Since the 19th century, Chinese societies, as latecomers to modernization, have prioritized Western learning. Modelled on European and North American experiences, modern universities were created to serve this purpose. Having little linkage to their indigenous cultural traditions, they operate in Confucian socio-cultural contexts, with constant and longstanding struggles with their cultural identity. In recent decades, these societies have progressed remarkably well in higher education. Their experience could be seen as a cultural experiment that is placed highly on their sustainable development agendas. The products of their modern education systems especially at the elite level have demonstrated a grasp of both traditional and Western knowledge, with their very best universities well positioned to combine Chinese and Western ideas of a university in everyday operation. Such a bi-cultural condition contrasts sharply to the still largely mono-cultural (Western only) university operating environment in the West. The integration opens further space for their universities to explore an alternative to the Western academic model that has long dominated world higher education. Based on fieldwork at premier universities in Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taipei, this article calls for a reconceptualized view of modern university development in Chinese societies. It argues that the experiment enables their top universities to bring back their cultural traditions to integrate with Western values and contribute to inter-civilizational dialogue.
[Copyright of Frontiers of Education in China is the property of Springer Singapore.]

The article discusses a study on educational research assessment in Australia in context of Excellence of Research for Australia (ERA) done in Hong Kong. Topics include combination of expert review and indicators for research assessment, methodology of University Grants Committee (UGC), and introduction of research scholarship. It mentions that emphasis of international benchmarking for producing quality profiles of Hong Kong-based UGC-funded institutions.
[Copyright of Australian Educational Researcher is the property of Australian Association for Research in Education. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0110-3]

Academic entrepreneurialism appears to have become global. University systems around the globe are moving in the direction of a more entrepreneurial model of higher education. Scholars have not yet reached a consensus on the definition of entrepreneurship. Research on academic entrepreneurship in East Asia has been lacking. This article contributes to the discussion by reviewing the rise of entrepreneurialism in Asian higher education, using Hong Kong as an example. After some analyses of the definitions, rationales and pathways of academic entrepreneurship, it shifts its attention to entrepreneurship in Hong Kong, and discusses how entrepreneurship has been demonstrated in Hong Kong higher education. It argues that while Hong Kong's entrepreneurial spirit is strong in the local culture and business, its achievement in academic entrepreneurship is relatively low. This article ends by cautioning readers about the differences between academic and business entrepreneurship.
[Copyright of Globalisation, Societies & Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.710475]

The twin policy domains of accountability and autonomy have featured in recent education reforms in many countries, signalling new relationships between governments and educational institutions. Despite different national and localised contexts, a number of common 'global' trends have been identified. However, simultaneously context-specific differences are also evident. For us, the concept of 'globalisation', when it implies policy homogenisation, is too blunt an instrument to critically analyse these major reforms. We would argue that there are still too few studies on globalisation processes grounded in detailed examinations of particular historical times and geographical spaces. Our research is located within the tensions between global commonalities and localised differences.
This paper reports research on changing accountability and autonomy in higher education in three 'Asian' countries. Empirical data has been collected in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Singapore in an attempt to begin to redress a 'Western' hegemony in such research. Within each national context two different types of universities became case study sites for the analysis of both commonalities and differences in accountability and autonomy policies and practices. The current paper focuses in particular on the conceptual and methodological framings of the research and presents some preliminary findings.
[Copyright of Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) at http://www.aare.edu.au]

Singapore and Hong Kong are vying to be the principal educational hub for the Asia-Pacific region and have begun to compete with Australia, Britain, Canada and the USA in providing cross-border education. Although these four Anglo-American countries still dominate cross-border education, Singapore and Hong Kong hope to make inroads into this export market and compete on the global stage. To create "world-class" universities, Singapore and Hong Kong have introduced quality assurance mechanisms, diversified funding sources, and restructured their university governance systems. This article compares the accountability measures introduced into Hong Kong and Singapore universities, and the responses of academics and administrators to these measures. The results indicate that both countries introduced greater autonomy as they augmented accountability for their universities, and the term "decentralised centralism" describes the kind of government control exerted in these Asian universities in the twenty-first century.
[Copyright of Asia Pacific Journal of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188790701845972]