Facing the different institutional system

The Chinese institutional system is different from that in Western countries. The institutional system in Chinese higher education is known as “bureaucratisation of universities” (daxue de guanliaohua), in which a university’s operating system focuses on managerialism instead of professionalism (Shore, 2008). Yi (2011) says that combined with conventional Chinese paternalism, this reinforces the “one-says-yes” governing system in which ideas or policies are transmitted bureaucratically or vertically for those in a lower position to practise or implement (Kong, 2009; Yi, 2011). Challenging those in power is neither esteemed nor acceptable. As well as facing the difficult research environment and the issue of the guanxi (interpersonal) network discussed in the previous section (see Section 5.3.1), the returnees struggle to adapt to this bureaucratic style of management, which sees those in management as superior to those at lower levels. This management ideology cannot focus on humanistic notions. Some returnees found it very difficult to return to this system. R2 reported:

In foreign countries, they are people-oriented. The persons who are at the

management levels think they are there to give service to others. … Then it is different while coming back (laughing). … It’s like “I am the person from the management level; you are the person who is governed by me (laughing). You have

no matter where you are from, no matter which country you return from. As long as you come back, you must listen to me”.

After four and a half years’ study in Australia, R11 sometimes regretted coming back to her original university and felt frustrated and depressed by this management system:

I came back last year. Because I have to solve my daughter’s issues of going to

primary school here, I have had to keep going to the administration building for lots and lots of times [to solve the problem]. Every time when I came back (from there),

I felt … regret. Why did I come back to this university again? … Every time after I

came back from them, I felt they treated me like ‘What’s the big deal? Even if you are a returnee (haigui) you are still governed by us people with only undergraduate

degrees! You could go nowhere.’

Under this type of governing ideology, respect and fair treatment for returnees did not

appear to be an expectation. Disrespect for and neglect of returnees’ feelings were noted

by participants. R5 felt that this was ill treatment, with her university managers criticising her for even very small mistakes. For R20, this top-down governing style meant that those in the management level had access to better treatment, such as better salaries and subsidies. He attributed this to the difference in assessment requirements for teachers and management personnel; the assessment requirements for teachers were much tougher than those for management personnel and these double standards in the assessment requirements gave normal teachers a lower status than those at in management, including their income. He pointed out:

[In China], many things are hard to say. People, who do research like us, to be frank,

are no different from migrant workers. … Even a director of a division who does

management work has much higher income than a professor.

He believed that this unbalanced relationship between administrators and academics resulted in managers paying little attention to the feelings of returnees, as providing a supportive atmosphere for returnees was not in their working schedules. Rather, they needed to try to please their superiors in order to move up the ladders. Thus, introducing foreign talent, according to R20, was an “All talk and no action” thing. He believed that only professors who were well known overseas were welcomed and were the interest of the universities. For other foreign-educated Chinese, there was not a good environment

for them:

There are problems in introducing [a] research team from overseas. To be frank, for those who are directors or leaders, what they are interested in is their own promotions. It is not their business whether you come back or not from overseas. At this university, if you want to leave, you leave. It has nothing with them. They are still

the heads, as long as the superiors are satisfied with them … This system, I am not

optimistic about it.

R 20 felt that the unbalanced relationship between common teachers and management made administrative power more important than academic research. In this hierarchical structure, where common teachers were at the lower level and management were at the higher levels, equality was impossible between those from a lower position and those

from a higher position. That was why, in one returnee’s words, leaders had the absolute

power. R12 reported:

I think the whole system of the university is a hierarchy, meaning it has its own hierarchical structures. Leaders have absolute power. It is not like Western

countries. You don’t know which position you are until you come into the

community. You must be very cautious when you do things or when you say something. … I can see these different levels in the hierarchy. Nothing can change it or challenge it.

Under this governing culture, administrative interference was inevitable. According to

R12, a teacher’s abilities were not the deciding factor in their performance; rather, it was

the leaders’ decision. This became a psychological pressure for returnees and meant they

could not apply their real skills. Dealing with this kind of governing culture was a challenge for returnees, leading them to think they had little chance of changing it. Most leaders in the schools or the universities were domestically trained graduates and it was difficult for returnees to become leaders. When R8 was asked to give suggestions

regarding ways to make use of returnees’ social and cultural capital, he said:

No. They [leaders] are inefficient. Overall, the university lacks a systematic management (of how to make use of returnees). First, there must be a group of returnees [becoming leaders]. Returnees have no influence. If returnees could [fill] two-thirds of the management levels, they could do something … but at this

university, almost all of the management leaders were trained at this university. … It’s so normal for returnees to be just teachers here.

For R8, this bureaucratic management style, with domestically trained graduates filling most management positions, was an obstacle to universities changing, as the leaders were the people who could access the resources, leaving little opportunity for returnees to make any changes:

It is impossible (for returnees) to make any changes now, because in China, it is not professorial management of universities, it is bureaucratic governance. Even if returnees could become leaders, the first thing they would do is to maximise their personal benefit, because in China, only leaders can get access to resources, including academic resources, and research funds. They [universities] cannot be run according to foreign methods or foreign models or foreign ways of management. [If doing that], it is doomed to be a failure.

Thus, it was hard for returnees to have any influence in the universities. Those who had power controlled and manipulated resources. This phenomenon was also evident in one

administrator’s comments. A2 said:

Yes. They [leaders] can say yes [to who can apply for the projects]. For example, if someone has a good relationship with the leader and the leader thinks this guy is nice, even though this guy may not be that good at research, [the leader can give the project to him or her].

For A2, one of the consequences of this bureaucratic management was that academic research was damaged by it because power could say yes and those leaders did not necessarily have the ability to tell whether proposed projects were creative or were outdated, nor to identify what had already been done overseas or domestically:

They [leaders] don’t have the ability to tell the level of the projects. Therefore, they are more likely to decide with power instead of academic [ability] (laugh). This is related to politics. Because in Chinese universities, if we don’t de-bureaucratise the management and everything is governed with bureaucratic management, then

definitely universities are measured by this bureaucratic system … well, you can do

R24 shared this view that de-bureaucratisation was essential to solve the problems of Chinese higher education. Without de-bureaucratisation, even if there were 100% returnees in Chinese higher education, returnees could not realise their ambitions because the environment was repressive. The returnees would become submerged in the environment and lose their passion and enthusiasm. For R3, this bureaucratisation management reflected the inefficient and hierarchical management systems of Chinese universities. An issue could be discussed by management for two or three years but never resolved. She felt marginalised at her university because she did not want to waste her time on such inefficient meetings or activities.

Under such bureaucratic management, it was evident that some returnees felt depressed and disappointed and some, such as R3, R12, R11 and R21, had cynical views towards their universities. The returnees’ re-entry path was full of challenges and difficulties in this academic and managerial environment. Returnees could not have much influence on the universities, nor could they change the management or the environment of the academic circle. Some of them had to yield to the environment or become complicit to it, thus losing the advantages of their overseas education.