Academic staff perspectives on comprehensive higher education reform in Hong Kong

Abstract

In 2012, the vast majority of programmes within the eight tertiary institutions in Hong Kong will transform from three-year to four-year undergraduate curricula. As a result, general education requirements, extra-curricular modes of learning, methods of assessment, and numerous other issues are being considerably revised under the rhetoric of “reform.” Although several public policy documents produced by the governing body for tertiary education (the University Grants Committee) offer rationales for reform, there has not yet been a study which examines the individual interests, expectations and concerns of professors working in the Hong Kong public university system. Through interviews and questionnaires with professors working at tertiary institutions in Hong Kong, this project aimed to define and evaluate the reform issues which academic staff consider most meaningful.

Responses from academic staff members were analyzed not only as a whole, but by demographic factors, such as individual universities, fields of study, cultural backgrounds, educational backgrounds, and work experiences. This study employed a sequential mixed-method exploratory design, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Hence, the study progressed through two stages: a single qualitative stage in which data was gathered from 23 semi-structured interviews, and a single quantitative stage in which a thirty-item questionnaire was completed by 261 full-time junior and senior level academic staff. For the qualitative stage, a phenomenological approach was adopted to explain and compare the perceptions of individuals deeply invested in Hong Kong’s curriculum reform. For the quantitative stage, a number of statistical tools were utilized to explicate results, draw comparisons, and support conclusions.

As a result of interviews and the quantitative data propagated by the questionnaire, it was found that 1) there were more negative than positive responses concerning the articulation and implementation of reforms; 2) conspicuously negative scores were generated on all four defined aspects of the reform process; 3) there was a general sense that research expectations had increased and there was a greater emphasis on international benchmarking in the Hong Kong higher education sector; 4) a significant proportion of academic staff wanted to see greater collaboration between different universities, increased recruitment of international students, a greater emphasis on Putonghua and English language training, an upward adjustment in the retirement age for professors, and greater freedom for students to change degree programmes; and 5) statistically significant differences could be observed on several issues, depending on individual professors’ universities, fields of study, cultural and educational backgrounds, and work experiences in Hong Kong. Based on these results, implications for Hong Kong, reforms in other cultural contexts, and future research were advanced.