Contributions and challenges of CFCRS

CFCRS has brought about several actual benefits. First, to some degree, the introduction of high quality foreign educational resources to Chinese HE is beneficial in the sense that it improves the quality of education and promotes academic development in Chinese universities. Second, the input of some disciplines has greatly promoted economic and societal development and improved disciplinary structure in HE (Lin & Liu, 2010; Wang, 2012). Lin and Liu (2010) propose that importing certain well- established cutting-edge disciplines such as biotechnology and environmental protection from foreign universities is a sound way to cultivate urgently needed talents. Third, at the managerial level, the communication between domestic and foreign HEIs has accelerated the reform of Chinese HEIs. New thoughts and experience of managing institutions have enabled domestic universities to become directly involved in the field of international education and compete on a global scale, which in turn has stimulated and assisted the implementation of HE reform in China (Tan, 2009). Finally, at an individual level, cultural exchange is promoted between the East and the West as communication between students and lecturers from different cultural backgrounds enhances cross-cultural understanding and communication.

However, the contributions made by CFCRS have been hampered by several co-existing problems. First, the distribution of discipline of CFCRS programmes at the undergraduate level is imbalanced. According to statistics by Hou et al. (2014), the most

prominent cooperative disciplines are economics, business administration and electrical engineering and computing, while the number of remaining subjects appears to be much smaller (Figure 2.1). Similar results are seen in prior studies; for example, Tan (2006) found that 50 percent of all undergraduate joint programmes related to business and management and Yang (2008) discovered that more than 60 percent of programmes were relevant to business and management. This uneven distribution demonstrates that CFCRS excessively focuses on application-orientated disciplines. Disciplines that benefit economic development, such as management, economics and engineering, are highly valued by students and employers, thus most HEIs tend to prioritise them. The disciplinary structure, the market positioning, and the model of training talent are similar among HEIs (Lin & Liu, 2007b), with the consequence that the diversity of disciplines is inhibited and one institution is indistinguishable from another, since they all set up similar disciplines. As Hou et al. (2014, p.312) note, the “duplication of similar projects focusing on similar disciplines” may engender strong competition, even within the same district.

Figure 2.1 Distribution of undergraduate CFCRS programmes by subject Source: Hou et al. (2014, p.304)

The second problem is the mismatch of academic levels between Chinese and foreign universities. Ideally some of the key Chinese universities that are supported by the government, both financially and politically, are expected to “cooperate with foreign educational institutions which are well recognised in terms of their academic level and education quality” (Hou et al., 2014, p.310). Indeed, there are some well-matched alliances; for example, the Centre for Chinese and American Studies in Nanjing University, which was jointly established by The Johns Hopkins University and Nanjing University. However, good matches are few and many universities set up CFCRS programmes primarily based on financial concerns, regardless of the academic performance of their foreign partners. Lin and Liu (2007b) point out that most world- class universities in for instance the West are less motivated to build branch campuses or establish cooperative programmes in China; meanwhile, academically less well recognised foreign universities are interested in the ‘Chinese market’ and set up cooperative relationship with Chinese HEIs. From a domestic perspective, a vast number of Chinese universities, regardless of their academic levels, are facing problems such as lack of funding, shortage of good teaching staff and insufficient quantities of good equipment as a result of the massification of Chinese HEIs. The excessive expansion in terms of scale has driven these universities to compete for potential students (Lin & Liu, 2007b) to charge high tuition fees. The international cooperative projects, which prioritise the importation of foreign educational resources are indeed attractive to the Chinese learners. As a result, CFCRS programmes are viewed as an important means to for universities to increase income, yet the matching of academic level is ignored.

The third issue is that the CFCRS has not been effectively monitored and the quality of education remains problematic. The quality of cooperation in international education has attracted the attention of academics across the world (Bannier, 2016; Chapman & Pyvis, 2012; Onsman, 2010). Although China implements undergraduate education quality assessment of on a regular basis with the aim of improving and managing the

quality of HE with a five-year evaluation cycle, the CFCRS has not been included until recent years, which implies that it was not supervised effectively. While the current annual inspection system is capable of identifying problems that occur in the operation of CFCRS, it can only inspect basic factors, such as whether a programme is legal or illegal, rather than evaluating quality of programmes. Yang (2014, p.156) describes the current situation in terms of quality and surveillance as follows:

While the central government approves or charters the establishment of joint education programmes in line with the existing legal frameworks and guidelines, a lack of consistent oversight after approval has left the responsibility for quality entirely in the hands of the involved teaching staff and programme coordinators.

Having described a general picture of CFCRS, I will narrow the discussion down to the international IET programme investigated for the remaining part of this chapter. This programme is the context for this study.

2.5 Overview of the investigated International Economics and