Cai hedda 10


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cai hedda 10

  1. 1. Dr. Yuzhuo Cai Senior Researcher, Adjunct ProfessorChinese Education Research & Exchange Centre (CEREC) Higher Education Group (HEG) School of Management University of Tampere
  2. 2. Main topics Mergers in Chinese higher education Merger types vs. merger outcomes Lessons from China
  3. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 8. Inputs Academic Fields Similar Different Similar Horizontal Diversification Type of product (research oriented , teaching only, Different Vertical Conglomerateapplication oriented)
  9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 21. Merger—Good or Bad? Picture:
  22. 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. 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. 24.  Thanks!