The internal governance model in Chinese universities: an international comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to glean a comprehensive picture of the internal governance structure in Chinese universities based on data from 40 university administrators from 33 Chinese institutions. Design/methodology/approach The 40 administrators were convenience sampled while they were taking a three-month higher education leadership development program in a large public university in Canada. Permission was obtained to use the comparative discussions at different reflective research sessions as data to inform this study. The data were also progressively collected through informal interviews throughout the three months. Findings The study finds that the current governance model practiced in Chinese universities can be called “administrator governance,” with all members on the two major governing bodies being senior administrators appointed by and accountable for the governments. To build a “modern university system” aspired in China, the Chinese university administrators perceived a need to strengthen institutional autonomy and collegial governance with participation of the faculty and students. Originality/value As much of the literature has focused on the government–university relationship in China, this study aims to glean a comprehensive picture of the internal governance structure in Chinese universities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".