Introduction

Since the late 1980s, much has changed in the governance and leadership of universities worldwide. One of the most notable outcomes of these changes has been the emergence of more flexible and adaptable organizational structures which can respond rapidly to the changing environment (Tierney 1998; Clark 1998, 2004; Dill 1999). A wide variety of university governance patterns can be found across different higher education systems, and many of these patterns, especially those in Europe and Asia, are quite similar to the Anglo-Saxon and the U.S. model (Sporn 1999, 2007).

Few international and comparative studies have been undertaken on the major characteristics of university governance and leadership of higher education in European and Asian higher education systems. The purpose of this Special Issue is to investigate the institutional governance patterns and leadership styles of universities in North Western Europe and East Asia and to identify their similarities and differences. These case studies yield a wide range of university governance and leadership models. For example, China may be viewed as a typical case of the developmental state model associated with East Asian countries where the planned economy has been transformed to a more market-driven economy (Huang 2018). Australia arguably represents a case where the higher education system has been much influenced by a neo-liberal ideology and market economy (Welch 2007; Connell 2019). This collection of case studies seeks to identify the most striking aspects of the university governance and leadership and to explain the reasons behind their similarities and differences, as well as to examine what are some of the implications for research, policy and practice.

The Special Issue begins with a brief introduction to key global influences and national contextual factors affecting the governance of universities in a particular higher education system. The global influences include neoliberal ideology, new public management, and market forces. The national contexts include origins and traditions, cultural, economic and political values, as well as national visions of how universities should be governed and managed. The research framework for each of the research studies is as follows:

1. To what extent do the patterns of the governance and leadership of universities in these cases reflect worldwide trends?

2. Are there similarities and differences in the governance and leadership of universities between these case countries and societies?

3. What implications do these case studies offer for research, policy and practice?

As for research methodology, some case studies such as the Japanese and one of the Chinese cases are based on main findings from national surveys while some of the other cases, such as the Korean and Taiwanese, employ qualitative methods via semi-structured interviews. Still other cases such as Norway, the Netherlands and Hong Kong rely more on policy document analysis.

The main findings show the strong influence of new public management and entrepreneurship on changes made to university governance and leadership in many of the selected cases. De Boer and Maassen pointed out that universities in the Netherlands and Norway have introduced executive boards and external involvement to the management of university affairs. At the same time, universities have professionalized university leadership, thus diminishing the direct involvement of the university community in decision-making. Chan and Chou, too, identified that broader internal stakeholders have frequently influenced the policy formation of Taiwan’s higher education. The research conducted by Shin and colleagues suggested that similar changes have taken place in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.

However, there are significant differences across countries and between different university sectors within one country. Coates and colleagues argued that there is no stereotypical ‘global university president’, nor is there any evidence that presidents are defined by their prevailing cultural and demographic characteristics. Also, distinctive differences were found in reforming governance and leadership between Dutch and Norwegian universities. Even if similar competition-based funding schemes have been institutionalized in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, differences were observed between public and private universities in these three cases. Huang and colleagues found that a sharp contrast between Japanese national and private universities existed, in that the decision-making process is much more centralized in the national universities. Further, the study conducted by Gu and colleagues suggested that the Chinese faculty’s participation in university governance and decision making was limited to involvement at departmental and college levels as well as in faculty unions. The study undertaken by Shen and colleagues showed that leadership in Chinese universities has a relatively strong moralistic orientation, and morality is often perceived as more important than talent. Because, unlike Western patterns of governance, Chinese universities are managed by a dual system comprising both Communist Party committee and the administration; thus the willingness and ability of administrative leaders to cooperate with party leaders has become an essential quality in the effective management of the university. The study by Mok and Jiang emphasized that, although new public management and neoliberal ideology have influenced the nature and culture of higher education in Hong Kong, a so-called ‘corporatized collaborative governance’ model that shapes the collaboration across universities, industries, businesses, and the wider society has emerged in Hong Kong.

The various case studies concurred that governance patterns in higher education are not neutral, technical exercises, but rather result from specific political choices, made at particular points, and under specific circumstances. A significant element of the wider context is the issue of corruption, which forms the focus of Welch’s analysis of the phenomenon in East and Southeast Asia. While acknowledging that corruption exists in all higher education systems, it is argued that it is a particular, long standing problem in the region. Wide ranging examples are provided from several systems, and patterns discerned. Ultimately, it is argued that fighting corruption is an on-going task, to which good governance is only part of the solution.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).