A considerable body of studies on neoliberalism in higher education has conducted macro-level philosophical analyses regarding the effects of assessment regimes on university management. This article expands the literature by providing an important set of empirical findings pertaining to Hong Kong universities' coping strategies in preparing their academics for the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE 2020). Based on 16 in-depth interviews and document review at two universities in Hong Kong, this study reveals that the institutional preparation for the RAE 2020 can be considered as a multifaceted discourse that complexly interweaves managerialism and academic professionalism. This article further discusses how neoliberal forces, as manifested in the RAE 2020 policy, are locally interpreted, resisted and negotiated as they are shaped by different local contextual factors. The findings indicate the need for greater commitment to academic professionalism in research management and stress the importance of manager-academics' benign and mediating engagement in the coping process. Copyright © 2022 Routledge.

This paper provides a critical account of the role of universities in the development of innovation and technology in Hong Kong.To do so, the paper examines the political economy of Hong Kong's innovation and technology development. It outlines a finance-led regime, under which the vision of long-term innovation initiatives is transformed into short-term finance events, and the development of an entrepreneurial culture in society and in universities is neglected. The paper also suggests that the current research funding system and the rise of managerialism in the higher education sector restrict the development of academic entrepreneurship, though universities play a significant role in the innovation system. The paper closes by examining the recent changes in higher education policy and governance, the intensification of integration with mainland China and their implications for prospects of advocating a culture of innovation and promoting innovation and technology in Hong Kong. Copyright © 2019 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and Management.

The spread of quality assurance (QA) regimes in higher education has been an explosive phenomenon over the last 25 years. By one estimate, for example, half of all the countries in the world have adopted QA systems or QA regulatory agencies to oversee their higher education sector. Typically, this phenomenon is explained as a process of policy diffusion, the advent of marketization, the spread of neoliberalism, massification and, concomitantly, the emergence of a 'global market' for higher education, prompting governments to respond by validating standards, quality, and introducing certification and compliance regimes. In this paper I question the utility of these explanatory frameworks, specifically looking at the case of Hong Kong in order to explore the role coercive institutional isomorphism plays in policy adoption and the implications of this for regulatory performativity.
[Copyright © Elsevier BV].

In the spring of 2005, students and alumni of the Chinese University of Hong Kong staged an adamant protest against University directives which they perceived would result in a significant increase in the number of courses taught in English. They denounced the administration of selling out on the founding mission of the University, for which, as stated in its Ordinance, the principal medium of teaching would be Chinese. The University, on the other hand, defended its policy in the name of 'internationalization' and the need to stay ahead in the midst of severe competition at home and abroad. This paper examines this language controversy against the wider context of English hegemony and the rise of academic capitalism, two forces which are inextricably linked for the non-Western societies in a post-colonial era. I will try to show that the controversy was ultimately a struggle over the meaning of university education, between what I would call the instrumentalists and the humanists in this age of globalization. I end the paper with a pessimistic note, saying that it is the former who have gained an upper hand, and that the scope and parameters of the language debate are heavily restricted.
[Copyright of Journal of Education Policy is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680930903443886]

Social work education in Hong Kong has undergone unprecedented transitions during the past decade as a result of the challenges presented by the global tides of marketization and managerialism. It has been suggested that these changes have not only negatively affected the quality of education, but have also given rise to rising consumerism as well as intense institutional competition, and, worst of all, have diluted the sense of purpose and commitment of social workers towards their social ideals. But despite the many cautions raised, the advent of marketization and managerialism has provided many positive opportunities for the development of social work education in Hong Kong. The authors will use some of their experiences encountered in Hong Kong as illustrations to show the ways in which threats and crises in social work education could be turned into positive opportunities for development. From a positive perspective, marketization and managerialism could increase opportunities and choices for motivated learners; increase efficiency and enhance performance; generate additional resources for experimentation and innovation; and revitalize social work education by making the curricula more responsive to contemporary issues and needs. We suggest that while we must be cautious about the negative impacts of marketization and managerialism, we should conceive of this situation as an opportunity to strengthen the organizational capacities of social work education, to revitalize the core values of social work, and to strive for social justice and social betterment.
[Copyright of Social Work Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615470701456194]

It has been a global trend, since the 1980s, that the process of marketisation has been influential in the decision making of social policies around the world, and that this tidal wave is now crossing over to the Asia–Pacific region as well. Education policy, as one of the important social policies for many developing countries, has been influential in the forefront of national development in terms of manpower training, as well as in other arenas of economic and social developments. In this way, these countries are trying to improve the quality of their educational services so that they can be more competitive in order to cater for the demands in the international markets. One of the outcomes of this global trend is the international quality assurance movement in streamlining the educational institutions as well as in using different coping strategies to promote quality education for all concerned. For the Chinese mainland, it seems that the central government is adopting a policy of decentralisation in getting local governments to use multiple channels of resources and other methods to provide for their own educational services. Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China, however, has adopted quite a different approach by employing the principle of managerialism in order to enhance its competitiveness in providing quality education to meet the increasing market demands. Hence, the present study is to compare and contrast the educational reforms and coping strategies that have been adopted by the socialist mainland, on the one hand, and the capitalist Hong Kong SAR, on the other hand, in order to face this new challenge of marketisation.
[Copyright of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050060020020417]