科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告
期末報告
兩岸大學生交流之近期發展與潛在衝擊之評估(第2年)
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型計畫 計 畫 編 號 ： MOST 104-2410-H-004-146-MY2 執 行 期 間 ： 105年08月01日至106年10月31日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學教育學系 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 周祝瑛 計畫參與人員： 此計畫無其他參與人員 報 告 附 件 ： 移地研究心得報告 出席國際學術會議心得報告中 華 民 國 106 年 12 月 29 日
中 文 摘 要 ： 兩岸交流(Cross-strait exchanges)不僅是認識雙方發展的重要途 徑，也可透過彼此的軟實 力(soft power)，影響對方原有的認知與態度。然而，根據最近的 研究顯示，兩岸大學生對社會重大 事件，出現相當不同的認知與態度。為此，本研究擬針對 2011 年 正式開放陸生來台以後，臺海兩岸 大學生交流的變化，以及雙方返國就業狀況進行調查，彙整兩岸陸 生與台生之相關論文與專題研究報告， 進行後設分析。本研究以兩年為期，透過文獻分析、比較方法、深 度訪談、焦點座談與問卷調 查方法，等進行資料蒐集與分析。期望研究成果有助於未來兩岸大 學招生與交流，建立風險評估機制， 並提供我方招收陸生之政策參考。研究中以Allport的族群接觸假設 ，來檢視陸生來台的滿意度及生活經驗的變化情形，結果發現隨著 來台時間的長短會影響陸生來台學習與生活經驗之滿意度。在上述 族群接觸理論中的四個重要前提分別為對等的平等的關係、共同的 目標、合作的機會以及上述三種關係都是獲得法律等合理的保障。 在檢視陸生來台的關係上發現，儘管上述四個前提尤其是在第一個 平等的地位上，由於陸生三法中對於陸生有所謂三限六不等限制 ，儘管這些法令有逐漸鬆綁與增加對陸生保障之權益，但整個立法 仍然具有差別待遇之意味，因此在這一方面陸生始終認為在台地位 仍有待改善。至於其他的三個前提則大致符合上述假設。此外陸生 族群中以來台低於一年的交換生滿意度最高，大學生與研究生通常 有滿意度逐年下降的情況，直到第四年之後滿意度才又開始逐漸回 升，至於這樣的改變，與陸生本身的性格生活遭遇及對兩岸關係的 發展有關。至於台生方面，則隨著大陸經濟發展的影響，有更多前 進大陸求學與就業發展的需求。從本研究中可以看出兩岸大學生交 流不但可以促進彼此的了解，也會受到一些重大的社會事件而影響 ，在政策制定上需要做長期的追踪與評估。 中 文 關 鍵 詞 ： 兩岸關係，陸生，接觸假設，文教交流，台灣高等教育機構 英 文 摘 要 ： Recent changes in the political atmosphere between China
and Taiwan have allowed for the recruitment of Chinese university students in Taiwan. Since September 2011, thousands of Chinese degree-seeking students have been admitted to Taiwanese universities. While short-term cross-strait educational exchange programs began in the late 1990s and increased over the years, the enrolment of Chinese degree-seeking students marks a new milestone in the development of cross-strait relations. Despite the political and ideological rivalry between China and Taiwan, studies show that cross-strait educational exchanges have enhanced mutual understanding and changed attitudes of people on both sides. This chapter uses the four conditions of Allport’s Contact Hypothesis – equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support by authorities – as a theoretical lens for understanding the experiences
of Chinese university students studying in Taiwan, focusing in particular on how the cultural and educational exchanges affect the individuals involved as well as their societies and cross-strait relations more broadly. It argues that the four conditions have each been met to varying extents and explores the ways in which the exchanges have and have not achieved this. It also finds that the exchanges have been influential for those involved but that they will have to continue for longer before their effects on policies or the political discourse on cross-strait relations will become apparent.
英 文 關 鍵 詞 ： cross-strait relations, Chinese university students, contact hypothesis, cultural exchange, educational exchange, Taiwanese universities
1 科技部期末報告 兩岸大學生交流之近期發展與潛在衝擊之評估 104-2410-H-004 -146 -MY2 周祝瑛 Abstract
Recent changes in the political atmosphere between China and Taiwan have allowed for the recruitment of Chinese university students in Taiwan. Since September 2011, thousands of Chinese degree-seeking students have been admitted to Taiwanese universities. While short-term cross-strait educational exchange programs began in the late 1990s and increased over the years, the enrolment of Chinese degree-seeking students marks a new milestone in the development of cross-strait relations. Despite the political and ideological rivalry between China and Taiwan, studies show that cross-strait educational exchanges have enhanced mutual understanding and changed attitudes of people on both sides. This chapter uses the four conditions of Allport’s Contact Hypothesis – equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support by authorities – as a theoretical lens for understanding the experiences of Chinese university students studying in Taiwan, focusing in particular on how the cultural and educational exchanges affect the individuals involved as well as their societies and cross-strait relations more broadly. It argues that the four conditions have each been met to varying extents and explores the ways in which the exchanges have and have not achieved this. It also finds that the exchanges have been influential for those involved but that they will have to continue for longer before their effects on policies or the political discourse on cross-strait relations will become apparent.
Keywords: cross-strait relations, Chinese university students, contact hypothesis, cultural exchange, educational exchange, Taiwanese universities
2
Introduction
Throughout history, conflict has often been a byproduct of misunderstandings and an inadequate exchange of ideas between societies. In many instances, tensions between societies in conflict have been improved through a better flow of ideas and people. In the case of relations between China and Taiwan, exchanges of any kind have been severely limited since the Chinese Civil War, which resulted in the Kuomintang-led government of the Republic of China (ROC) relocating to Taiwan and the establishment of the Communist-led People’s Republic of China (PRC) in mainland China in 1949. The first proposal to lift restrictions was made by Beijing in 1979. Known as the “three links” (三通), it proposed that Taiwan and China open each other’s borders to postal services, transportation, and trade, but this was firmly rebuffed by the ROC government under President Chiang Ching-kuo with its “three-noes policy” (三不政策) of “no contact, no compromise, and no negotiation” with the communist government.
Today, political animosity continues to hinder cooperation and exchanges between the two rivals, but considerable progress has been made since educational and other forms of people-to-people exchanges began in the 1990s. This chapter argues that, in the cross-strait context, the four conditions for optimal contact stipulated by Allport (1954) and refined by many scholars since have been met to varying degrees. Although participants in cross-strait cultural and educational exchanges face many challenges and limitations, evidence suggests that Chinese students studying in Taiwanese universities have, on the whole, been satisfied by their exchange experiences. Chinese students in Taiwanese universities have been able to form positive relationships with their Taiwanese peers and professors, and through these experiences, they have gained clearer understandings of Taiwanese values and lifestyles and a deeper appreciation for the political realities that color cross-strait relations. These relationships and experiences lay the basic groundwork for improved relations between the two societies, but it is likely that much more time – perhaps decades – is needed before the
3
impacts of these educational exchanges will become evident at the national policy level or in broader political discourse on cross-strait relations.
Historical and Theoretical Context
Cross-Strait Relations and Early Exchanges
Cross-strait relations have been highly politicized since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. Since then, the competing visions for the future of China and cross-strait relations, as embodied by the governments and people on each side, have been an ongoing obstacle to people-to-people and many other forms of exchanges. However, cultural and educational exchanges have made enormous progress since the 1990s as a result of changes in the cross-strait context and the forces of globalization. In Taiwan, the lifting of the martial law in 1987 served as a milestone in the process of advancing cross-strait relations and paved the way for its ageing veterans to be granted permission to visit their hometowns in China. Although political and military rivalry continued, the cross-strait relationship entered an unprecedented era with regards to economic, cultural, and educational exchanges (Chou & Yang, 2012).
With respect to cultural and educational exchange programs since November 1987, Taiwan also loosened its policy over Chinese visitors to Taiwan through such policies as the granting of visas to overseas distinguished professionals. As a result, many Chinese professionals in the fields of academia, culture, sports, media, and the arts have visited Taiwan in the years since. From 1988 to 2009, more than 235,591 Chinese professionals in the cultural and educational sectors, out of a total of 2,712,572 Chinese visitors in 20 categories, traveled to Taiwan (Kao, 2009). Exchange flows have increased not only in numbers but also in significance since Taiwan allowed Chinese graduate students to study in Taiwanese universities.
4 Expansion of Cross-Strait Educational Exchanges
Taiwan started to take on Chinese students and scholars in the early 1990s along with its policy of granting visas to Chinese tourists, but cultural and educational exchanges remained limited in duration and were highly regulated by the Taiwanese bureaucracy. In the fall of 2010, Taiwan passed a law that enabled its universities to admit students from coastal Chinese high schools and forty-one recognized Chinese universities as degree seekers in Taiwan (Chou, 2014). According to the Ministry of Education (MOE), only 823 Chinese students studied in short-term programs in Taiwan during early 2000s, but that number increased to 41,981 full-time students in 2016 (MOE, 2017). This is indicative of a momentous shift in both the numbers and type of exchanges taking place between the two societies and suggests that how the frequent contact Chinese students have had with Taiwanese individuals and institutions has affected their perceptions of Taiwan and cross-strait relations deserves investigation.
Recently, relevant academic research has begun to emerge. Lee and Chen (2015), for instance, examine whether the political tensions between Taiwan and China have impacted the interpersonal relationships between Chinese and Taiwanese international students. It was found that political issues that characterize relations between China and Taiwan, particularly in regards to Taiwan’s political status, often created subtle tensions in interactions between Chinese and Taiwanese students, regardless of similarities in their cultural backgrounds. In another study, Shen (2014) examined the impacts of the frequency and duration of exchanges and the linguistic and cultural similarities between Chinese and Taiwanese students. It was found that the similarity in language and culture did not always lead to positive outcomes or eliminate the biases of individuals from the two groups. It also suggested that the relations between the youth of the two societies could be improved through true contact and more positive media coverage in Taiwan about Chinese students. Other studies have examined pull and push factors related to cross-strait educational exchanges and satisfaction among Chinese
5
students in Taiwan between 2011 and 2016 (Chou, 2017; Chou & Ching, 2015). These studies found that the major reasons that Chinese students chose to study in Taiwan were the opportunities to travel and to experience Taiwanese life.
The Taiwanese government revised three existing pieces of legislation (陸生三法) in 2010 to allow for and regulate the intake of Chinese degree-seeking students by local higher education institutions: the Junior College Act (專科學校法) (Ministry of Justice, 2014), the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺 灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) (Ministry of Justice, 2015), and the University Act (大學 法). Furthermore, the University Entrance Committee for Mainland Chinese Students (大學校 院招收大陸地區學生聯合招生委員會) was established in 2011 to monitor all Chinese applications and recruitment issues, and the MOE’s Regulations Governing the Enrollment of People from the Mainland Area in Taiwanese Colleges and Above (大陸地區人民來臺就讀 專科以上學校辦法) were ratified by the Executive Yuan in 2011 (Wang, 2011) and revised in December 2015 (Ministry of Justice, 2015).
As mentioned earlier, cross-strait relations have been a politically charged issue since 1949, and despite constant exchanges and communication in the last three decades, this continues to be a reality to this day. As a result, the three laws passed in 2010 permitted Chinese students to be admitted to Taiwanese universities, setting a maximum of 1% of the total annual enrolment quota of Taiwanese college students in 2011. In 2013, this quota was increased to 2% of total enrolment (Ministry of Justice, 2013).
According to the University Entrance Committee for Mainland Chinese Students, by 2017, there were approximately 14,247 Chinese degree-seeking university students in Taiwan, most of whom were undergraduate students studying in private universities. The number of Chinese students increased between 2011 and 2015 but slightly declined for the first time in 2016 and then again in 2017 (see Figure 1).
6
Figure 1: Chinese degree-seeking university students in Taiwan, 2011–2017
<Insert Figure 1 here.>
According to surveys on Chinese students in Taiwan (Lu, 2017; Chou & Yang, 2015; Chou & Ching, 2015), policies such as the “three limitations and six prohibitions” (三限六不) policy (see Table 1), which regulates Chinese degree-seeking students in Taiwanese universities, are regarded as the main obstacle to recruiting Chinese university students to study in Taiwan (Lu, 2017). The election of President Tsai Ing-wen and landslide victories for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators in Taiwan in January 2016 have also led policy makers in Beijing to use various tactics related to cross-strait engagement that are seen as means of sending a message to Taiwan about its shift away from the traditionally more Beijing-friendly Kuomintang (KMT).
Table 1: “Three limitations and six prohibitions” policy regulating Chinese degree seekers in
Taiwanese universities (Lu, 2017) <Insert Table 1 here.>
Contact Hypothesis
Research on cultural and educational exchanges suggests that contact between people of different cultures has the potential to reduce prejudice and cultivate greater mutual understanding and respect for one another. One of the most prominent figures in the advancement of academic understandings on the issue was Gordon Allport (1897–1967), who developed a relevant theoretical framework in the 1950s that has continued to be used and refined by scholars and practitioners to this day. Allport’s “contact hypothesis”, also referred to as “intergroup contact theory”, suggests that contact between two rival groups can promote
7
tolerance, acceptance, and understanding, thereby reducing discrimination and prejudice and setting the foundation for more positive interpersonal relations (Allport, 1954).
Amidst a rising tide of academic research on intergroup conflicts after World War II (Watson 1947; Williams 1947), Allport’s contact theory argued that tensions between rival groups could be eased through interactions that satisfied four conditions: (1) equal status, (2) common goals, (3) intergroup cooperation, and (4) support of authorities (Allport, 1954). In the decades since, researchers have continued to discuss and refine the contact hypothesis. In particular, it has been argued that, depending on the context, positive outcomes from contact may still occur even when these four conditions have not been fully met, as long as they have been addressed to some degree (Pettigrew, 2011).
Contact Hypothesis in the Context of Cross-Strait Educational Exchanges
Contact hypothesis states that four conditions should be met for optimal contact to occur: (1) equal status must be maintained between the groups involved; (2) common goals must exist and be attainable; (3) there must be opportunities for intergroup collaboration; and (4) exchanges must enjoy the support of legal and institutional authorities. Given the long history of rivalry as well as the increasing frequency and duration of exchanges between China and Taiwan, assessing cross-strait cultural and educational exchanges through the lens of contact theory is a worthwhile endeavor. By focusing on Chinese students studying in Taiwanese universities, the following four subsections discuss the ways that the conditions set forth in the contact hypothesis have and have not been met and what impact that has had on the individuals involved and the two societies more broadly.
Equal Status
Optimal contact requires that members of the groups in question enjoy fair and equal status. In the context of Chinese students’ experiences in Taiwan, this should be characterized by an inclusive and welcoming environment created by peers, professors, and the community.
8
In general, this has been the case, but legal, political, and economic obstacles prevent the condition of equal status from being fully realized.
In surveys conducted by the author, most Chinese students have expressed high levels of satisfaction with their study experiences, including the quality of course work, quality of faculty, and academic freedom in Taiwanese universities. Chinese students, on the whole, have viewed their experiences in Taiwan positively. These perceptions have included factors such as people’s hospitality, public ethics, environmental awareness, service attitudes, and acceptance of multiculturalism (Chou & Yang, 2015; Chou & Ching, 2015). Cai (2012) also pointed out that Chinese students in general were quite satisfied with their studies and life in Taiwan in terms of their sense of achievement, academic capacity, and psychology. In other words, Taiwanese higher education has provided a positive learning experience for mainland Chinese students, and the inclusive atmosphere facilitated positive results from contact.
Taiwan was found, however, to have a much lower interest in international affairs because of its diplomatic isolation coupled with a degree of social prejudice and discrimination against outsiders, especially toward Chinese people. This attitude is perceived as a negative aspect of Chinese students’ educational exchange experiences in Taiwan (Chen, 2012; Chou & Ching, 2015). In addition, Chinese students’ reflections suggest that the condition of equal status has been partially compromised by the Taiwanese government’s restrictions imposed on Chinese students. These include the “three limitations and six prohibitions” policy mentioned above and discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.
Common Goals
For optimal contact, two groups should also share common goals on which they can collaborate and support each other. In the context of Chinese students in Taiwanese universities, this condition manifests in two distinct ways. On an individual level, both Chinese and Taiwanese students are working towards similar academic and personal goals while attending
9
university. However, because of legal restrictions on residency, employment, and other issues, Chinese students are more limited in terms of the personal goals they can realistically pursue in Taiwan. On a societal level, the two groups share similar goals in some areas but contrasting ones in others, especially concerning the political reality and future of cross-strait relations.
As individuals, Chinese and Taiwanese university students share common goals in that they are typically focused on actively pursuing personal educational, career, and life goals. For the most part, they are less concerned with the tense geopolitical realities that hang over the two societies when immersed in their studies and social activities and more inclined to engage in interactions that are more casual and personal in nature. Although the diplomatic complexities of cross-strait relations do not typically feature in the day-to-day interactions between Chinese and Taiwanese students, it is possible that those interactions may form the foundation for more open and constructive cross-strait relations over the long term. However, at the time of writing, current government policy in Taiwan continues to limit Chinese individuals’ ability to find work in Taiwan after graduation. This is a potentially insurmountable obstacle for Chinese students that may be interested in a future career in Taiwan and one that their Taiwanese classmates need not confront. Although cross-strait policy is ever in flux, such policies impede Chinese students’ abilities to share common goals with their Taiwanese counterparts.
The condition of common goals can also be applied at the societal level. In a general sense, the Taiwanese and Chinese governments agree that opening their borders to allow for cross-strait cultural and educational exchanges, especially between the younger generations, to take place will eventually improve relations and ease tensions between the two sides. That said, the underlying motivations behind these policies do not necessarily align and, in some cases, may even be in direct opposition to one another. China has opened its doors to Taiwanese students and workers in recognition of the potential political value of having more China-educated Taiwanese that may, in turn, be more likely to support Beijing’s goal of
10
eventual reunification (Denlinger, 2010). Although this hope does exist among some policy makers in Taiwan as well, it represents not a political objective upon which there is broad agreement but a point of contention both between and within political parties and among the general population. Many policy makers in Taiwan, notably those within the current administration, hope that the exchanges will lead the younger generation in China to improve their understanding of the political reality in Taiwan and the benefits of an open, democratic society – a far cry from Beijing’s goal of bringing the Taiwanese side closer to accepting eventual unification with the mainland.
Intergroup Cooperation
The shared goals covered in the previous section are an important aspect of the university environment. Universities in Taiwan provide Chinese and Taiwanese students the opportunity to forge meaningful friendships one another through collaborative coursework, social interactions in daily life, and cooperation on research projects in the case of graduate students. The more specific the goals that university activities or course studies require, the better the cooperation and collaboration is between students from both groups (Chou, Wang, & Wang, 2012). This is especially the case when students are asked to work in groups to complete assignments or participate in competitions and other social activities. The acquaintance potential afforded through these cooperative opportunities encourages members of the two groups to develop more intimate and lasting interpersonal and intergroup relations. Through such intergroup cooperation, individuals from both sides engage in more frequent and higher-quality contact with one another, which has the potential to create greater mutual understanding between them. These experiences may continue to affect their perceptions of the other side and eventually reduce hostility and tensions between the two societies.
According to Chen (2012), Chinese students’ ability to adapt to study in Taiwan has become a major focus of research on the issue. It has been found that the more dedicated
11
Chinese students are to participation in events hosted by local students, the better socially and culturally adapted Chinese students are while studying in Taiwan. Cai and Chen (2012) further indicated that Chinese students who show a stronger interest and are more in touch with their own sense of ideology tend to adapt better than those who show indifference to Taiwanese society and culture. Most Chinese students agree that they have many opportunities to work with local students on an equal footing and do not feel ostracized or experience exclusion or isolation from local student groups.
However, if intergroup cooperation serves as a condition for optimal contact that could eventually improve relations between rival groups, collaboration is more favorable than competition. Yet this is not always how contact plays out. On some occasions, competitiveness and insensitivity during cooperative activities involving Chinese and Taiwanese university students have produced undesirable outcomes (Chou, Wang, & Wang, 2012; Lu, 2017). A common complaint by Chinese students is that many local Taiwanese people have very limited knowledge of China. This can even lead Taiwanese professors to be insensitive in their remarks on the topic of cross-strait relations, and there have been instances in which they have approached the complex subject tactlessly. Respondents have also mentioned there are occasionally jokes made about China, which can offend Chinese students and cause them to feel alienated in the classroom. In regards to contact theory, these feelings of exclusion run counter to the condition of intergroup cooperation and are particularly acute not only because they disrupt the process of cooperation but because they are directed at the minority group. Regarding competitiveness, many Chinese degree-seekers in Taiwanese universities, who have been selected from leading universities in the coastal areas of mainland China, excel academically and are high achievers due to their dedication to their studies and active involvement in class. Although their performance is often beneficial and can help them more easily become appreciated by their classmates and professors, it has also been perceived as a threat by local students as those from a rival society demonstrate their capacity to outperform
12
their local counterparts. On the whole, however, evidence shows that the frequency of contact between these two groups in the context of Taiwanese universities results in many opportunities for intergroup cooperation, suggesting that, despite occasional exceptions, the condition has been met to a large extent.
Support by Social and Institutional Authorities
The final condition stipulates that contact between groups be supported by relevant authorities such as host institutions and government agencies. In the cross-strait context, intergroup contact is heavily reliant on institutional and governmental support, as the authorities involved have the power to control the flow of people across their borders and enrolment within their institutions. Moreover, higher levels of support may also emphasize the positive effects of the intergroup contact involved in cultural and educational exchanges. Governmental and institutional support establishes norms of acceptance that make it easier for both groups to understand and appreciate each other’s interests in participating in the exchanges.
In the case of Chinese students in Taiwanese universities, both Chinese and Taiwanese governments have passed laws allowing cross-border student mobility to become a possibility, after it having been strictly forbidden for decades. This shows considerable progress toward fulfilling the condition of support by authorities. The Taiwanese government has recognized the credentials of several leading Chinese universities and has allowed for limited credit transfers, while the Chinese government has implemented policies favorable to the recruitment of Taiwanese students into Chinese universities. Both countries have established regulations which enhance cultural and educational exchanges. Today, China, in particular, imposes very few limitations on Taiwanese students seeking a degree or exchange experience in China. In fact, Chinese universities actively recruit not only Taiwanese students but professors as well.
13
students. These restrictions are defensive in nature and aim to ensure that Taiwan, its institutions, and its people are not harmed economically or politically by drastic changes in cross-strait mobility. Due to the overwhelming geographic, demographic, and economic asymmetry between the two sides, these are ongoing concerns for both the political establishment and people of Taiwan (Chou & Yang, 2015; Lu, 2017). The Taiwanese government’s discriminatory policies against Chinese students are evidence that the condition of support by authorities has been only partially met. The “three limitations and six prohibitions” policy (see Table 1) epitomizes the lack of full support by authorities in Taiwan with its limitations on universities, enrolment, and majors and prohibitions related to recruitment, funding, qualifications, and employment. In addition to this, Chinese students must depart within one month of graduation and were not allowed to be included in the national healthcare system until late 2017. These discriminatory policies have been controversial and create a situation in which Chinese students may feel that they are treated unfairly, especially when compared to non-Chinese international students that are granted more rights and opportunities while living in Taiwan (Chou & Yang, 2015). In both China and Taiwan, individuals from the other side are considered under the law as neither locals nor foreigners, instead operating under a unique set of policies formulated over the years to address the political context of cross-strait relations. For Chinese students in Taiwanese universities, the line between policies simply protecting Taiwanese economic, labor, and political interests and those treating mainlanders as a commodity or national security risk remains blurry. Since 2011, restrictions on Chinese degree seekers in Taiwan have continued to relax, as evidenced by the formal recognition of certain Chinese universities, increased enrolment quotas, opening of national healthcare, permission to take courses for practicum or internship purposes without any additional fees or conditions if required by their universities, and the possibility for Chinese students to extend their stays after graduation. Nevertheless, the condition of support by authorities remains only partially fulfilled, as legal restrictions related to enrolment, studies,
14
funding, residency, and employment continue to be an obstacle to optimal contact and a subject of debate.
Conclusion
History has shown cultural and educational exchanges between rival societies have the potential to reduced tensions and promote mutual understanding and trust between participants and their societies at large (Richmond, 2003). Some studies have expressed doubt about the benefits of greater engagement between China and Taiwan and questioned whether cultural and educational exchanges could improve relations or eventually bring the two sides closer (Dietrich, Ingruber & Echavarria, 2011; Rosato, 2003). This chapter has sought to answer these questions by examining the experiences of Chinese students in Taiwanese universities and relevant policy issues, taking the four conditions of Allport’s contact hypothesis as its theoretical framework. Even when not fully met, progress toward satisfying the four conditions of optimal contact can still lead to desirable outcomes for both societies (Pettigrew 2011).
In the cross-strait context, cultural and educational exchanges have seen significant progress. After decades of prohibition, cross-strait exchanges began to emerge in the 1990s following the lifting of martial law in Taiwan in 1987. Yet it was not until recently that the frequency and duration of exchanges began to accelerate with the opening of Taiwanese universities to Chinese students. This chapter has demonstrated that cross-strait cultural and educational exchanges, particularly in the case of Chinese students in Taiwanese universities, have partially satisfied each of contact theory’s four conditions of equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support by authorities. Today, there is still substantial room for improvement, but evidence suggests that the political context and relevant policies are moving in the right direction.
15
Moreover, this chapter has shown that cultural and educational exchanges between China and Taiwan have had important effects on the individuals involved. Chinese students express positive views of their experiences overall, and it is clear that both they and their Taiwanese counterparts have benefitted from the exchanges, learning more about the other society and building greater mutual understanding through people-to-people interactions. Chinese students consider Taiwan’s dedication to environmental protection, hospitality, and social awareness about minority groups to be strong pull factors for studying in Taiwan (Chou & Ching, 2015). These may also serve as facilitating factors in reducing prejudices and tensions and promoting more frequent and higher-quality contact between the two sides. Chinese students’ exchange experiences are also affected by factors such as duration of stay, friendship circles, and participation in major social events in Taiwan. Moreover, those involved have also suggested that the cultural and educational exchanges have affected their perspectives on cross-strait relations as well as their views on unification (Lu, 2017).
As a result of ongoing cross-strait rivalry and increasing global uncertainty about a rising China, many Taiwanese people maintain an indifferent and even apprehensive attitude toward China. The widening gap between political systems, societal norms, and cultural values as well as economic issues have led to major shifts in Taiwanese people’s views of cross-strait relations, and the younger generation in particular now has increasingly favorable views of policies that contribute to Taiwan’s de facto, if not de jure, self-determination and independence (Chou, 2015). Hao (2010), in particular, shows great suspicion about the outcome of mutual communication between China and Taiwan, since both are striving to maintain control of their national images and identity. Chinese students in Taiwanese universities, especially those who came as degree seekers, have had generally positive feelings about their stays in Taiwan, but there have been some with mixed feelings, especially since the escalation of cross-strait tensions in 2016. More importantly, discriminatory policies related to enrolment, studies, funding, residency, and employment for Chinese students have been a
16
source of tensions and will continue to be an obstacle to these cross-strait cultural and educational exchanges in the future. If optimal contact is conducive to exchanges improving relations and mutual understanding, there is more to be done, but it is evident that policies are tending towards greater openness in this regard.
Although Chinese students in Taiwanese universities have had overwhelmingly positive impacts on those involved, whether or not these cultural and educational exchanges will lead to further changes at the policy level or influence the two societies more broadly is yet to be seen. Many factors affect the development of cross-strait relations as well as the accessibility, frequency, duration, and impact of cross-strait exchanges, and policy makers, researchers, exchange participants, and civil society all have a role to play in this regard. There is broad consensus that exchanges can cultivate greater mutual understanding between the people of China and Taiwan, but there are vastly differing motivations for promoting exchanges and expectations about their potential outcomes. If cultural and educational exchanges are to improve relations between China and Taiwan, recent developments suggest that progress has been made. That said, there is much more to be done in the coming years, and all relevant parties can contribute to ensuring that cross-strait cultural and educational exchanges have long-term benefits for people in both China and Taiwan.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Cai, M. L. (2012). A study of life adjustment and learning satisfaction of Chinese students in
Taiwan. Retrieved from http://people.dyu.edu.tw/paper/354754_c.pdf
Chen, Z. R. (2012). A Survey Research on Life Stress, Learning Satisfaction, and Life
Adjustment of Graduate Students from Mainland China (Master Thesis). National
17
Chou, C. P. (2012). An Assessment Report on the Youth Communication Across the Strait
between China and Taiwan. Taipei: Mainland Affair Office.
Chou, C. P. (2012). Covert Enemies into Friends: Idea of Cross-Stratization. Exchange
Magazine, 46-49.
Chou, C. P. (2012). The Cross-Stratization in Globalization. Education Vision 2020, 51-81. Chou, C. P. (2014, November 12). Education in Taiwan: Taiwan's Colleges and Universities.
Retrieved from Brookings:
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/education-in-taiwan-taiwans-colleges-and-unive rsities/
Chou, C. P. (2015). A Survey on the Satisfaction of the First Chinese Graduate Students in Taiwan. Journal of Education Research, (11): 27-38.
Chou, C. P. (2015). Cross-Stratization of Higher Education: Voices of the Mainland Chinese Students Studying in Taiwan. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, (5), 2: 89-94.
Chou, C. P. (2015). The Alternative Chapter in Internationalization: A Preliminary Report of Chinese Student Satisfaction in Taiwan since 2011. Journal of Education Research, 259, 27-38.
Denlinger, P. (2010, February 27). Can Education Draw Taiwan, China Closer? Asian
Correspondent.
Dietrich, W. I. (2011). The Palgrave International Handbook of Peace Studies: A Cultural
Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hou, Z. D. (2010). Whither Taiwan and Mainland China: National Identity, the State, and
Intellectuals. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kao, K. L. (2009). The Educational, Cultural, and Economic Impact of Opening up the Intake of Chines Students in Taiwan. The Past and Prospective Cross-Strait Cultural
18
Lee, G. C. (2015). Brief Report: Interpersonal Conflicts between Chinese and Taiwanese International Students. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 1-12.
Lu, P. W. Wendy (2017). The Impact of Taiwan’s Experience on Cross-straitization:
Perspective from Mainland Chinese Students. Taipei: National Chengchi University. Ministry of Education. (2017). Statistics of International and Chinese Students in Taiwan.
Retrieved from
http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/brief/105%E5%B9%B4%E5%A4%A7%E5%B0%88%E 6%A0%A1%E9%99%A2%E5%A2%83%E5%A4%96%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F %E6%A6%82%E6%B3%81.pdf
Ministry of Justice. (2013, April 30). Regulations Governing the Enrollment of People from the Mainland Area in Taiwanese Colleges and Above [大陸地區人民來臺就讀專科 以上學校辦法].
http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawOldVer.aspx?Pcode=H0030052&LNNDATE=2 0130430&LSER=001
Ministry of Justice. (2015, June 17). Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area.
http://law.moj.gov.tw/MOBILE/lawEng.aspx?pcode=q0010001 Ministry of Justice. (2014, June 18). Junior College Act.
http://law.moj.gov.tw/MOBILE/lawEng.aspx?pcode=H0040001
Ministry of Justice. (2015, December 29). Regulations Governing the Enrollment of People from the Mainland Area in Taiwanese Colleges and Above [大陸地區人民來臺就讀 專科以上學校辦法]. http://law.moj.gov.tw/MOBILE/law.aspx?pcode=H0030052 Ministry of Justice. (2015, December 30). University Act.
http://law.moj.gov.tw/MOBILE/lawEng.aspx?pcode=H0030001
19
Pettigrew, T. F. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 271–386.
Rosato, S. (2003). The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political
Science Review, 585-602.
Shen, H. H. (2014). The Social and Political Contagion of Chinese Students Studying in
Taiwan (Doctoral Dissertation). Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Wang, F. (2011, January 5). Education officials to begin recruiting PRC students. Taipei Times. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/01/05/2003492711 Watson, G. (1947). Action for Unity. New York: Harper.
Williams, R. J. (1947). The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions: A Survey of Research on
Problems of Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Group Relations. New York: Social
Academic Exchange between
Taiwan and China
OsakaUniversity, Japan
Sept 23-25, 2016
Chuing Prudence Chou (
周祝瑛
)
National Chengchi University (NCCU), Taiwan
Fulbright Scholar
Taiwan: Country Profile
• Population: 23.3 million
(2013)
• GDP, per capita: $20,930 (#40)
(2013)
• Literacy rate: 98.04%
(2010)
• Urbanization: 70%
(2010)
• Demographics:
● 98% Han Chinese
o
84% “
Benshengren
”
(
本省人
)
o
15% “
Waishengren
”
(
外省人）
● 2% Indigenous
S IMF Mii f
Source: taipics.com
Abstract
•
This paper aims to investigate the
internationalization practices at
National Taiwan University (NTU)
as a leading example of higher
education institutions in Taiwan.
.
.
•
In particular, it focuses on the scholarly
relations between Taiwanese scholars and
their counterparts in mainland China as well
as other related countries.
•
The authors attempt to initiate a dialogue
about what it means for NTU scholars to be in
a Taiwanese professoriate and to interact with
Chinese scholars in mainland
•
It further explores NTU scholars’ perceived
patterns of and approaches to cooperation.
•
It also examines the issues and challenges of
social interaction with mainland and Chinese
scholars, who come from a similar but
different academic culture and discourse.
•
14 interviewees at NTU were collected
•
Hoped to add to the knowledge base for
better understanding of the practices of
Taiwanese higher education faculty in
international partnerships with mainland and
other overseas Chinese scholars.
Outline
•
Introduction
•
Higher Education in Taiwan
•
Internationalization of Taiwanese higher
education
•
Introduction of National Taiwan University
•
Research Methodology
•
Participants
Research Findings
•
different career development between
Taiwanese, Chinese and overseas Chinese
academics
•
Change of academic exchange experiences
between Taiwanese, Chinese and overseas
Chinese academics during the last decade?
•
Contact records of cross-strait exchanges:
•
Contact records with overseas Chinese
scholars, students.
•
Ways of cooperation:
•
Advantages/disadvantages when
communicating with Chinese
scholars/overseas Chinese scholars
•
Ways of communication/circulation of one's
own research publication, valid channels or
blockade of the communication/exchange
why?
•
Ways of getting access to Chinese /overseas
colleagues' research publication/infomation?
Any differences in recent years?
•
Any barriers existing in the cross-strait
communication/networking/research
framework, ideology, perspectives, and
between yourself and overseas scholars?
•
Overall impression/experiences with the
cross-strait/overseas academic exchanges
over the years?
Discussion
I. The dominance of US qualifications in
academia:
II. The role of governments and economic
growth
III. Reform projects linked with funding and
promotion scales
•
IV. One-way cooperation
•
V. The rise and fall of cross-strait cooperation
•
Findings indicate that an increasingly reverse
discrepancy and brain drain among
Taiwanese and Chinese academic
qualifications and talents has aroused some
concerns among the NTU participants.
•
As China’s economy progresses, higher
education quality improves and so do
academics and universities.
•
A sense of anxiety and worry about the
declining academic funding and quality in
Taiwan deserves further attention.
Peace-building via student
exchange
very positive effect on Chinese
exchange students
•
More than thirty- thousand Taiwanese
students have studied in Chinese higher
education since 1980s.
•
More than twenty- thousand Chinese
students have studied in Taiwan’s higher
education since mid-1990s.
Impact and Challenges
Visible and Invisible
•
The overshadow of China
•
Exclusion from UN, UNESCO, and many more…
in terms of educational collaboration,
exchanges and provision of educational
statistics and data
•
A Fair game for all members in the global
community
Other Unresolved Issues
•
O six panelists discussed the following issues :
•
1. All felt it’s important to review the
comments from Ruth who shared her views
toward the global ranking regime and our
project. Prudence shared her notes of Ruth’s
comments afterwards, and Jun will try to be
get the note sheets from Ruth later on.
•
2. Gus did well in his presentation and was
congratulated by panelists on his progress of
two cases from Latin American contexts.
24•
3. A practical plan was sought out for the
next phase of the project, i.e., the edited
book. There were three focuses: A) Springer is
a good option if not Palgrave, as Jun updated
about the earlier communications with
Palgrave; B) The e-copy of 3-pg name lists with
contacts is to be shared soon from Jun
and Mayumi will do the same for the one
collected in Vancouver. members
Academic Culture in Transition:
Measuring up for What Cause in
Taiwan?
Chuing Prudence Chou (周祝瑛)
National Chengchi University (NCCU), Taiwan
Roundtable on University and Journal Rankings
Peter Wall Foundation, University of British Columbia, Canada
May 13-17, 2017
Overview
•
In order to promote international competitiveness and
visibility, many Asian higher education institutes (HEIs) have
strived to create “world-class” universities.
•
Leading universities in East Asia have often favored faculty
publishing in international journal indexes such as:
the Science Citation Index (SCI),
the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI),
•
The study aims to analyse how these higher education
policies have affected academic culture.
•
It compares the change in faculty publication profiles
between two departments of a national university in Taiwan.
•
Journal publication was recorded in 1993, 2003, and 2013 to
examine how faculty research performance has transformed
under world-class university rankings and global competition.
•
In-depth interviews were conducted among senior faculty to
gain insight into ranking competition over the last two
decades.
Research Findings
•
The forces of globalization and world-class university
rankings have affected faculty publication performance
and priorities differently depending on discipline and
research methodology orientation.
•
Increasing gender disparity and generation gap have
become evident.
•
The “publish or perish” mentality or “SSCI Syndrome” has
come to exist in some departments in Taiwan’s academia
since 2003.
* Research output
is the key
*Rankings as both goal
and measure
(World-Class Research University
Project, 2003; ‘Five Year,
Fifty Billion’ plan).
*Government
Preference for neo-liberal,
market-based solutions
*Internationalization
2
Context: Why ‘World-Class’?
1
3
4
5
In the name of being as standardized and objective as
possible to avoid academic bias accusations
•
University Quality Assurance, used as benchmark for
budget allocation
•
Monitor the publication records among individual faculty
members
- New hiring practices
- 6-year probation
•
Selected universities gained
in international reputation.
•
Research publications rose by
over 56% between 2008 and
2013 (World of Science,
2014).
•
Academic impact rankings
showed no improvement.
(The US still dominated.)
Research Findings
1. Different disciplines have different priorities
for publication
•
Education:
•
Faculty increasingly have quantitative backgrounds.
•
Papers on educational psychology, science education, and
educational technology boost research output.
•
Ethnography:
•
Interdisciplinary – difficulty in placing articles
•
Requirement for long periods of field work
2. Publication Trends by Department
•
More English papers in Dept. of Education after 2003.
•
Ethnography faculty continued publishing primarily in
Chinese after 2003 .
•
Faculty with quantitative backgrounds published more than
those with qualitative backgrounds.
Trends in publication
Year
Ethnography*
Education*
1993
0.78
1.48
2003
0.78
1.67
2013
1.3
4.17
3. Hiring and Promotion
•
Probation and evaluation systems rely heavily on research
journal article publications.
•
Promotion rates within these departments showed
correlation with journal publication rates.
•
Faculty hired under post-2001 terms (6-year probation) tend
to prioritize journal publication.
Unexpected Result…
•
Local relevance of research called into question
•
‘Public intellectual’ role diminishing
•
Themes selected are ‘global’ for publication reasons.
•
‘
Global audience’ is, in effect, journal editors – ‘gatekeeper
effect.’
•
Publication in English less accessible for local audiences.
•
English language writing ability now acts as proxy measure for
academic merit in non-English-speaking academic communities.
•
“Winners take all” effect appears to dominate.
New Gender Disparity – Promotion
•
The new system of rewards based on journal publication has
crippled the status of female faculty in Taiwan since the
2000s.
•
Junior female faculty in social sciences and the humanities
encounter even more barriers to promotion and publication.
•
More gender disparity in ‘elite’ universities.
New Gender Disparity – Academic positions
•
162 colleges and universities in Taiwan, only
14 headed by female presidents (2016)
•
Percentage of female faculty at universities
or colleges only slowly increasing (2007,
34.14%; 2014, 35.21%)
•
More males than females received academic
awards and honors at the institutional and
national level.
•
Women are concentrated in lower ranks.
•
Promotion prospects limited by:
•
Social expectations for wives/mothers
•
Limited opportunity to network internationally as a result
•
Gender relations – “One of my colleagues considered
refusing a promotion because she felt her husband would
be angry with her for being away from the home too much.”
Conclusion
•
Journal publication is the number one academic task.
•
Promotion heavily depends on publication in SSCI, SCI,
TSSCI.
•
Teaching and ‘public intellectual’ roles have become
secondary.
•
A ‘winner takes all’ environment amongst colleagues has
emerged.
•
Education’s SSCI-relevant research output comes from a
small number of staff.
•
Research topics are geared to appeal to journal editors, not
to be locally relevant.
•
Ethnography’s low publication rate and mainly-Chinese
medium make them less vulnerable to pressure.
This presentation contains preliminary findings as
part of the WUN project titled:
“Measuring Up: The Intended and Unintended Consequences of
Global Competition and Metrics on Local Scholarship.”
•
For further information, please refer to the Special Issue of
Higher Education Policy (Winter 2016).
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~iaezcpc/
Recent books:
Taiwan Education at the Crossroad (2012)
The SSCI Syndrome in Higher Education (2014)
Chinese Education Models in a Global Age (2016)
Thanks for
your
attention
5th Higher Education Research Association Conference 2017, Peking University, Beiiing，April2l-22, 2017
Academic Culture in Transition:
A Local or Global Phenomenon?
Chuing Prudence Chou (周祝瑛)
Department of Education, National Chengchi
University，Taipei, Taiwan
E-mail：[email protected]
Abstract
The trend towards neo-liberal policies which began in the 1980s has caused public finances around the world to be linked to market forces rather than state allocation. In consequence, the sharp reduction in public funding allotted to the education sector has affected both social values and educational quality. With the growing influence of globalization on higher education, many East Asian nations have enacted urgent university reforms designed to boost competitiveness of their domestic university systems. China’s Projects 211 and 985; South Korea’s BK21; Japan’s National University Corporation Plan; and Taiwan’s ‘Five Year-Fifty Billion Plan have all been initiated in response to the process of globalization and the demand for global talent in academia. Elsewhere, governments in the Arab Middle East, the Americas, Europe, East and Southeast Asia have all initiated new policies to enhance the global competitiveness and international visibility of their flagship universities and many of these focus in an unprecedented away on journal publication as the major performance criterion for faculty reward. The increasing extent to which government policies worldwide favor measurements derived from publication indexes such as SCI/SSCI has led to strengthened managerial governance over academic culture and the academic profession itself. This paper argues that a phenomenon of ‘publish globally and perish locally’ has emerged, especially in the humanities and social sciences which are most vulnerable to ‘SSCI Syndrome’, and that this trend is detrimental to academic effectiveness and diversity.
Key words: academic culture, academic publication, governance, neo-liberalism, SSCI syndrome
*This paper is an excerpt from Chou, Chuing Prudence (2016). Trends in Publication in the Race for World-Class University: The Case of Taiwan. Higher Education Policy, 29(4), pp431-449.
I. Introduction
As the influence of globalization has reached higher education, many universities have encountered increased pressure for global visibility and
competiveness which, in turn, plays a crucial role in attracting international talent, research collaboration and resources (Shin, 2013a; Baker & Wiseman, 2008; Shin & Harman, 2009). In order to reform their higher education systems, governments have introduced different strategies for benchmarking their leading universities based on research output compatible with global standards (Chou, Lin, & Chiu, 2013). Many of these new higher education policies are responses to the process of
globalization and competitive demand for resources, but have ultimately changed academic culture and norms in an unprecedented way (Ball, 2012; Lorenz, 2012; Marginson, 2013). These include China’s Project 211 and Project 985 (Yang & Welch, 2012; Li & Tian, 2014 ); Korean Brain Korea 21 (BK21) Project (1999–2012),
World-Class University (WCU) Project (2008–2013), and BK21 Plus Project (2013¬–2019) (Suh & Park, 2014); Taiwan’s Five- Year- Fifty- Billion Plan (Chou & Ching, 2012); and Japan’s National University Corporation Plan, Global 30 Program, and Super Global 37 (Ishikawa, 2014). All of these government programs start with specific goals, with competitive funding mechanisms and accountability outcomes which have transformed the higher education profile and research output in key international journals serves as one of the common major criteria (Chen, et.al., 2014).
One of the most demanding global drivers in higher education today is the pursuit of world- class university status using research quality assessment indictors to measure productivity based on international publication standards. These new linkages between publication, research output, and individual promotion have changed academia into a field with a more accountable and quantitative personnel assessment system (Guthrie et,al. 2012; Ortinau 2011; KSB 2010; Woodside 2009; Kao & Pao 2009; Reed 1995). At the same time, as globalization increases contact and sharing of information, values, and issues across all borders, it also promotes competition at home and abroad. This may focus on certain set forms of publication
and shared research agendas accepted by the international academic community (Soudien, 2014; Reed, 1995). For example, the medium or language of publication and common interest or agenda shared by main-stream publishers or editors may reinforce the globalized academic mind-set as conforming to a single set of
standards which leaves no room for plurality (Ching 2014; Ishikawa 2009; Chen & Qian 2004). The drive for "world class" universities also creates a convergence in research interests and a risk of homogenization by favouring English as the lingua franca of scholarship (Kuteeva & Airey, 2014). An increasing number of education policies involve research assessment exercises based on “ranked” or “indexed” journals published in North America and West Europe. As a result, non-English literatures and topics outside these publications’ interests may be less likely to find favor in a publishing regime that focuses on “main-stream” and “international” scholarship in English, often to limited scholarly advantage (Thelwall & Maflahi, 2015).
Additionally, higher education institutes (HEIs) increasingly tend to hire faculty with more key journal publications regardless of disciplinary requirement, specialty or experience (Guthrie et,al. 2012; Ortinau 2011). Even social sciences and
humanities are forced to compromise their conventional preference for candidates with book publications and instead recruit those with more journal publications (Li & Tian 2014; Bauer and Bakkalbasi 2005). Academics from science, technology and quantitative backgrounds, who tend to publish more will be more likely to succeed in job applications and enjoy high job mobility (Wu & Bristow 2014; Liu 2014). Prolific authors employed in the non-English world who switch to English may lose their domestic relevance and local responsiveness and hence they may “publish globally and perish locally” (Wu & Bristow, 2014; Hanafi, 2011).
This study explains how the Taiwanese government has responded to the twin pressures of competitive University Rankings and higher education expansion by introducing a series of reform policies that emphasize quantitative research and a new probation and basic self-evaluation system designed to monitor faculty research output. A phenomenon of “publish globally or perish locally” has thus emerged, especially in the humanities and social sciences, which comes at the expense of local
policy issues and academic visibility to taxpayers. University teaching is now also at risk due to prioritizing research and promoting globally-visible publication, a
situation also not uncommon in neighboring countries (Chen, et.at. 2014; Suh & Park, 2014). An increasing gender gap came to exist between disciplines and institutions. This paper also shows how higher education policies have shaped faculty research performance in Ethnography and Education at a national university in Taiwan in terms of journal publication over the last two decades. Research questions include: How has faculty research output in social science fields evolved in the lasttwo decades? To what extent were faculty publication strategies and decisions among younger and older and male and female staff shaped by the increasing pressure from university and government to publish in key journals? What are the effects of these higher education policies?
The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines for the overall WUN project. Faculty publication of journal articles was calculated for 1993, 2003 and 2013, as specified in the project, and analyzed based on the language and place of publication; and local versus international focus as defined by the WUN project methodology.1
II. Research Context and Framework
The paper examines how higher education policies have re-oriented research output in two departments of a national university in Taiwan. Each faculty’s journal
publication was recorded and calculated from 1993, 2003 to 2013, and then analyzed based on selected criteria.
University Profile
1 “A ‘national’ journal was defined as published in the country where the professor worked,
and ‘international’ journal was published elsewhere, no matter if the term ‘local’ or
‘international’ is on the journal’s title (and same definition applies throughout other coding strategies adopted by this project).” - Framework/Instrument (WUN Project)
5
The university selected in this study was a social sciences-oriented university which has been impacted by these changed to a greater extent than comprehensive universities and which has drawn public attention from the response to these reforms of its faculty. In addition, it is home to Departments of Ethnography and Education, as specified in the program description.
In the study, faculty in the Departments of Ethnography and Education were selected as the sample in accordance with the overall project guidelines. Department of Ethnography was one of the original departments established in in Taiwan during the early 1950s and focused on studying ethnic minorities in the South and West of China before combining Chinese and Taiwanese studies with ethnography of Southeast Asia and Australia. Faculty conduct interdisciplinary research combining anthropology, education, history, geography and linguistics.
Prior to 1955, Education was taught by the Civic Education Graduate Institute which later divided to form the Graduate Institute of Education and the Department of Education, respectively dedicated to teacher preparation and educational
administrator’s training. Affiliated pre-school, primary and high schools are all under the guidance of Education and dedicated to educational experiments and trial programs in curriculum and instruction. Faculty members are expected to engage in both teaching and research on policy- and school-related affairs at university. III. Research Findings
Faculty research output in three time slots:
In 1993, the average faculty’s publication rate was 0.78 paper per year in Ethnography Dept and 1.48 in Education Dept. In 2003, it was still 0.78 in
Ethnography but 1.67 papers in Education. By 2013, the average publication was 1.3 paper in Ethnography Dept and 4.17 in Education Dept, where faculty research output in conference papers, research reports etc. had increased dramatically after 2005.
