Envisioning the Asian Flagship University: Past and Future A Yi Liu Future?

1. Envisioning the Asian Flagship University: Past and FutureA Yi Liu Future? John Hawkins (UCLA) and John Douglass (UC Berkeley) APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

2. Asia’s Leading National Universities The Context in Asia APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

3. Asia’s Leading National Universities The Context Traditional FSU History • Most nations in region have one or more elite, leading, FSUs. • History of being more “inwardly” focused on national service, preparation of civic elites, national business leaders etc. • Little external pressure or internal desire to substantially change APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

4. Asia’s Leading National Universities The Context Some New Realities • Rankings and WCU goals • Increasing expectations of a much more expanded role in society and more competitive • Complex interplay of neoliberalism, globalization, and internationalization in 1990’s • Now looking “externally” for benchmarks APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

5. Asia’s Leading National Universities The Context Debate on the Value of WCU • Critique of this model • Looking for more creative ways to address the role of teaching, community service, R&D, scholarship and so on. • Creates a predicament: increase in research productivity, income, publications, citations, etc. AND seek innovative approaches to teaching, research and community engagement APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

6. Asia’s Leading National Universities The Context Imitative or Innovative • Difficult to avoid the temptation of be imitative of other WCUs and seeking higher rankings • Is it an erroneous understanding of the EGM? • Critique of US research HEIs “research is the primary product” model which limits innovative change APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

7. Asia’s Leading National Universities The Context The “New” FSU in Asia • Is there a place for both NFSU ideals and practices to co-exist? • Current top ranked research HEIs on the ARWU were not built around a narrow band of quantitative measures of research or reputation • What have we learned thus far about the characteristics of a new approach to the FSU idea? APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

8. The Flagship University For What Purpose? APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

9. The Purpose and Objectives of the New Flagship University APHERP Leadership Institute 2017 John Aubrey Douglass Center for Studies in Higher Education - UC Berkeley

10. The Purpose and Objectives of the New Flagship University WCU Focus APHERP Leadership Institute 2017 John Aubrey Douglass Center for Studies in Higher Education - UC Berkeley

11. The Purpose and Objectives of the New Flagship University WCU Focus APHERP Leadership Institute 2017 John Aubrey Douglass Center for Studies in Higher Education - UC Berkeley

12. New Flagship University as an Aspirational Model • In the face of the dominant WCU and ranking paradigm, most academic leaders and their academic communities have had difficulty conceptualizing, and articulating, their grander purpose and multiple engagements with society. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

13. New Flagship University as an Aspirational Model • In the face of the dominant WCU and ranking paradigm, most academic leaders and their academic communities have had difficulty conceptualizing, and articulating, their grander purpose and multiple engagements with society. • The New Flagship University model attempts to provide an alternative narrative via a holistic and ecological vision of what constitute the best and most influential national universities. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

14. New Flagship University as an Aspirational Model • In the face of the dominant WCU and ranking paradigm, most academic leaders and their academic communities have had difficulty conceptualizing, and articulating, their grander purpose and multiple engagements with society. • The New Flagship University model attempts to provide an alternative narrative via a holistic and ecological vision of what constitute the best and most influential national universities. • The NFSU is not intended as a set of required attributes and practices or a single template or checklist, but an expansive array of characteristics and practices that connects a selective group of universities—an aspiration model. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

15. The Flagship University Hard Part #1 How to Define it? APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

16. Flagship Assumptions • Leading National Universities Are Evolving – Their importance, range of programs and activities, and expectations of stakeholders is larger then ever before. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017 John Aubrey Douglass Center for Studies in Higher Education - UC Berkeley

17. Flagship Assumptions • Leading National Universities Are Evolving – Their importance, range of programs and activities, and expectations of stakeholders is larger then ever before. • Only So Many - A nation/region can realistically achieve a limited number of research-intensive universities. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017 John Aubrey Douglass Center for Studies in Higher Education - UC Berkeley

18. Flagship Assumptions • Leading National Universities Are Evolving – Their importance, range of programs and activities, and expectations of stakeholders is larger then ever before. • Only So Many - A nation/region can realistically achieve a limited number of research-intensive universities. • It Is About Internal Culture - While ministries of education can positively or negatively influence the quality of university academic programs and activities, ultimately top tier institutions require sufficient independence to develop internal cultures of quality and excellence and incentives. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017 John Aubrey Douglass Center for Studies in Higher Education - UC Berkeley

19. Flagship Assumptions • Leading National Universities Are Evolving – Their importance, range of programs and activities, and expectations of stakeholders is larger then ever before. • Only So Many - A nation/region can realistically achieve a limited number of research-intensive universities. • It Is About Internal Culture - While ministries of education can positively or negatively influence the quality of university academic programs and activities, ultimately top tier institutions require sufficient independence to develop internal cultures of quality and excellence and incentives. • Role In Nurturing National HE Systems – “Flagship” universities should help nurture and have practices that influence the quality and performance of other HEI’s. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017 John Aubrey Douglass Center for Studies in Higher Education - UC Berkeley

20. Flagship Characteristics • Research intensive, but equally committed to teaching/learning and public service • Comprehensive Institutions – seeking strength across the disciplines. • Internationally engaged, but focused first on Regional/National Economic development and public service across the disciplines • Broadly Accessible – selective but also representative of the population they serve. • Sufficiently Autonomous and Publicly Financed – easy to say! • Internal Culture of Evidence-Based Management and focused on Institutional Self-Improvement • A Common Narrative – but not all the same – Flagship’s are necessarily tied to the political, cultural and socio-economic world they serve APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

21. The Flagship University Hard Part #2 The Ecology of the Flagship University – Its Culture, Policies and Practices APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

22. The Flagship UniversityProfile and Policy Realms APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

23. Flagship Conundrums • Implies High Level of Policy and Practice Convergence - • Is there a Russian way to have a research-intensive University? • A Chinese way? • An German way? APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

24. Flagship Conundrums • Implies High Level of Policy and Practice Convergence - • Is there a Russian way to have a research-intensive University? • A Chinese way? • An German way? • Again, not meant as a Litmus Test – different answers and configurations APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

25. Flagship Conundrums • Implies High Level of Policy and Practice Convergence - • Is there a Russian way to have a research-intensive University? • A Chinese way? • An German way? • Again, not meant as a Litmus Test – different answers and configurations • But there has to be enough commonality in intent, effort, and practice to give it meaning – An HEI would need to embrace the Flagship title and articulate its version APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

26. Flagship Conundrums • Implies High Level of Policy and Practice Convergence - • Is there a Russian way to have a research-intensive University? • A Chinese way? • An German way? • Again, not meant as a Litmus Test – different answers and configurations • But there has to be enough commonality in intent, effort, and practice to give it meaning – An HEI would need to embrace the Flagship title and articulate its version • Therefore a self-appointed designation? Or eventually Ministerial designation in the race for resources and prestige? APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

27. Flagship Final Thoughts My Hope: That the Flagship model provides a path for some universities to explain and seek a revised institutional identity, to help them build a stronger internal culture of self-improvement and, ultimately, a greater contribution to economic development and socioeconomic mobility rates that all societies seek. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

28. Flagship Final Thoughts My Hope: That the Flagship model provides a path for some universities to explain and seek a revised institutional identity, to help them build a stronger internal culture of self-improvement and, ultimately, a greater contribution to economic development and socioeconomic mobility rates that all societies seek. But for that to happen, some groups of institutions will need to embrace some version of the model on their own terms and articulate it clearly and loudly. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

29. Concept Paper Goals Option A - Case Examples • The history of leading national universities in your nation or region including their sense of mission, programs, characteristics, and influence on the societies they are intended to serve? • How is the notion of WCU’s, and global rankings and similar benchmarking, influencing Traditional Flagship Universities? • How is the New Flagship University model applicable or useful for these leading national universities? Ancillary questions: Is the history, cultural and socioeconomic needs of these leading national universities significantly different that they are forging their own distinct, or perhaps, Asian model? What are the important contextual variables that constrain and influence institutions that might claim the New Flagship title? APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

30. Concept Paper Goals Option B – Comparative Analysis Selected group of Asian nations focused on one or more of the following “Policy Realms” and practices profiled in the New Flagship model: • Governance and Management Capacity • Seeking Improvements in Undergraduate Education • Challenges and Reforms in Graduate and Professional Education • Economic Engagement – including such issues regional labor needs, and/or technology transfer and start-ups APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

31. Observations of NFU Book Contributors Russia Chile/Latin America Scandinavia Asia • The political, economic, and cultural peculiarities of many nations pose significant challenges for pursuing the New Flagship Model • The biggest obstacles lay in the civil service mentality of faculty, severely inadequate university governance and management structures, and governmental controls and, often, political dynamics that made universities inordinately subject to political movements and encroachments. • But all the authors also understood the New Flagship model as aspirational— essentially a guide and reference point that was desirable and helpful for shaping the discourse in their respective regions. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017

32. APHERP Leadership Institute 2017