The forms of governance in higher education represent and reveal the essence of higher education, and one of the quickest means of understanding higher education in a given country is to understand its forms of governance. The forms of governance in higher education evolve over time; thus, historical observations allow for a clearer picture of the cultural roots informing the forms of governance in higher education in a given country. As we all know, following the regime change in China in 1949, in emulation of the Soviet Union, higher education became part of the planning system, while institutions of higher education became appendages of the departments for educational administration; the internal governance of institutions of higher education also largely conformed to the top-down unit system instituted in every sector and industry. The decade of turmoil surrounding the Cultural Revolution led to the collapse of this system of governance, but its vestiges still linger. Since 1978, China has embarked on a succession of reforms to higher education, and the forms of governance have also experienced enormous changes. The reforms initially cast off the restraints of the planning system and gradually expanded the operational autonomy of institutions of higher education. The market mechanisms that were subsequently introduced promoted the operation of institutions of higher education with an eye to the needs of society. The shift away from totalitarian control by the central authorities, the elimination of segmentation by department and region, and the implementation of two-tiered management by the central and local authorities, with an emphasis on the local authorities, represent the highlights of the late 20th century and the first decade of this century, and through these reforms, a macroscopic governance structure has essentially taken shape. The formulation of the 1998 Higher Education Law symbolized the establishment of the principle of educational administration under rule of law, providing a legal basis for the forms of governance in higher education, while also signifying that the institutional shortcomings of higher education had begun to draw attention. It was also at the turn of the century that governance began developing into an academic discourse in the study of higher education, and the concept of creating a modern university system was proposed as well. The universal choice academically and in practice was to regard the modern university systems of Europe and the United States as the principal models for reference, but the matter of how such a system could be rooted in indigenous practices, allowing it to be aligned with the political structure and social system in China, was a question that could not be circumvented. Over the course of the last two decades in the present century, governance reforms could be described as advancing from the outside in, moving ever closer to the issues of the governance structure and operational systems of institutions of higher education themselves. The ballooning of organizations occasioned by the rapid expansion in scale and the diversification of objectives and functions arising from the rapid shift toward the popularization of higher education have touched off new conflicts in governance and introduced new problems. These have intertwined with preexisting, latent conflicts and problems, making governance reforms a task of delicate complexity. The “National Outline for Mid- to Long-Term Education Reforms and Development Planning (2010–2020)” (Guojia zhong changqi jiaoyu gaige he fazhan guihua gangyao [2010–2020]) elevates the establishment of a modern university system with Chinese characteristics to a strategic height, prompting the governance reforms in higher education to enter a new phase. This is also part of the general framework of the modernization drive with respect to the governance system and governing competence of the state, while the political developments in recent years have constantly imposed fresh demands. To use the conventional phrase in mainland China, the reforms have entered the deep waters. Obviously, there is still quite some way to go on the path to constructing a modern university system with Chinese characteristics, which is deeply rooted in indigenous practices, and achieving good governance in higher education by means of governance reforms. It is essential that we straighten out the relationships between politics and higher education, between society and higher education, and between academia and the administration within institutions of higher education, and stimulate the intrinsic agency of the academic community. For this issue, five mainland Chinese scholars who have been fairly active in the study of governance in higher education were invited to submit articles, presenting views on the topics in governance which concern each of them, in the hope of drawing the attention of academic circles to these topics and opening them up for discussion.
Zhou Guangli 周光礼 examines the governance reforms at Chinese universities through the lens of the changes to the higher education system over the course of 70 years, setting out from the cultural value system and focusing on policy development. His periodization of three historical stages is based on refinement of the characteristics of governance models. The legitimacy of the political governance model is founded on the idea of “the university as the government,” though this metaphor perhaps cannot entirely capture its implications, as the “government” in this particular context must refer to the big government in general sense, including the political party, and imbued with the characteristics of contemporary Chinese politics, otherwise the characteristic of universities “under the leadership of the party committee” could not have been accounted. The legal entity governance model is more accurately described as a conceptual pursuit making merely a cursory effort with respect to practice, lingering on the surface, while unfortunately still remaining quite distant from a true legal entity system. People may make their own judgments as to whether it is the right path or the wrong path when the legitimacy are built upon the idea of “the university as an enterprise.” As for the integrated model, the author does not clearly state whether its logic represents a direction or a trend or is perhaps an ideal. This is worthy of our consideration.
Fengqiao Yan 阎凤桥 directs our gaze toward the internal governance structure of a university, focusing on awareness and action by university leadership, and particularly on the relationship between the party committee secretary and the president. This is particularly valuable to our understanding of the governance of the modern Chinese university because, in a certain sense, such representations are best able to reflect the essential characteristics of Chinese universities. The study’s findings are quite enlightening: that informal relationships play an important role in the governance of Chinese universities is in line with empirical perceptions. The relative weight or strength accorded to each of the two roles has long been regarded as a key factor in the ecology of governance of Chinese universities, and coordination of the relationship between these two figures is in fact of paramount importance for effective governance, as well as an important consideration by the government in appointing leaders to institutions of higher education. In the concrete field of power, formal relationships are often powerless, while informal relationships are at times able to play a coordinating and lubricating role in a more substantive sense. The diversified nature of governance was born from the special role of informal relationships, and it is in this sense that “loose coupling” bears significance in the organizational study of universities.
Ling Jian 凌健 examines the formal structures and relationships in the internal governance of a university, arguing that an internal governance framework in the style of an equalizer has not yet taken shape within the internal governance of Chinese universities, and that the latter is instead in disequilibrium. The logic behind the generation of this model is mandatory isomorphism, the core function of which is to reinforce the central position of the Chinese Communist Party within the internal governance of universities. There is an imbalanced relationship between the party and other agents, manifesting in the value orientations, the power structure, the hierarchy of governance, the mode of governance, and other areas. It is perhaps arguable that the disequilibrium model is a true description of the most recent forms of governance at universities in mainland China. A trinity of “strong–weak” relationships is the typical characteristic of this model: we can see that an external “strong government” is also a factor in the relationships, which logically seems to have some spillover. The “supplemental mechanisms” in this model could perhaps allow the power structure to achieve a certain equilibrium, which can demonstrate the appropriateness of applying equilibrium theory to a certain extent.
Xiong Qingnian 熊庆年 focuses on the evolution of the academic committee system at institutions of higher education in mainland China over the course of 70 years through the analysis of policy texts. Organizations of academic power are among the most important conditions within the internal governance structure of a university, because a university is an academic community, and the status and role of academic power are reflected by systems of organizing academic power. The academic committee system is thus an indispensable part of understanding the governance of Chinese universities. In the historical context, the academic committee has shifted from being subordinate to the administration to having a certain agent status, and from thence to having a legally codified agent status, which cannot but be described as progress. In the contemporary context, the reconstitution of the academic committee system since the Opening and Reforms has allowed it to shift from a nominally institutionalized existence to a legally institutionalized form, reflecting the difficulty of reforms to university governance. A survey on the practical circumstances show that endogenous impetus for the construction of academic systems is insufficient. Whether this arises from dependence on the inertia of government-promoted reforms, the collective lack of awareness among academic agents, or control by other forces awaits more in-depth research.
Qi Zhanyong 祁占勇 offers an in-depth analysis of the practical dilemmas of institutions of higher education in mainland China in exercising academic freedoms, from the perspective of jurisprudential rights. Academic freedom is universally regarded as a basic right of or a basic value to be pursued by the academic community, but it is also a concept that is polysemous, highly controversial, and extremely politically sensitive. In the actual context of mainland China, the pan-administrativization of the management of institutions of higher education has resulted in the continual diminution of academic freedoms. It is particularly worth noting that academic freedoms have also gradually shifted toward administrativization. Under a scenario in which institutional mechanisms for safeguarding academic freedoms are lacking, refinement of the legal system for academic freedoms seems to be of critical importance, and limitations on the powers and privileges of certain agents are indispensable as well. However, the distance between the ideal and the real is still too great, and it is doubtful whether the implementation of safeguards for academic freedoms is feasible in practice. At the very least, it is not something that can be accomplished in a short period of time.