions’needs. They are assumed to be as productive as the tenured faculty but more“economically efficient” for institutions.

Conclusion
To improve national competitiveness, the government has emphasized acomprehensive and accountable higher education system to foster competitive
higher education institutions. As a set of education reforms became a toppriority since the mid-1990s, many education-related regulations were
overhauled to create a more liberal higher educational environment. However,in the recent years, national competitiveness and pressures such as high student

Hsiou-Hsia Tai & Chia-Yu Chen 211

participation, potentially insufficient student enrollment, internationalization, aquest for academic excellence, and rigid salary scheme led the government toshift its control from rigid regulation, to a supervision model emphasizing
performance outcomes and accountability. This paper briefly reviews how
socio-political changes drove and impacted the academic professions in Taiwan.
With the current quality assurance program, the Taiwan government gains more
power to penetrate the higher education system, and this new form ofgovernance will shape the future development of the academic profession.

References
Cohn, E. (1996). Methods of teacher remuneration: merit pay and career ladders. In W.E.
Becker, & W.J. Baumol (Eds.), Assessing Educational Practice: The Contribution of
Economics. New York: Sage foundation.
Control Yuan. (2010). The corrective measure of University Evaluation conducted by the
Ministry of Education. In The Control Yuan Online Announcement. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cy.gov.tw/sp.asp?xdURL=./di/edoc/db2.asp&edoc_no=2
Executive Yuan. (2010). MOE Examination Directions to Assist Universities without Top
University Grants and Teaching Excellence Grants to Provide Performance-based Salary.
The Executive Online Gazette. Retrieved fromhttp://gazette.nat.gov.tw/egFront/Gaz/searchResult.jsp
He, G.F. (2006). Who will teach the students ten years from now? Business weekly, 971.
Retrieved from http://www.businessweekly.com.tw/webarticle.php?id=22816
Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT). (2007). The
reference and definition of quantitative indicators. Retrieved and summarized fromhttp://ctld.nctu.edu.tw/doc/accreditation/SCAN7690_000.pdf
Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan. (2009). Historical
Development. Retrieved fromhttp://www.heeact.edu.tw/ct.asp?xItem=812&CtNode=395&mp=2
Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan. (2010). The Completion ofgeneral university evaluation first run, greeting for the new era of student learning.
Evaluation Bimonthly, 26. Retrieved fromhttp://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2007/09/03/330.aspx
Kershaw, J.A., & McKean, R.N. (1962). Teacher shortages and salary schedules. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Liberty Times. (2009). No students, Hsing Kuo University of Management forced teachers toleave. Retrieved from212 The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession

http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/aug/24/today-complain1.htm
Ministry of Education (MOE). (1997). The ladder of job positions for public school teachers
and teaching assistants. In Law and Regulations Database of the Republic of China.
Retrieved and summarized fromhttp://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContentDetails.aspx?id=FL008489&KeyWordHL=&StyleType=1
MOE. (2010a). The database of educational statistics. In The numbers of higher education
institutions and students. Retrieved and summarized fromhttp://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview02.xls
MOE. (2010b). The database of educational statistics. In The numbers of international
students studying in Taiwan. Retrieved and summarized fromhttp://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview72.xls
MOE. (2010c). The plan of recruiting and retaining outstanding academic talents. In Law andRegulations Database of the Republic of China. Taipei.
Murnane, R.J., & Cohen, D.K. (1986). Merit pay and evaluation problem: why most merit pay
plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Education Review, 56, 1-17.
Personnel Department of Taipei county government. (2010). Salary computation formula ofteachers and public servant (Excel file of salary computation for different job positions).
Retrieved and summarized from http://msa.tres.tpc.edu.tw/~people/Wait-salary.htm
Office of Academic Affairs. (2007). The important reminders about preparation for evaluation
for departments. In National Chiao Tung University. Retrieved fromhttp://tw.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A3eg86w3XQ1NYmYBSr5r1gt.;_ylu=X3oDMTE1ZTFk
cDgwBHNlYNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3R3MQR2dGlkA1RXMDIyN18zMzk-/SIG=
18q26tiar/EXP=1292807863/**http%3a//aadm.nctu.edu.tw/ctld/doc/accreditation/%25E
9%2599%2584%25E4%25BB%25B6%25E4%25BA%258C_%25E7%25B3%25BB%2
5E6%2589%2580%25E8%25A9%2595%25E9%2591%2591%25E9%2587%258D%25
E8%25A6%2581%25E6%258F%2590%25E7%25A4%25BA%25EF%25BC%2588%2
5E4%25B8%2580%25EF%25BC%2589.doc
Song, M.M., &Tai, H.H. (2007). Taiwan’s Responses to Globalization: Internationalization
and Questing for World Class Universities. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 27(3),323-340.
Wu, P.J., & Chang, M,J. (2007). Analyzing the implementation of teaching evaluations forfaculty in Taiwan. Evaluation Bimonthly, 9. Retrieved fromhttp://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2007/09/03/330.aspx

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011 213

Connect ASEAN: Promoting regional integration inhigher education in Southeast Asia

Supachai Yavaprabhas

Introduction: Regional integration and the evolving trend of
higher education restructuring in Southeast Asia
As globalization, or increasing economic integration and/orinterdependence among nations, sweeps across the world, various sectors haveattempted to respond to the trend’s imperatives as well as exploit its
opportunities. A reform of the higher education system in response to
globalisation has moved high on the agenda of higher education institutions.
Professor Dr Jane Knight (2003) argues that internationalisation of higher
education is both a response to globalisation as well as an agent of globalisation.
Internationalisation is changing the world of higher education and globalisationis changing the process of internationalisation. Globalization has led to bothcompetitiveness and collaboration not only in the economic sector, but also in
the higher education community both within and outside Southeast Asia. This
paper examines the emerging trend of regional collaboration towards
harmonisation of higher education in Southeast Asia and its implications forhigher education restructuring including a changing role for the academic
profession.
Many initiatives with the aim of creating a common space of higher
education in Southeast Asia have begun in earnest in an effort to reinforce thethree pillars – the ASEAN Political-Security Community, ASEAN Economic
Community, and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community – to establish an ASEAN
Community by 2015. Nevertheless, as systems, targets and requirements in
Director of SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development (RIHED),
Thailand, e-mail: supachai.yava@gmail.com

214 Connect ASEAN

Southeast Asian higher education are highly diverse, several mechanisms
initiated by the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization’s Regional
Centre for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO RIHED) have beenlaunched over the last decade to push forward a harmonisation process of higher
education. The key goals are, namely, to create a regional quality assurance
framework, to enhance student and staff mobility, to establish a regional credit
transfer system, and to foster the development of ASEAN Research Clusters andan ASEAN Citation Index. The development of these four infrastructures
responds to the ambitious idea of creating a Southeast Asian Higher Education
Area (SEA-HEA). In order to optimize the achievement or attainment of thosepriorities and remain faithful to a vision of regional integration through theharmonisation process, SEAMEO RIHED has sought to learn from the mostprominent effort to harmonise university systems in 47 European countries
through the Bologna Process. 1 Four prioritised mechanisms identified by
SEAMEO RIHED will be discussed in the following section.

A roadmap towards a regional quality assurance framework in
Southeast Asia
In order to facilitate the free flow of human resources over the region aspart of economic integration of the ASEAN Community, the credentials ofgraduates produced in one country must be recognized regionally. To respondto this need, a regional quality assurance framework is required. However, inSoutheast Asia there are a variety of approaches to quality assurance in place.

1

The Bologna Process is an inter governmental process involving 47 European countries withthe overarching aim of creating a European Higher Education Area by 2010. In the Bologna
declaration (1999), the education ministers affirmed their intention to create Europe ofKnowledge through the following action lines:- Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees to promote employability.
The Diploma Supplement is one instrument designed to facilitate this.
- Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate.
- Establishment of a system of credits (such as European Credit Transfer and Accumulation
System or ECTS) to promote widespread student mobility.
- Support of mobility of students, teachers, researchers and administrative staff, with fullrecognition of periods spent in a European context.
- Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance (such as the establishment of The
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education or ENQA).
- Promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education (i.e. in terms ofcurricula development and inter-institutional cooperation).

Supachai Yavaprabhas 215

Moreover, the ten ASEAN Member 2 Countries are at different stages ofdevelopment in their quality assurance practices. Some countries haveestablished their own quality assurance mechanism and are now in the process of
implementation for achieving quality monitoring and enhancement. However,some countries such as Cambodia, The Lao PDR (Laos) and Myanmar are stillplanning and implementing reforms (Aphijanyatham, 2010). At this point, it isimportant to identify the commonalities among quality assurance systems inSoutheast Asia and search for the most suitable macro framework that
accommodates and reinforces the existing systems of every nation.
The massification of higher education in the past few decades has resulted
in greater diversification of academic curricula, and consequently many scholars,
relevant stakeholders, and particularly employers have expressed their concern
and raised questions about quality and quality assurance of higher education.
Insofar as regional integration was set as the goal for Southeast Asia in thisdecade, every nation needs to ensure the quality of graduates through the qualityof courses and programs offered internationally as well as through the qualified
teachers and the effectiveness of their teaching and learning methods. However,many have raised a question as to who should set standards or criteria for quality
assessment and assurance and how the process should be carried out.
At present various regional networks on quality assurance cooperation havebeen established, for example, APQN (Asia-Pacific Quality Network), AQAN
(ASEAN Quality Assurance Network), and a sub-regional network of AUN-QA(ASEAN University Network-QA). These networks have worked to ensurecommon quality standards among higher education systems and to achieve theset up of a regional quality assurance framework. As there are different
characteristics of external quality assurance (EQA) practices in the region,
SEAMEO RIHED has pointed out the importance of establishment of the
sub-regional EQA network for sharing and developing good practices of quality
assurance at the national and regional level among national EQA agencies.
This initiative was proposed by SEAMEO RIHED to several policy-making
venues such as the 30th High Officials Meeting and the 2nd Meeting of Directors
General/Secretary General/Commissioner responsible for Higher Education in
the Southeast Asian region in 2007. With a strong commitment, SEAMEORIHED has served its role to foster dialogue between different quality assurance
2

ASEAN Member Countries include Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, The Lao PDR,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. For more information,please refer to http://www.asean.org.

216 Connect ASEAN

gsystems through seminars, workshops, and study visits for quality assurance
professionals, government officials as well as university administrators since2008. This effort has made quality assurance a more visible and challenging
priority in university administration and management as well as raised awarenessof academic professors and lecturers about the need to improve theirinstructional techniques and the quality of their research.
Quality assurance practices in Southeast Asian countries have significant
implications for university administration. In Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines
and Thailand, outcomes of quality assurance exercises are linked to higher
autonomy and other incentives for higher education institutions. In Brunei,
Singapore and Vietnam, the quality assurance outcomes result in granting
government accreditation to the higher education institutions.
Qualityassurance exercises are therefore one of the key challenges to the academic
profession and its interface with management. In addition, strong pressures ofexternal societal expectations force higher education institutions to carefully
shape their organisational environment with increasing control of theirperformance so as to ensure their quality. The quality assurance exercise has
been progressively made explicit by being covered in institutional developing
strategies. In Thailand, internal quality assurance is carried out by higher
education institutions and its results in the form of self-assessment report are
submitted to the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC), Ministryof Education and also made public. OHEC and the Office for National
Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) serve their roles as
supporters of Thai higher education institutions by providing internal quality
assurance guidelines and ensuring effective action upon the completion of
external quality assurance by ONESQA. Practices employed in recruiting
academic professions has been changed as a consequence of the greater pressureof quality assurance. The transparency and openness of staff recruitment has
been gradually raised as higher education institutions require only highly
qualified and knowledgeable academics. However, higher staff qualifications it
may also create recruitment difficulties in some places. Furthermore, thegrowing importance of quality assurance also leads to the transformation of thenature of the traditional academy with its stress on basic research anddisciplinary teaching to the relevant academy wherein research and teachingmust respond to the growth of industry, commerce and social development.
The development of regional quality assurance systems is not only a factor
contributing to change in academic roles and university management in theregion, but also a driving force for mobility of students and faculty members.

Supachai Yavaprabhas 217

The growing trend of regional quality assurance practices provides newopportunities for more “boundaryless” forms of academic careers and knowledgetransfer. One consequence is that many future graduates and scholars will havemore options for employment across the region regardless of their nationalities.

The evolution of student and staff mobility across the Southeast
Asian region
The current global emphasis on knowledge production and information
flow play an important role in pushing towards the internationalisation of higher
education. Over the past decade, higher education institutions in Southeast
Asia have sought to recruit more international students with the aim ofincreasing national competitiveness through the infusion of highly skilled
foreign human resources. One of the distinct developments is the emerging
trend in bilateral and multilateral collaboration on international mobility ofstudents and staff. In 2010, SEAMEO RIHED with the collaboration of the
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia; theDirectorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of National Education,
Indonesia; the Office of the Higher Education Commission, Thailand launched
the Malaysia-Indonesia-Thailand (M-I-T) student mobility program. The
project provided a platform for regional engagement through a series of student
mobility meetings. These meetings have been essential in the development of aSoutheast Asian model for student mobility at the tertiary education level.
The 1st M-I-T Meeting, held on 28 August 2009, in Bangkok Thailand, wasattended by key policy-makers from the three countries. It identified five
disciplines suitable for pilot undergraduate student exchange, namely agriculture,
language & culture, hospitality & tourism, international business, and foodscience & technology. The University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific Credit
Transfer System (UCTS) was chosen as a cross-border recognition platform,
pending the development of a regional credit transfer system. Furthermore, themeeting reached decisions about budget allocation, level of support provided byhost and sending governments, language used in the program, numbers ofparticipating universities and targeted numbers of students.
The 2nd M-I-T Meeting was held on 15-16 October 2009, with the purposeof identifying and comparing course syllabi. The meeting came to theagreement that the program would commence in 2010. One hundred fifty
students would participate – 50 outgoing students from each of the threeparticipating countries. The respective Offices of Higher Education selected a218 Connect ASEAN

number of universities to participate in the pilot. The meeting included theparticipating universities, focusing on a comparison of the course syllabus to
identify relevant subjects for mobility students to undertake. Additionally, mostparticipating universities came to a preliminary agreement on the number ofoutgoing and incoming students and the duration of the programme.
The 3rd M-I-T Meeting (International Relations Officers Meeting) was
organised during 7-9 December 2009 in Jakarta Indonesia. The Meeting
involved the International Relations Officers (IROs) from each country andcovered specifics on the number of participating students, orientation
programmes, and preferred subjects in each area and also shared best practice.
The recent M-I-T Mobility Programme Review Meeting was held during
21-22 September 2010 in Putrajaya, Malaysia. The Meeting identified
impediments to exchange and designed actions to resolve the issues.
Recommendations included the appointment of a Country Coordinator to act as acentral information resource for mobility in that country, the development of aStudent Manual and information for the website of the Ministry responsible forHigher Education, and bi-annual review meetings with relevant stakeholders.
A further significant development was the strengthening of the role ofInternational Relations Officers within universities. The Review Meeting
reached agreement on timelines for issuing student Letters of Offer, the process
for health checks, and the provision of HEI Student ID Cards. The meeting was
informed of the current outcomes of the project. One hundred seventeen
students have commenced or undertaken a mobility programme in 2010, withmany additional students scheduled for 2011 (See: Table 1 and Table 2). The
Meeting aimed to review the recommendations from the Review Meeting andconfirm decisions for the pending M-I-T Review Meeting to be held in 31
January 2011 to 1 February 2011, Bangkok Thailand.
Furthermore, the Meeting acknowledged that several other countries had
expressed interest in becoming involved in a Southeast Asian student mobility
program. There was general agreement on the benefits of expanding the
program to additional countries, including Japan, China and South Korea, andbolstering the number of participating students. After the successful discussion
between SEAMEO RIHED and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sciences andTechnology, Japan, the proposal for the workshop leading to the set-up ofJapan-Malaysia-Indonesia-Thailand (J-M-I-T) student mobility program wasdrafted. The initiative was reported to the 33rd SEAMEO High Officials
Meeting, held during 22-25 November 2010, Bangkok, Thailand. Additionally,
SEAMEO RIHED will promote this plan at the 5th Meeting of Directors

Supachai Yavaprabhas 219

General/Secretary General/Commissioner responsible for Higher Education in
the Southeast Asian region, and submit the proposal to the 46th SEAMEO
Council Meeting as well as further present it to the 6th ASEAN Education
Ministers Meeting through the SEAMEO Secretariat for approval of the
expansion in 2011.
The 4th M-I-T Meeting will be held to discuss the future direction ofprogram soon after the project is successfully expanded in terms of both
numbers of students and participating countries.
Table 1. No. Students Participating in the M-I-T Student Mobility Program,
December 2010
Malaysia (M)Indonesia (I)Thailand (T)Inbound

OutboundInbound

OutboundInbound

Outbound

I

T

I

T

M

T

M

T

M

I

M

I

45

22

-

4

-

14

45

32

4

32

22

14

Note: Project Progress Actual figures as of December 2010 indicate that 117 students undertook
overseas study as part of the project in 2010.
M: Malaysia, I: Indonesia, T: Thailand

Table 2. No. Students Participating in the M-I-T Student Mobility Program bydiscipline, December 2010
Malaysia
Discipline

Indonesia

ThailandInbound

OutboundInbound

OutboundInbound

Outbound

I

T

I

T

M

T

M

T

I

M

I

M

Agriculture

7

3

-

4

-

-

7

12

12

4

-

3

Language & Culture

13

5

-

-

-

-

13

6

6

-

-

5

Hospitality & Tourism

7

4

-

-

-

6

7

7

7

-

6

4

International Business

10

5

-

-

-

5

10

5

5

-

5

5

Food Science & Technology

8

5

-

-

-

3

8

2

2

-

3

5

Totals

45

22

0

4

0

14

45

32

32

4

14

22

The increasing cross-national flow of students and staff within Southeast
Asia through the M-I-T student mobility program is an important factor
reinforcing a multicultural space of ASEAN people.
However, many
challenges require a stronger commitment from relevant stakeholders at all

220 Connect ASEAN

levels. Those challenges include, for example, maintaining funding at the
government level, developing practical strategies for higher education
institutions on mobility structure and management, the improvement ofcommunication flow between and among higher education institutions, and thedevelopment of a database through ICT network or social network in someparticular contexts. Some conceptual aspects of the program also require
examination. Participating countries must work hard to control the quality ofeducation and provide a diversified international environment to international
students by offering a diversity of culture and language courses.
The M-I-T student mobility program has implications not only for regional
integration of higher education, but also for traditional values and practices
within academe. The attempt to internationalise their programs requires
changes in institutional strategic plans and management. Those include, forexample, the creation of new opportunities for the profession, the more intenseinteraction between higher education and science and innovation policies as wellas market demand, the increasing international mobility of people andknowledge, growing interdisciplinary connections within and between cognate
fields of knowledge, different combinations of teaching, scholarship, research,knowledge exchange and community engagement.

The ambitious idea of developing a regional credit transfer system
Another priority initiative by SEAMEO RIHED is the establishment of aSoutheast Asian credit transfer system. The organisation has carried out a study
on how to align the existing regional credit transfer systems. Those are, namely,
UMAP3 Credit Transfer Scheme (UCTS) and ASEAN Credit Transfer System(ACTS). The following table highlights the common and different features
between UCTS and ACTS.
At the regional policy level, SEAMEO RIHED has pushed forward thedevelopment of the Southeast Asian Credit Transfer System (SEA-CTS),
3
UMAP Membership is open to countries/territories in the Asia-Pacific region. Members
can include government higher education departments or ministers, individual universities,
university umbrella organizations, or a combination of these. Individual persons are noteligible for membership.
UMAP membership is currently open to the following
countries/territories: Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Fiji,
Guam, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Mexico,
Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, People’s Republic of China,
Philippines, Re-Union Islands, Russia, Samoa, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Timor Leste,
United States of America, and Vietnam.

Supachai Yavaprabhas 221

responding to the needs of non-AUN member higher education institutions andnarrowing the scope of higher education institutions participating in UMAP
within Southeast Asia. The idea aims to supplement both existing credit
transfer systems.
It was agreed during the 3rd Meeting of Directors
General/Secretary General/Commissioner responsible for Higher Education in
the Southeast Asian region, held on 29 January 2009, Bangkok, Thailand, that
Thailand and SEAMEO RIHED would play the key role in developing atemplate for a Southeast Asian Credit Transfer System with principles andcriteria designed on the basis of the UCTS. The recent Six Recommended Key
Principles for Credit Transfer in Proposing SEA-CTS were agreed to at The
South-East Asian Policy Forum: Regional Credit Transfer System: Lessons
Learnt from UCTS, held on 30 June 2010, Bangkok, Thailand.
Table 3. The common and different features between UCTS and ACTS4
Comparison between
UCTS & ACTS

5

6

UCTS

ACTS

Objective

To promote student mobility
between UMAP Member
Countries/Territories andother regions with thestandard credit transfer
systemTo promote and facilitate greater student
7
mobility among ASEAN Universities ,particularly standards/criteria of credit system
recognition at the institutional level, country
level and ASEAN level

Type

Based on student workload

Based on student workload

Key Documents

Handbook: UMAP Student
Connection Online & UMAP
Credit Transfer Scheme;
Standard UMAP Application
Form & UCTS

ACTS Student Manual and ACTS University
Administrator Manual
http://acts.ui.ac.id/index.php/home

Grading
Conversion

UCTS agreed
conversion system

No need for grading conversion but use
existing university’s grading system

Duration of Exchange

Not specific

one up to maximum two academic semesters
or shorter period of study (summer semester)4

See Aphijanyatham, 2010, p.68
See http://www.umap.org
6
See http://www.aunsec.org
7
22 ASEAN University Network (AUN) Member Universities consist of 1 HEI from Brunei,
2 HEIs from Cambodia, 3 HEIs from Indonesia, 1 HEI from Lao PDR, 3 HEIs from Malaysia,
2 HEIs from Myanmar, 3 HEIs from the Philippines, 2 HEIs from Singapore, 3 HEIs fromThailand and 2 HEIs from Vietnam.
5222 Connect ASEANThe Six Recommended Key Principles for Credit Transfer in Proposing
SEA-CTS are:
1. SEA-CTS is to be used uniformly for credit transfer in higher education
programs.
2. SEA-CTS is to be used to transfer credits for single courses or groups ofcourses in higher education programs or equivalent.
3. Only grades attaining the following levels or above shall be transferred: Cor 2.00 score level or equivalent for a Bachelor’s Degree, and B or 3.00
score level or equivalent, or the S score level for a Graduate’s Degree.
4. Content of the credit to be transferred should be comparable to threequarters of the course being credited.
5. For a Bachelor’s Degree, credits to be transferred shall not exceed
one-third of the total credits of a study program into which they aretransferred.
6. A transferred credit shall not be included in the calculation for the
cumulative grade point average (optional).
Nonetheless, there are issues to be considered and resolved concerning thepractical implications of the potential SEA-CTS.
One of those basic
considerations is the balanced design of curriculum with the learning outcomesof period of study alongside student workload.
The issues of quality assurance and the potential regional credit transfer
system are both priorities in a process of development of a regional system ofcomparable programs.
In addition, standardised and effective learning
processes are required to facilitate the development process. Consequently,
academic staff are expected to assume the role of facilitating learning anddeveloping students’ analytical and problem-solving skills instead of simply“supplying information.” The adoption of a credit transfer policy also leads tochanges in university management in terms of the role of international relations
offices (IROs). This is because the effectiveness of the IROs holds the key tothe flow of students across borders and the successful management of credit
transfer between institutions.

The establishment of ASEAN Research Clusters and the creationof an ASEAN Citation Index
The greater emphasis on quality assurance of higher education requires a

Supachai Yavaprabhas 223

new structure for teaching and research. In Southeast Asia, the First
Conference on Pioneering ASEAN Research Clusters, held in 26-27 November
2010, provided an opportunity to develop both the research capacity andresearch outputs of Southeast Asian nations. The conference provided insight
onto how research can be strengthened. The key themes and questions
explored at the conference were:
1. Sharing updates on Southeast Asian higher education research policy andmanagement;
2. Identifying areas for establishing research clusters;
3. Exploring the possibility of an ASEAN Citation Index; and4. Building a platform for strengthening research collaboration.
Research involves the systematic search for new knowledge, and is of key
importance as countries transition from an information society, to a knowledge
economy and onto a learning economy.8 Research is essential to economic
development as it has the potential to reap longer-term benefits. Research
excellence can be a source of competitive advantage and increase global
competiveness. It can also lead to innovation and breakthroughs, which may
have direct financial benefits if commercialised. Innovation can be nurtured
and fostered through development of cross-national clusters. Clusters drive
innovation through the development of knowledge linkages andinterdependencies between actors in different national networks of production.
Research involves higher education institutions, industry, governments andother actors, and directly assists with the development of social capital.
Because of the many stakeholders involved, a platform is required to adequately
consider and initiate a research framework for the region. The 1st Research
Cluster conference provided that platform. The conference also built on a key
strength of the ASEAN community – the commitment to work cooperatively tomeet their collective goals. This commitment was demonstrated by the signingof the Joint Statement on Promoting ASEAN Higher Education Research
Clusters, which provided the region with a common view of how Research
Clusters will be promoted in Southeast Asia.
8

According to UNESCO World Report on Towards Knowledge Societies, knowledge societies
are about capabilities to identify, produce, process, transform, disseminate and use information
to build and apply knowledge for human development. On the other hand, the idea of
information society is based on technological breakthroughs.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001418/141843e.pdf

224 Connect ASEAN

Associate Professor Dr Wanchai De-Eknamkul, Secretary of the National
Research University Committee, Office of the Higher Education Commission,
Thailand, provided a presentation about establishing ASEAN Research clusters,
making recommendations based upon a review of current ASEAN researchstrengths. He proposed both a model for establishing ASEAN Research
Clusters and an accompanying management system. Dr Wanchai’s proposedmodel for establishing research clusters included: establish targeted researchareas; establish virtual clusters; involve universities using collaborative research
projects. The four research clusters proposed for future discussion were:
1. Health and Medicine, hosted by Singapore and Thailand
2. Agriculture and Food, hosted by Vietnam, Malaysia and possibly Thailand
3. Environment and Biodiversity, hosted by the Philippines and Indonesia
4. Social Science, hosted by Singapore and the Philippines
Regarding financing issue, Dr Wanchai suggested that clusters build upon
the top scientists and researchers, by informing them that clusters are being
formed and that researchers will be doing collaborative research. Initially,collaboration will be virtual, limiting costs. The host country will provide
funding to initiate clusters, so this can be established without a formal cluster
budget, building upon the current research strengths detailed in his presentation.
Dr Wanchai advised that the Higher Education Commission should fundmobility or conferences to facilitate networking among researchers.
The shared idea of the ASEAN Citation Index (ACI) was presented byProfessor Dr Narongrit Sombatsompop, Head of Thai-Journal Citation Index(TCI) Centre and King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi(KMUTT). He demonstrated the ACI’s potential to assess the efficiency andquality of researchers and research outputs, improve university rankings, assist
students with their university selection choice, and integrate evaluation at
national, regional and international levels. Dr Narongrit also provided theoverall concept for the ACI and an implementation plan. The implementation
plan involved establishing national databases, ensuring articles containinternational information, establishing one online platform, ensuring thedatabase is supported, guaranteeing financial contributions, guaranteeing regular
inputs and designating ownership and maintenance. This trend of setting up a
regional research platform will greatly raise awareness and motivate academic
staff of ASEAN nations to adjust their role to be more active in researchinnovation.

Supachai Yavaprabhas 225

Conclusion
In the regional integration of higher education, the academic profession has
one of the most significant roles to play in enhancing and steering thedevelopment of each integration mechanism.
At the same time, therestructuring of university management and administration has been gradually
carried out as a consequence of the regional integration. Over the past few
decades, the expansion and massification of higher education was influenced by
the expected need for highly qualified human resources in the emerging global
economy. The internationalisation of higher education has been therefore
placed high on agenda of many higher education institutions. The regional
collaborations on student and staff exchange are also increasing. The roles ofacademic professions in international communication, cooperation andrecognition are considered indispensable to the greater exchange and mobility ofstudents and faculty across national borders. Due to the openness of knowledgetransfer and the regional promotion of international mobility, the growing
demand for international faculty and growing competition for talent are intense.
Academic labor markets are likely to become more international than in the past.
The process of massification and concurrent expansion of international
mobility has brought the issue of the quality of education, and consequently
quality assurance, to the fore in university’s strategic plans. Many higher
education institutions in Southeast Asia have therefore put more emphasis on
quality assurance assessment both at the institutional and program levels. With
its overarching aim towards ASEAN Community, SEAMEO RIHED as aninternational organisation for higher education and development has assumed arole of promoting regional collaboration on quality assurance with a view
towards aligning the diversity of each country’s tradition and practices of student
assessment and institutional evaluation. The greater expectation of effective
and sustainable implementation of quality assurance from the national public andregional higher education bodies has put pressure on higher education
institutions in each country to become more involved in the regional quality
assurance network and movement. The growing information exchange andcapacity development on quality assurance practices which has been regionallydriven by SEAMEO RIHED will help enhance the quality of teaching as well as
improve university governance in Southeast Asia.
The increasing importance of science-based knowledge and technology
prompts academic profession to develop their research functions. Both national
governments and higher education institutions over the past decade have

226 Connect ASEAN

highlighted the significance of highly innovative research. This emerging force
accompanied with the regional collaboration on ASEAN research clusters and
ASEAN Citation Index have resulted in greater differentiation of academic
sectors, institutions and job roles. Traditionally, diversity basically meant adivision of labor in terms of the institutions’ primary functions of either teachingor research, or a combination of both, through forms of governance and fundingthat worked as incentives and constraints (Musselin, 2008). The changing
academic criterion of excellence follows the pursuit of research excellence.
Academics are increasingly expected to raise their own research funding andcreate academic linkages with industry as well as respond to the community
development. The trend of university social responsibility and sustainability is
prominently emerging in Southeast Asia.
Higher education has become a mature service industry and the academic
profession has become a large and complex profession with many faces(Musselin, 2008). The success of higher education development in Southeast
Asia strongly requires the firm and continuous commitment from all
stakeholders at every level. Furthermore, the effective response from theacademic profession in facilitating regional higher education collaboration in
every aspect is also highly important. Four priority mechanisms driven by
SEAMEO RIHED are milestones on the road to regional integration both
economic and socio-cultural. The success of regional higher education
collaboration is the key to the whole region’s political and socio-economic
sustainability.

References
Aphijanyatham, R. (2010). East Asian Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Key toRegional Integration. SEAMEO RIHED and CRICED. Tsukuba: Center for Research on
International Coopeartion in Educational Development.
Education, R.I. (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative andQuantitative Perspectives. RIHE International Seminar Reports of the International
Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project 2008. Hiroshima: ResearchInstitute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University.
Eggins, H. (2007). 157870e. Retrieved January 24, 2011, fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001578/157870e.pdf
Kogan, M., & Teichler, U. (Eds.) (2007). Key Challenges to the Academic Profession. Key
Challenges to the Academic Profession. Paris/Kassel: UNESCO Forum on Higher

Supachai Yavaprabhas 227
education Research and Knowledge; International Centre for Higher Education Research
Kassel at the University of Kassel.
Kirtikara, K. (2001). Higher Edu Reform Roadmap. Retrieved January 21, 2011, fromhttp://www.kmutt.ac.th/pi/backup/fileKK/Higher%20Edu%20Reform%20Roadmap.pdf
Knight, J. (2003). Internationalisation of Higher Education- Practice and Priorities: 2003
IAU Survey Report. Retrieved December 25, 2011, fromhttp://www.iau-aiu.net/internationalization/pdf/Internationalisation-en.pdf
Musselin, J.E. (2008). Back to the Future? The Academic Professions in the 21st Century.
Higher Education to 2030, Volume 1, Demography. OECD.
RIHED, S. (2010). Progress Report of SEAMEO RIHED’s Project towards Regional
Harmonisation of Higher Education in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: SEAMEO RIHED.
Yavaprabhas, S.A. (2008). Harmonisation of Higher Education. Bangkok: SEAMEO RIHED.

228

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011 229

The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic
Profession: What does that prototype really look
like?

Martin J. Finkelstein

Introduction
I arrived yesterday in Hiroshima with a clearly defined role to play at thisinaugural event launching RIHE’s ambitious four year study of the Asian
academic profession. My role was to speak about the American academic
profession insofar as it represents the prototype or epitome of the academic
profession to which the emergent Asian research university and its academic
staff aspire. I was to represent the ideal typical end state to which Asia aspires.
The challenges to this role began almost immediately.
Professor
Cummings took issue with the metaphor of core-periphery which assumed asingular and universal path for moving from the academic periphery to thehighest stage of academic development. And, taking this as his point of
departure, Professor Yan provided a searching critique of the CAP project,targeted principally on our assumption of a unitary – and clearly Western –model of academic man (that is the term we use historically, no disrespect toacademic women intended) that undergirds our framework and thinking. So, I
strode up to lectern asking myself in a way I had not in preparing my remarks
what the real relevance of the U.S. model (or the apogee of the Western model)
might be to my audience of Asian academics. What I represent is, after all, a“unitary,” culturally relative Western model that may have limited relevance to
the Asian context; it certainly ought not to serve uncritically as “the” model ofaspiration.
Professor, Seton Hall University, USA, e-mail: Martin.Finkelstein@shu.edu

230 The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic Profession

This question of relevance, however, was not the only – or even the largest– complicating factor I faced. More fundamentally, the very model of academic
man in the U.S. that I was purporting to represent is really a “moving target”:
after a half century of crystallization, it is now (and has been for the lastgeneration) in flux. Indeed, the American model that you carry in your minds
is now more stereotype that descriptive of current realities. My primary task inthis paper is to bring you up to date with the “new” American reality as a firststep in considering realistically its relevance to Asia’s future. While you aretrying to build a national academic profession up – and you recognize thefragility of that body in these times –, the U.S. is allowing its own to disintegrate
or decompose. You need to be aware that what you aspire to is already on its
way to disappearing. So what I want to do now is tell you a little bit about
those changes (in as provocative a fashion as I can) and, based on that discussion,suggest some lessons East and South Asia may want to take as you chart you
academic futures.

The U.S. model: A basic thesis
This paper advances a simple, basic thesis: What has heretofore been a
relatively homogeneous corps of professionals – in terms of their demographics(who they are), their work role (what they do), the locus of their work activities(where they work and their time and place boundedness), their career exclusivity
or pre-emptiveness (the place of academic work in their “life space”) and thestructure of their career track (the rungs of their career ladder) – has in the spaceof a generation or two morphed into a patchwork of relatively distinctive andfragmented workforces, each with its own demographic profile, work and career
profile. Any discussion of the academic workforce in the U.S. today must now
recognize this diversification and speak in a nuanced way about segments andtheir relative pre-emptiveness rather than hazard generalizations about someamorphous – and now mythic – whole.

Demographic change
Consider the following changes in the profile of faculty supply in the U.S inbarely two generations.
Gender & Marital Status. Four of five faculty in 1969 were men and new
recruits barely differed from old hands. By the early 2000s, nearly 2/5 faculty
are women overall, and among new recruits, the gender ratio is approachingMartin J. Finkelstein 231

50-50. While earlier generations of academic women were predominantly
single, the new generation is married, have children and, more often than not, arepart of a dual career couple (Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2005).
Race/ethnicity. In 1969, 9/10 full-time faculty were Caucasian (and mostlymale). By 2004, the overall figure had shrunk to 8/10 and lower among thenewest recruits.
Nationality. In 1969, barely 10 percent of the faculty were foreign-born,
typically of European origin – refugees from Nazi Germany or the former Soviet
Union. The vast majority are now of East Asian (Chinese) or South Asian(Indian) origin with very different orientations to work than their native born
counterparts.
Especially among new recruits in the natural sciences,mathematics and engineering, perhaps as many as 1/4 to 1/2 are foreign born
Asians. And unlike native born faculty, this group is disproportionately male.
While the behavior of these foreign nationals is shaped by labor market
conditions in the United States, they are also being shaped by new economic
developments and labor market conditions in their native countries – a new“wild card” factor. As nations such as China, S. Korea, and to a lesser extent,
India, have initiated major investments in their developing higher education
systems to build “world-class” universities, conditions of academic life andprospects for academic careers are improving quickly and substantially –providing newly competitive opportunities for pursuing academic careers andprecipitating an incipient “reverse brain drain”.
Generational Weltanschauung. In 1969, the American faculty was
dominated by members of the World War II generation and the newest recruits
were members of the baby boom generation. Today, it is the baby boom
generation that is retiring, being replaced by Generation Xers and members of
the Millenial generation (Howe, Strauss & Matson, 2000). This latter is a
generation focused more self-consciously on family and work-life balance issues,on teamwork and service in the name of the greater good.

Changing institutional and professional profile
Consider at the same time these shifting axes of demand for faculty in theU.S.:
Academic field. In 1969, more than 2/3 faculty were in the traditional artsand sciences disciplines pursuing their graduate education and their early career232 The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic Professionin perfect lockstep pattern. By the early 2000s, the disciplinary balance hadradically shifted towards the professions,1 especially the health professions.
Among new faculty recruits, the majority are now in the professions – higher
and lower – and drawn as frequently from professional practice as from aninsular and clearly identifiable pre-service career track.
Institutional venue. In 1969, about half the faculty were employed inresearch universities and the remainder distributed, for the most part, over otherfour-year institutions. Today, the proportion of faculty residing in research
universities has shrunk to barely 2/5; and most of the recruitment is being doneby other than research universities for other than research roles.
Type of appointment. In 1969, virtually all faculty positions were full-time,tenure eligible career tracks. Every incumbent was expected to play roughly
the same “integrated” role consisting of teaching, research and service.
Beginning with a vengeance in the 1970s, the ranks of part-time appointmentsswelled. And, beginning in the 1980s, full-time appointees were increasingly
routed into fixed-term contract appointments and off the tenure track. Indeed,
for at least the last 15 years, the majority of all new full-time hires have been to
fixed contract, temporary appointments. These appointments reflect not merely
differences in the duration and permanence prospects of contracts, but are-definition of the work role itself. Contract appointments typically entail
more specialized roles – teaching only, research only, program director only –and often preclude formal involvement in academic governance (Schuster &Finkelstein, 2006).

What do these changes mean?
Assessing what these new developments and conditions mean for the futureof the American academic professions depends, of course, on the context inwhich one interprets them: are they temporary dislocations or fallout from anextended academic depression (part of the academic business cycle)? Or, dothey represent structural re-alignments, that is, the recasting of the academic
1

American universities, unlike their European counterparts, were historically organizedaround the liberal arts fields (humanities, social and natural sciences). Prior to the 20th
century, many professional schools (law, medicine, engineering, social work, nursing,education) were actually established outside the universities as freestanding entities, and did
not become integrated into the university structure until the early 20th century. From anhistorical perspective, they were “added on” to the liberal arts core. Now, they are overtaking
that core.

Martin J. Finkelstein 233

marketplace in a globalized, knowledge-based economy? Up until quite
recently, that matter of interpretation was hardly settled. Bowen and Schuster(1986) had predicted a widespread supply shortage of the “best and brightest”
when the swelling baby boomlet hit college age in the first decade of the 21st
century. Indeed, they seemed to suggest at that time the imminent restorationof the old academic equilibrium of the seller’s market of the 1960s – with animpending rush to create new “tenure-track positions” and to do away with thelion’s share of part-time appointments. Frances (1998) had predicted a surge indemand for faculty in response to continuing expansion of traditional student
demand – albeit warning of the unpredictable effects of the new digital
instructional technologies. And, most recently, Leslie (2007) predicted thatwidespread retirements of “Baby Boomer” faculty amid the relative
underdevelopment of the “under 40” junior faculty ranks would drive a crisis in
replenishing the faculty.
An increasing consensus, however, is emerging that while tenure andtraditional academic appointments are not yet “dead” (Chait, 2002), we arewitnessing a structural realignment that has little that is temporary about it.
Finkelstein (2003) recently invoked Trow’s (1973) concept of the structuraltransformation of national systems of higher education from elite to mass touniversal access to remind us that broader transformations in the economy –industrialization, the emergence of the globalized, knowledge-based economy –have historically driven reconfigurations of higher education and the nature ofacademic work and careers – at least in the American context. Developments
such as feminization of the workforce, globalization of the labor market, therestructuring of work along the lines of greater “casualization” to insurecompetitiveness – reflect larger social forces that are transforming work in
America – and the world. The restructuring of the college teaching force is, inthis context, no different than the restructuring of professional work (including
medicine and law) more broadly. Globalization, as Twigg (2002) has argued,
has intensified competitive pressures and has forced entire industries to“restructure” themselves – now including higher education and its labor force.
If, then, these “new” developments are not going away and are (and will be)
reshaping the faculty, what shape is it taking? On the face of it, thesedevelopments suggest nothing less than a wholesale reconfiguration of the bodyacademic in ways that we do not yet fully comprehend. U.S. higher education
is increasingly hiring practicing professionals 2 who have not experienced
2

These would include practicing physicians, nurses, attorneys etc. who do not possess a

234 The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic Profession

extensive pre-service socialization to the academic role during traditional
doctoral education. Indeed, many of these professionals may best be describedas “accidental” academics. It is increasingly hiring married women withfamilies who are insisting on a reasonable work– family-life balance – as indeed
are the shrinking core of Millennial males.
It is increasingly hiring
foreign-born and racial/ethnic minorities. It is increasingly hiring retirees frombusiness and industry and from academic positions at other institutions. It is
increasingly redefining traditional research university roles. We are seeing
clear lines of stratification among the faculty ranks among a core permanent“traditional” academic staff and a larger contingent staff serving more
specialized functions. It is increasingly bringing into the academy a newsociological generation in terms of orientation to self, society, and work.

The topography of new faculty hires
Most fundamentally, these developments undermine the basic underlying
assumption that there is, in some meaningful sense, a corporate faculty that has afundamental unity of mission, background, motivation, and talent level. In thatsense, the “old-line” faculty no longer exists. We have rather a highly
differentiated academic workforce (including an exploding number of
non-faculty professionals – the fastest-growing segment of the academic
workforce; see Frances, 1998). How can we describe the basic lines ofdifferentiation of this new faculty workforce, those Rhoades (1998) called“managed professionals”? Before we can assess how the “old rules” arechanging, we need to describe clearly the topography of the new faculty
workforce. Once the cells are named, we are then in a position to assess how
the various faculty sub-groups are likely to behave. That topographicalmapping exercise is best applied to recent recruits to the college teaching force –insofar as these represent the future of the profession – and allow us to
extrapolate with greater confidence. Graphically, the topography of new
recruits since at least the early 1990s is displayed in Figure 1.

doctorate in a liberal arts discipline, but rather a professional degree granted by a professional
school within a university, e.g. MD (Medical doctor), J.D. (Juris Doctor), DBA (Doctor of
Business Administration). They may come to their academic position after years in
professional practice – and may even plan to return to practice at a later date.

Martin J. Finkelstein 235

Part-time
Full-time Contract

Full-time
Tenured/tenurable

Figure 1. The topography of new faculty hires, 1993-2008

The full-time terrain
Among the newly hired full-timers over the past generation, the basic
divide is between those “on” and “off” the tenure track – roughly half and half.
But there are clear cleavages that cut across this basic one:
• the divide between men and women;• the divide between those in the professions and those in the traditional artsand sciences;• the divide between the younger entrants fresh out of graduate school (intheir 30s) and the older entrants (frequently practicing professionals in their
40’s or 50’s or “early” retirees from business/industry or the military).
Indeed, among the professionals and older new recruits are a majority of“accidental” academics in the professions;• the divide between those in research universities and those outside.
To begin with, what can we say about the one-quarter of the newly enteringcollege teaching force that can be classified as traditional tenure-eligible ortenured, full-time faculty – understanding that somewhere between 40 and 50
percent of them are now likely to be young married women? First, it seems tome that the most basic of the “old rules” – that academic careerists are a “special
breed” whose unique confluence of values and interests, including intellectualinterest and achievement, the quest for autonomy even at the risk of foregoing
pecuniary benefit – still holds. All the available evidence suggests that thoseunique individuals are still being attracted to academic careers in about the same
small, but unchanging, measure. Moreover, these individuals are, judging from236 The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic Profession

the available recent evidence, working harder than ever (58 hours weekly in2004 vs. 53 hours in 1988) and are subject at once to increased expectations forscholarship and publication (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006; Leslie, 2007), on the
one hand, and heightened expectations for teaching performance, on the other.
What may, however, be changing is the value orientation that mediates how
these tenure-trackers fulfill these deep personal needs – and at what price.
Academic women and Millennials, generally, are more oriented to family andachieving a reasonable work– life balance than has historically been the case forBaby Boomers (see Howe et al., 2000). Anecdotal evidence suggests that they
are less willing to sacrifice everything on the altar of work. Behavioral
evidence is less clear. There are some data that suggest that recently recruited
women and minority faculty are leaving academic jobs at a higher rate thanwhite men – although the actual magnitude of that rate is not clear (Trower &Chait, 2002; Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007; Leslie, 2007). Modestly higher
pre-tenure attrition rates for women are likely to be more than compensated forby recruiting new members. Moreover, the restructured academic workforce
provides a new diversity of opportunities including less stressful, more
specialized fixed contract positions as well as a variety of part-time positions for
those seeking alternatives to the tenure track straitjacket. This is not meant tominimize the serious equity issues that are raised by the unique situation of
newly entering women faculty in the U.S. – as elsewhere. They do indeed havea tougher road to hoe with fewer immediate rewards (although compensation
rates are improving slightly); and academic institutions do need to consider how
they will address such issues from an equity perspective. At the same time, it isimportant to keep in mind that tenure-track vacancies account for a shrinking
proportion of academic job openings – not quite half of the full-time vacancies
over the past 15 year. Indeed, Leslie (2007) recently demonstrated using
National Center for Education Statistics sources just how little the number of
new tenure-track positions had grown in the U.S. – for men as well as women –over the past generation for those under 40. It is critically important toemphasize that the share of these regular full-time positions has not only
declined proportionately, but that actual numbers of “traditional” positions show
almost no growth. Current supply in the aggregate is more than likely to fulfill
quite adequately that reduced demand – assuming that the old-line faculty do not,as a group, retire all at once (certainly an unlikely scenario). More troubling –and receiving much less attention – are the changing prospects of foreign-born
faculty, especially Asian men in the natural sciences and engineering. While
U.S. graduate programs in these disciplines have for at least the pastMartin J. Finkelstein 237

quarter-century been stocked by foreign-born scholars, there is new evidence
suggesting that young scholars who once completed their doctorates in the
United States and routinely stayed there to pursue academic and research careers
are now less likely to come (a function at least in part of post-9/11 immigration
restrictions) and increasingly returning home to pursue academic careers in the
rapidly developing higher education systems of their home countries (Hong,2008). Per capita research and development expenditures are increasing much
more rapidly in China and other parts of Asia than in the United States(Cummings, 2008). Indeed, while the United States still maintained a global
lead in production of scholarly papers and research, the center of gravity is
discernibly shifting as by far the greatest growth in scholarly production moves
to Asia (ibid.). While the magnitude of this reversal of the “brain drain” is not
yet clear, the emerging signs are unmistakable, especially among Chinese
academics. Moreover, there is no evidence whatever that the proportion ofnative-born American students in these fields is on anything but the continued
wane (Leslie, 2007). Future prospects for foreign-born faculty underline thelarger issue of discipline-specific variation in the actual numbers andproportionate representation of tenure-track and tenured faculty positions.
Leslie (ibid.) recently examined disciplinary differences in the proportion oftenure-track vs. fixed-term positions between 1988 and 2004. He reported aclear bifurcation between those fields that showed continued growth intenure-track positions and those that were growing primarily through theproliferation of fixed-contract positions. Generally, the natural sciences were
the only group of disciplines showing considerable growth in tenure-track
appointments – although they also grew in the number of contingent
appointments. The health sciences, the humanities, and education, on the other
hand, grew almost entirely in terms of contingent positions while the number oftenured positions actually declined. Faculty in the “high-tenure gain” fields
have higher pay, lower undergraduate teaching loads, and produce more
publications than faculty in “low-tenure-gain” fields. They are also more likely
to receive research funding and spend more time on research. Moreover, thefields that have gained in the proportion of tenured/tenurable positions havetended to reduce reliance on part-time faculty while those who have lost tenured
faculty have come to rely increasingly on part-time faculty.
These analyses suggest three things:
1. The traditional tenured/tenurable faculty is shrinking and is likely tocontinue to do so. The demand for tenured/tenure able faculty is actually238 The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic Profession

declining; and available supplies, despite some minor downturn in PhD
production, seem likely more than adequate to meet demand. Moreover,currently practicing professionals and retirees seeking second careersconstitute new and promising sources of supply.
2. Developments are increasingly uneven across fields. Certain fields in thenatural sciences and engineering are certain to require an increased need forrecruitment for tenure-track positions; most other fields are decreasing their
recruitment of tenurable/tenured traditional faculty.
The American
academic landscape is increasingly differentiated by academic field orgroups of academic fields – stratification lines that began to be drawn in the
1980s have now taken a second-order leap forward (Bowen & Schuster,1986). Very different recruitment and retention policies will be required inthese situations.
3. Foreign-born scholars have over the past 20 years played an important rolein American graduate education in the natural sciences and engineering andhave allowed the national scientific research enterprise to be adequately
staffed. There are emerging signs that over the next generation there will
be increasing competition for that supply from rapidly developing higher
education systems, especially in Asia (that is, China’s world-classuniversities initiative). In the context of current federal immigration
policies, the recruitment of foreign-born scholars becomes particularly
problematic.

The contingent faculty
What can we say about the one-quarter of new academic positions that are
fixed-term contract positions? In the first place, it is helpful to recap the major
sub-categories that exist within this broad area: full-time faculty in theprofessions, especially the health professions, who are “accidental” academics;
women faculty who deliberately seek more circumscribed positions that do not
involve open-ended research commitments (in some cases, moving from atenure-track to a fixed-contract position or even to a part-time position, typicallyfor family reasons); and aspiring, full-time tenure track faculty, males as well as
females, who have been unable to land tenure-track positions, especially incertain “oversupplied” fields in the humanities and education. Recruitment andretention issues, I would argue, vary considerably depending on which of theseMartin J. Finkelstein 239

three sub-groups one is discussing. The “aspiring tenure-trackers” are the mostsingle-mindedly motivated of the three sub-groups: while some may abandon thehope of a traditional academic career at some point (and economic concerns arelikely to accelerate that “tipping point”), they typically represent that “special
breed” of individual for whom academic work represents a rare occupational
opportunity to fulfill deep personal needs. While some women may fall into
this category of aspirants, there are many more who can be classified as “lifebalancers” for whom such term-limited and work-circumscribed positions areindeed a positive inducement to a species of academic life that minimizes its
historically greatest disadvantages/costs. For those new faculty recruits who
have retired from a first career and who are seeking renewal or reinvention in asecond career (often coming with attractive pension in hand), contingent
academic life may offer just the right blend of meaning and (marginallyacceptable) compensation. The critical supply implications here tend to be
field-specific. That is, there are a handful of fields where a significant segmentof the entry-level academic track is functionally specialized, fixed-contract
positions. They include English, foreign languages, mathematics, basic
business courses, introductory general education requirements (drawing onsocial science and humanities faculty), and certain professional fields, including
the health sciences. While American higher education may not, in the short orintermediate term, be in danger of “running out” of such individuals, there aretroubling long-term implications for the survival and prosperity of these fields
for whom academic careers have historically provided a modal venue.
The sub-group of professional field faculty – the “accidental” academics –are probably the most challenging of the three sub-groups in terms ofrecruitment and, especially, retention. Many of these individuals will have beenpracticing their profession before assuming a faculty position, are doing so while
concurrently holding a faculty position, or will return to professional practiceafter a stint in a faculty position. Issues of competitive compensation will begreatest here. Then of course, there are the part-time faculty. They rarely
constitute much of a recruitment problem – although this obviously varies by
field and by geographic location (relatively easy in the major urban areas, much
more difficult in rural areas). Retention can be a problem, but the available
data suggests that nearly one-tenth of part-timers are actually tenured and asmuch as half may be classified as long-term part-timers, that is, individuals whoteach one or two courses a year over a significant stretch of time. It is
important to be clear that the labor market for contingent faculty is likely quite
different than that for tenure-track faculty. It may be local or regional, but is240 The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic Profession

rarely national or international; or, as Twombly has described it in relation to thehiring of full-time tenure-track faculty at major community colleges, “recruit
nationally, but hire locally or regionally” (Twombly, 2005, p.438). This meansthat institutions may not be self-consciously seeking the absolute “best andbrightest” in filling different sorts of faculty positions, so much as seeking tomatch the requirements of a particular position (which may, for example, focus
on clinical teaching) to the talents of a particular individual. Many, dependingon location, will test the local and regional market – even while placing
advertisements in the national media. It is a critical piece of reality – testingthat only a bare majority of vacancies may be filled these days by national searchand national hiring processes focused on a prospective recruit’s scholarly
accomplishments and potential.

The implications of the American model for Asia?
In all of this, I have left untouched one of the most glaring differences
between the U.S. (although not probably true of the West, generally) and Asia –the great distrust of government; the notion that “good” government is “justenough” government to provide the minimum stability for individuals andbusinesses to reach for their individual dreams, toting their guns in hand (thecowboy is the iconic metaphor of the American); in Asia, of course (let’s keep
India out of this for the moment), Government is good (or at least can be) andpublic policy is a good (rather than an approach to avoiding the bad).
Indeed, one similarity that strikes me – at least between Japan and S. Korea– is the functional equivalence of the private sector in higher education. In
Japan and S. Korea, the private sector exists to protect the public sector. The
public sector is something that needs protection. Thus, the Asian strategy of the“demand absorbing” private sector is nothing less than un-American. In theAmerican mind, public institutions should be competing against the private
sector, and “let the best man win.” Usually that’s not the public sector –although there are notable exceptions, like the Universities of Michigan, Texas
and California. 3 Perhaps the biggest unheralded change in U.S. higher
education generally, and in the American academic profession, is the systematic
starvation of the public sector in higher education. The public sector is, ofcourse, about 75 percent of the U.S. enterprise when you consider student
3

These exceptions have maintained their pre-eminence by their entrepreneurial spirit andlargely privatizing themselves.

Martin J. Finkelstein 241

enrollment and about 2/3 when you consider faculty numbers. According to theState Higher Education Executives Organization (SHEEO), real state
appropriations to higher education per FTE student in FY 2008 were actually
lower than in 1985; and during that period the portion of public institution
revenues from state appropriations has shrunk from nearly 60 percent to under
40 percent (Zumeta, 2009). Preliminary evidence suggests that such de facto
defunding has already been translating directly into declining institutional
performance – at least in the research area. Adams reported that the U.S. has
been ceding its dominant share of both scientific publications and citations toEurope and to East Asia, led by the declining research productivity of America’s
public as distinguished from its private research university sector (Adams,
2010).
So the first lesson from the “real” American model is continue to maintainand protect the public sector. It is a good thing and be very wary about allthese initiatives to privatization.
What to my mind has been the historically greatest strength of the U.S.
system has been the development of a clear and highly predictable infrastructure
for academic careers. The American Association of University Professors
formalized a regular career track, initiated upon appointment at an individual
institution, and marked by a six year probationary period, followed by an up orout tenure decision, followed by promotion to the rank of full professor. That isexactly what is in the process of disintegrating. This is what the Asian
countries ought to be trying to build. All of the Western countries that have notbuilt such an infrastructure (I am thinking here of France and Germany) havesuffered – badly – for that; and recent reforms in those countries have moved inthat direction of building career infrastructure.
Now, and this is a major difference between the Asian countries and the U.S.
– the U.S. has always used immigration as a band-aid for the failures of its
public policy. From a human capital perspective, we have built our core system,
especially in the natural sciences and engineering on the backs of Germany(during World War II), and later on Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union,
Margaret Thatcher’s Great Britain and now on the backs of China, S. Korea andIndia. Stop building us up and start building yourselves up! I say thatknowing full well that certainly China and S. Korea and even India are taking
steps to reverse their ‘brain drain” and bring home all those young PhDs trainedin the U.S. and Western Europe. You may also want to learn something fromthe U.S. about immigration as a means of nation building. It can cover a lot of
mistakes in public policy. One final observation concerns the use of the term

242 The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic Profession“competiveness”. We all want to create world-class universities. The Top 20,
perhaps the Top 100. There is a problem here; which is purely one of
Newtonian physics. There are only so many top spots to fill: my gain is yourloss. But what does it take to make a world-class university? Can one exist asveritable island in a sea of mediocrity? Where do its students and staff comefrom? We need to give that a good deal of thought. Are World Class
Universities a national project undertaken within an international market where
we just scour the world for the best people and buy them? Indeed, thecounterpoint to a unitary Western model of the academic profession need not be
only the development/design of a new “Asian” model, but rather thedevelopment of a supra-national or supra-regional model.
Take the case of the Chinese born geneticist who is a professor at Yale
Medical School for eight months a year and a professor at Fudan University forthree months a year where he heads up the world’s most modern and mostexpensive genetics laboratory built (probably in three months) by the Chinese
government – after the U.S. government (through the NIH and NSF) 4 andprivate foundations in the U.S. – declined to do so (Wines, 2011). This ismodel of the academic profession divorced from nationality, one that is built
essentially on collaboration and not on competition. What, if anything, does
the case of the Chinese born geneticist tell us about the global academic
profession – and the place of the Asian academic profession within such an
emerging “global” profession? Where (to whom) does the world-classgeneticist belong? To the U.S. or to China? Which is the world classuniversity? Yale? or Fudan? Can any one university be “world class” ineverything? Even if this is Asia’s century?
These are the sorts of questions that I leave with you and ask that you
address as you consider how to shape the future of the Asian research university
and the Asian academic profession.

4

The National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) areentities established by the U.S. government to fund and promote scientific research throughadministration of competitive grant programs.

Martin J. Finkelstein 243

References
Adams, J.A. (2010). Is the United States losing its preeminence in higher education? In C.
Clotfelter (Ed.), American universities in a global market. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Austin, A.E. (2002). Preparing the Next Generation of College Faculty; Graduate Education asSocialization to the Academic Career. Journal of Higher Education, 73 (1), 94-122.
Austin, A.E., & Rice, R.E. (1998). Making Tenure Viable: Listening to Early Career Faculty.
American Behavioral Scientist, 41 (5), 736-54.
Bowen, H., & Schuster, J. (1986). American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, D. (1967). The Mobile Professors. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Caplow, T., & McGee, R.J. (1958). The Academic Marketplace. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Carter, A. (1974). PhDs and the Academic Marketplace. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chait, R. (2002). Questions of Tenure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clark, B. (1987). The Academic Life Small Worlds, Different Worlds. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Cummings, W.K. (2008). The Context for the Changing Academic Profession: a survey ofinternational indicators. In RIHE (Ed.), The Changing Academic Profession inInternational Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives (Report of the International
Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2008). Hiroshima: RIHE,
Hiroshima University.
Finkelstein, M. (1984). The American Academic Profession. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University Press.
Finkelstein, M. (2003). The Morphing of the American Academic Profession. Liberal
Education, 89 (4), 6-15.
Frances, C (1998). Higher Education: Enrollment Trends and Staffing Needs. TIAA-CREF
Research Dialogues, No.55 (March).
Freeman, R.B., & Jin, E. (2003). Where Do New us Trained Science-Engineering Phds Come
From?. paper presented at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Washington, DC.
Gappa, J., Austin, A., & Trice A. (2007). Rethinking Faculty Work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hong, S. (2008). Development of the academic profession in China: results of a national
survey. paper presented at an International Conference on the Changing Academic
Profession (co-sponsored by Hiyajima and Hiroshima Universities), Hiroshima, Japan,
28–30 January.
Howe, N., Strauss, W., with Matson, R.B. (Illustrator) (2000). Millennials Rising: The Next
Great Generation. New York: Vintage Press.

244 The U.S. as a Prototype for an Asian Academic Profession

Leslie, D. (2007). The Reshaping of America’s Academic Workforce. TIAACREF Research
Dialogues, 87 (March).
Mason, M.A., & Goulden, M. (2002). Do Babies Matter? The Effect of Family Formation on
the Lifelong Careers of Academic Men and Women. Academe, 88 (6), 21-7.
Mason, M.A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Do Babies Matter (Part II): Closing the Baby Gap.
Academe, 90 (6), 11-15.
Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed Professionals: Unionized Faculty and Restructuring Academic
Labor. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rice, R., Sorcinelli, E.M.D., & Austin, A. (2000). Heeding New Voices: Academic Careers fora New Generation. In New Pathways Working Paper No.7. Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic
Work and Careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Trow, M. (1973). The Transition From Elite to Mass to Universal Higher Education. In
Policies for Higher Education, from the General Report on the Conference on Future
Structures of Postsecondary Education. Paris: OECD.
Trower, C. (2000). Policies on Faculty Appointments: Standard Practices and Unusual
Arrangements. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Trower, C.A., & Chait, R.P. (2002). Faculty diversity: Too little for long? Harvard Magazine,
104 (March/April), 33-7.
Tuckman, H. (1978). Who is Part-Time in Academe? AAUP Bulletin, 64 (4), 305-15.
Twigg, C. (2002). The Impact of the Changing Economy on Four-Year Institutions of Higher
Education: The Importance of the Internet. In P. Graham, & N. Stacey (Eds.), The
Knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education: Report of a Workshop. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Twombly, S. (2005). Values, Policies and Practices Affecting the Hiring Process for Full-Time
Arts and Science Faculty in Community Colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 76 (4,July/August), 423-47.
Wilson, L. (1979). American Academics: Then and Now. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wines, M. (2011). A U.S.-China Odyssey: Building a Better Mouse Map. The New York Times(January 29, 2011), A-8.
Wolfe-Wendel, L., & Ward, K. (2005). The Two Body Problem. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Zumeta, W. (2009). State support of higher education: The roller coaster plunges downward
yet again. In The NEA 2009 Almanac of Higher Education (pp.29-44). Washington, DC:
National Education Association.

245

Conclusion

246

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.17, 2011 245

Changes in and Issues of Academic Profession in
Asia

Futao Huang

Introduction
The Research Institutes for Higher Education (RIHE) of Hiroshima
University and Hijiyama University jointly organized the international
conference, entitled ‘the Changing Academic Profession in Asia: Contexts,
Realities and Trends’, on February 5-6, 2011 – the last of five conferences held
as part of the Changing Academic Profession Project. At the conference, 60participants from different parts of Japan heard 13 speakers from 8 countries
make presentations, including four keynote speeches and nine country-specificpresentations.
From the historical, comparative and quantitative perspectives, major issues
concerning the emergence, changes and characteristics of the academic
profession in selected Asian countries have been discussed. With respect to the
keynote speeches, on the topic “University Reforms in Japan”, Mr. Enomoto
from the MEXT, Japan introduced the context of Japan’s ongoing higher
education reforms, issues and trends.
Professor Arimoto addressed“International Trends in the Academic Profession from a Japanese Perspective”.
Based on major findings from the 1992-93 Carnegie survey, the 2007 CAP
survey as well as a separate 2008 survey conducted by the Japanese team withthe same questionnaire as the earlier 1992-93 Carnegie survey, he drew a portraitof the academic profession in participating countries analyzed the challenges
facing the Japanese academic profession, and offered policy recommendations.
In his speech on “The Rise of Asian Universities: Focus on the context”,
Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

246 Changes in and Issues of Academic Profession in Asia

Professor Cummings discussed the beginnings of Asian higher education, several
relevant characteristics of the region, and identified obstacles to academic
knowledge production in the region. He concluded by arguing that different
academic systems in the Asian region might develop distinctive patterns of
excellence in the decades ahead while the region as a whole assumed anincreasingly central position on the world’s stage. Professor Teichler’s speechsought to answer the question: “Is there an Asian Academic Profession?”. By
comparing senior and junior academic staff by institution across five Asiansystems – China, China Hong Kong, Malaysia, Japan and Korea – he concluded
that hardly any similarity can be observed across all Asian countries relative toother regions of the world. Obviously, he argued, there is no distinctively Asian
pattern of academic work and careers.
In relation to the nine country presentations, Professor Yan from Chinaemphasized the importance of Asian culture and values as well as regionalfeatures when studying the academic profession in Asia. In effect, his reportargued the counterpoint to Professor Teichler. By tracing the formation of theacademic profession in China, Japan and Korea, Professor Huang from
Hiroshima University, Japan examined the changing context, striking
characteristics of, and the major challenges facing academics in the three
countries of East Asia. Associate Professor Fukudome, also from Hiroshima
University, highlighted the key educational and research activities, and the careerdevelopment of the academic profession in Japan in comparison with 17 othercountries which took part in the CAP survey in 2007. Based on the analysis, heidentified the distinctive characteristics of the academic profession in Japan andthe issues facing the Japanese academics. Professor Pang from Malaysia
presented a proposal for a follow-up study on the changing academic profession
in his country. In his report, he reviewed recent developments in Malaysia
affecting the academic profession, as well as the research objectives, questions,and methods of the proposed Malaysian survey. Associate Professor Shin from
Korea dealt with two issues concerning the Korean academic profession: First,
how Korean higher education developed in the most recent years?; and second,
what demonstrable changes occurred to the Korean academic profession between
the 1992 CAP and the 2008 CAP survey? Ph.D. candidate Lee from Korea
made an analysis of the differences in international collaboration and research
performance of academic staff in different types of universities in Korea andassessed the impact of internationalization strategies on research collaboration
and research performance at the institutional and departmental levels. In her
presentation, Professor Tai from Taiwan examined the change in the governanceFutao Huang 247

of higher education in Taiwan from a government control model to a government
supervision model, while identifying the challenges facing the development of
the academic profession in Taiwan, including the population changes, a call forinternationalization, the need for salary incentive, and demands for increasing
individual accountability. Professor Yavaprabhas from Thailand introduced
three strategic initiatives for regional integration of higher education in South
Asia being pursued by SEAMEO RIHED. They include promoting student andstaff mobility across the Southeast Asian region, the ambitious idea ofdeveloping a regional credit transfer system, and the establishment of ASEAN
Research Clusters and the creation of ASEAN Citation Index. The final
presentation made by Professor Finkelstein from the USA is mainly concernedwith demographic changes in the U.S. academic profession, their changing
institutional and disciplinary profile, recent changes in academic appointments
and the academic career track in the U.S. and a few observations about academic
working conditions in the U.S.
Additionally, some inspiring topics were also discussed as follows:x What are the distinctive culture and the core values of the Asian academic
profession? What similarities can be discerned among Asian culture?
And is there any distinctive type of Asian academic profession incomparative perspective?
x Since the first Carnegie survey, what changes have occurred in the academic
profession in individual Asian countries? What is the context for thesechanges? And what is the relationship between the social changes, thedevelopment of higher education and the change in the academic profession
in selected countries in the region?
x What kind of the questionnaire should be developed for the international
survey to be implemented in the participating countries in the future? And
how the individual Asian country research teams collaborate in theirresearch?
Although four international conferences on the changing academic
profession have already taken place in Hiroshima since 2005, there remain many
issues to be dealt with in future. They include:
x What models or patterns could be identified through a refined analysis of theacademic profession at a national level and at a regional level in the next
three years?

248 Changes in and Issues of Academic Profession in Asia

x To what extent substantial changes have happened to the academic
profession in Asia as both the social structure and the economy constantly
change? And
x What implications can our research have on political and legal decisions
which might lead to positive and healthy impacts on the academic profession
in individual countries?

249

Appendices

250

249

Appendix 1:

Conference Program

The Changing Academic Profession in Asia:
Contexts, Realities and Trends
Date: February 5-6, 2011
Venue: Hiroshima Garden Palace

Saturday, February 5
8:30 -

Registration*** Opening Ceremony ***9:00 - 9:20
Opening Remarks
Toshimasa Asahara, President, Hiroshima University, Japan
Susumu Takahashi, President, Hijiyama University, Japan
Shinichi Yamamoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
9:20 - 9:30
Orientation
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan*** Session 1 ***Chairs:Takekazu Ehara, Professor, Institute for Teaching and Learning,
Ritsumeikan University, Japan
Hsiou-Hsia Tai, Professor & Dean, College of Humanities andSocial Sciences, Chung Hua University, Taiwan
9:30 - 10:00
Keynote Speech 1“Academic Reform in Japan”
Tsuyoshi Enomoto, Director for Higher Education Policy, Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
10:00 - 10:30
Keynote Speech 2“International Trends of the Academic Profession: from a Japaneseperspective”
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
10:30 - 10:45

Coffee Break

10:45 - 11:15

Presentation 1: China“What is Special Value for the Research on Academic Profession in
China?”
Fengqiao Yan, Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking
University, China

250 Conference Program

11:15 - 11:45

Presentation 2: Japan“The Academic Profession in East Asia: changes and realities”
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan

11:45 - 12:30

Discussion

12:30 - 13:30

Lunch*** Session 2 ***Chairs:Reiko Yamada, Professor, Department of Education and Culture,
Doshisha University, Japan
Supachai Yavaprabhas, Director, SEAMEO Regional Centre forHigher Education and Development (RIHED), Thailand
13:30 - 14:00
Keynote Speech 3“The Changing Context for Asia’s Academies”
William K. Cummings, Professor of International Education andInternational Affairs, The Elliott School of International Affairs,
The George Washington University, USA
14:00 - 14:30
Presentation 3: Japan“The Academic Profession in Japan: works, careers andscholarship”
Hideto Fukudome, Associate Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
14:30 - 15:00
Presentation 4: Malaysia“The Instrumentation for the Changing Academic Profession
Project in Malaysia 2010”
Vincent Pang, Associate Research Fellow, National Higher
Education Research Institute (IPPTN), Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Malaysia
15:00 - 15:15

Coffee Break

15:15 - 15:45

Presentation 5: South Korea“Model of Higher Education Development and Academic
Professions in South Korea”
Jung Cheol Shin, Associate Professor, Department of Education,
Seoul National University, South Korea
Presentation 6: South Korea“Internationalization of Universities in South Korea: focusing on
international networking & curriculum strategies, and research
performance”
Soo Jeung Lee, PhD student, Department of Education, Seoul
National University, South Korea

15:45 - 16:15

251

16:15 - 16:45

Yang Son Kim, PhD student, Department of Education, Seoul
National University, South Korea
Presentation 7: Taiwan“The Changing Taiwanese Academic Profession: fromdecentralization to re-centralization”
Hsiou-Hsia Tai, Professor & Dean, College of Humanities andSocial Sciences, Chung Hua University, Taiwan
Chia-Yu Chen, Doctoral student, Center for the Study of Higher
and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
USA

16:45 - 17:30

Discussion

18:00 - 20:00

Reception at Hiroshima Garden Palace

Sunday, February 6
8:30 -

Registration*** Session 3 ***Chairs:Satoshi P. Watanabe, Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Vincent PANG, Associate Research Fellow, National Higher
Education Research Institute (IPPTN), Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Malaysia
9:00 - 9:30
Keynote Speech 4“The Academic Profession in Asia: common and diverse features incomparative perspective”
Ulrich Teichler, Professor & former Director, International Centre
for Higher Education Research Kassel (INCHER-Kassel), The
University of Kassel, Germany
9:30 - 10:00
Presentation 8: Thailand“Connect ASEAN: pushing forward harmonisation of higher
education in SEA Region”
Supachai Yavaprabhas, Director, SEAMEO Regional Centre forHigher Education and Development (RIHED), Thailand
10:00 - 10:30
Presentation 9: USA“The Re-Shaping of the U.S. Academic Workforce”
Martin Finkelstein, Professor of Education, College of Educationand Human Services, Seton Hall University, USA
10:30 - 10:45

Coffee Break252 Conference Program

10:45 - 11:15

Presentation 10: Vietnam“Trends in Academic Professions in Vietnam”
Le Dong Phuong, Director, Center for Higher and Vocational
Education, Vietnam Institute for Education Sciences, Vietnam

11:15 - 12:00

Discussion

12:00 - 12:15

Concluding Remarks
Tsukasa Daizen, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
Closing Speeches
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
Shinichi Yamamoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan

12:15 - 12:30

253

Appendix 2:

List of Participants

OVERSEAS PARTICIPANTS
Invited Experts
China
Fengqiao Yan

Professor, Graduate School of Education, Peking
University

Germany
Ulrich Teichler

Professor & former Director, International Centre forHigher Education Research Kassel (INCHER-Kassel), The
University of Kassel

Malaysia
Vincent Pang

Associate Research Fellow, National Higher Education
Research Institute (IPPTN), Universiti Sains Malaysia

South Korea
Jung Cheol Shin

Associate Professor, Department of Education, Seoul
National University

TaiwanHsiou-Hsia Tai

Professor & Dean, College of Humanities and Social
Sciences, Chung Hua University

ThailandSupachai Yavaprabhas

Director, SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education
and Development (RIHED)

USA
William K. Cummings

Martin Finkelstein

Professor of International Education and International
Affairs, The Elliott School of International Affairs, The
George Washington University
Professor of Education, College of Education and Human
Services, Seton Hall University

ParticipantsSouth Korea
Soo Jeung Lee
Yang Son Kim

As of February, 2011

PhD student, Department of Education, Seoul National
University
PhD student, Department of Education, Seoul National
University

254 List of Participants

TaiwanChia-Yu Chen

Doctoral student, Center for the Study of Higher andPostsecondary Education, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, USA

UK
Keith J. Morgan

Emeritus Professor, Lancaster University / University of
Newcastle, Australia
and another 7 overseas participantsJAPANESE PARTICIPANTS
Presidents
Toshimasa Asahara
Susumu Takahashi

President, Hiroshima University
President, Hijiyama University

Invited Experts
Tsuyoshi Enomoto
Akira Arimoto
Takekazu Ehara
Reiko Yamada

Director for Higher Education Policy, Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
Director and Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hijiyama University
Professor, Ritsumeikan University
Professor, Department of Education and Culture,
Doshisha University

Research Institute for Higher Education㧔RIHE㧕
Shinichi Yamamoto
Ikuo Kitagaki
Tsukasa Daizen
Futao Huang
Satoshi P. Watanabe
Jun ObaMasataka Murasawa
Kazunori Shima
Hideto Fukudome
Yumiko Hada

Director and Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
and another 34 Japanese Participants

255

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

Higher Education Forum
Higher Education Forum Vol. 1 (2003).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 2 (2005).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 3 (2006).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 4 (2007).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 5 (2008).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 6 (2009).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 7 (2010).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 8 (2011).

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).

256

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

257(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).

258