• Save
Cai hedda 10
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Cai hedda 10

on

  • 187 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
187
Views on SlideShare
187
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Cai hedda 10 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Dr. Yuzhuo Cai Senior Researcher, Adjunct ProfessorChinese Education Research & Exchange Centre (CEREC) Higher Education Group (HEG) School of Management University of Tampere yuzhuo.cai@uta.fi
  • 2. Main topics Mergers in Chinese higher education Merger types vs. merger outcomes Lessons from China
  • 3. Two waves of mergers in China  Mergers in the 1950s.  to regroup faculties/departments in the same fields from different institutions to one university in order to reduce needless duplication.  HEIs were developed mainly along specialisation lines, while only a few multi-disciplinary universities were retained.  Mergers in the 1990s and onwards  1990-1997: to achieve economies of scale and to create comprehensive universities  1998-2006: to upgrade institutions’ levels, to build world-class/first -class universities and to adapt to the dramatic enrolment expansion.
  • 4. Characteristics of mergers since1990 Top-down model Big quantity: over 400 cases Large variety: different types Unique empirical filed for study Not systematically evaluated and studied yet; access to merged institutions for study is difficult
  • 5. Mergers in Chinese HED 100 91 90 80 70 60 50 41 44 40 31 29 29 30 23 21 22 19 17 17 20 15 9 11 9 10 0 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 Years
  • 6. Motivations More efficient and effective use of resources  To achieve economics scale  To eliminate duplicated programs More academic outcomes  To increase academic integration and collaborations  To diversify academic profiles  To upgrade school levels (short circle programmes to four years programmes) To build first-class or world class university
  • 7. Classifications of mergers Implementation models: Top-down/Bottom-up (Skodvin,1999) Organizational outcomes: consolidation/acquisition (take over) (Harman 2003, Eastman & Lang 2001) Extent of integration: transformative/ semi- autonomous (Lang 2002) Inputs to mergers: horizontal, vertical, diversification, conglomerate (Goedegebuure, 1992)
  • 8. Inputs Academic Fields Similar Different Similar Horizontal Diversification Type of product (research oriented , teaching only, Different Vertical Conglomerateapplication oriented)
  • 9. Classifications in China Strong + Strong, Strong + Weak, Weak + Weak Comprehensive/S&T + Medical Sciences, Comprehensive/S&T + Teachers’ training/Economics and Finance/Humanity and Social Science New name/Old name Upgrading school levels (changing type of product) Y/N
  • 10. Comparison between Chinese andinternational literatureDeficiency in Chinese Deficiency in internationalliterature literature Lack normative standards  Horizontal merger does not Ignore some important distinguish between mergers dimensions, such as of research universities and implementation model and mergers of application organisational outcomes oriented colleges  Upgrading of school levels is not considered  Name issue has not been paid sufficient attention
  • 11. By what to evaluate mergeroutcomes in China? Ranking position, Economic outcomes: administrative, managerial efficiency and effectiveness (cost-efficiency), Academic outcomes: teaching and research performance , Staff integration. Do merger outcomes depend on merger types?
  • 12. Rankings and prestige levels Many post-merger universities enjoy the upgrading of institutional levels and the improvement of ranking positions ¾ top 20 institutions are post-merger ones
  • 13. Economics of scale Student number/Institution 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
  • 14. Academic outcomes Merger s lead to cross-disciplinary cooperation and more diversified study programmers offered to students. Mergers lead to better achievement on economic indicators than academic indicators. (Wang, 2009)
  • 15. Staff integration as a key to success A successful merger ultimately depends on the effective participation and integration of staff members Staff integration is a problem (Cai, 2007)
  • 16. What mergers have less problemsof staff integration? Low integration of human resources  The merged institutions remain relatively independent (per- merger institutions are in different fields) Upgrading of institutional prestige  After merger the new institutions’ status/reputation is upgraded (Cai, 2007)
  • 17. Links between types andoutcomes? More governmental funding on: Strong+Strong, Strong+Weak, Comprehensive/S&T+M edical Science No significant increase of external funding (from society and industry) in any kinds of mergers Often Weak+Weak mergers result in new institution name Academic outcomes are better in the mergers where the level upgraded from short circle to bachelor degree awarding status (Wang, 2009)
  • 18. Lessons from China I Merger does help improve rankings or levels University name is an intangible asset (social recognition) In most cases, there is no thorough planning before the merger decision is made. Bottom-up mergers are rare  ”A good amalgamation is one that most of the staff want” (Mildred, 2002, p.50)
  • 19. Lessons from China II The organisational reforming process lacks additional funding support Cultural dimension is often neglected in both planning and implementation Staff often get lost in identity and face cultural conflict. Factors affecting academic staff integration (cultural dimension)  cultural compatibility between the pre-merger institutions  transparency of management  school (prestige) level upgrading
  • 20. Lesson from China III Merger is not a fashion: cooled down after 2006 Merger is a completed mission or a painful experience? Not mentioned in the Outline of Chinas National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development (2010-2020) Cooperation as a future direction. The Outline (2010- 2020) encourages the cooperation between universities and the cooperation between universities and industrial/societal organisations.
  • 21. Merger—Good or Bad? Picture: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417921#.TqlwY3s5o0w.twitter
  • 22. Merger—Good or Bad? No good or bad concerning merger itself Good or bad planning and management Rationales behind mergers are often good What really works depends on the people involved Merger is not the only solution
  • 23. Dissertations/books on Chinesehigher education mergers Min, W. (1994). A case study of an institutional merger in Hubei Province Peoples Republic of China. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Nyeu, F.-Y. (2006). The implementation of higher education mergers in China. Ed.D, Columbia University. Cai, Y. (2007). Academic staff integration in post-merger Chinese higher education institutions. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Wan, Y. (2008). Managing post-merger integration: A case study of a merger in Chinese higher education. Ph.D., University of Michigan.
  • 24.  Thanks!