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.

The impact of neoliberalism in higher education has been widely discussed and debated, yet most analyses have viewed the changes on university governance and academic work in different countries as slavishly bound by more global neoliberal factors without paying sufficient attention to the local contextual factors. This empirical study foregrounds the local dimension by examining how the actual quotidian effects of RAE 2020 operate within higher education institutions and on working academics in Hong Kong. The paper reports on an interview-based study with 15 education academics from two government-funded universities in Hong Kong. Neoliberal forms of university governance based on a set of RAE-defined performance indicators were identified; academics’ divergent forms of ‘practice of freedom’ in coping with RAE 2020 were delineated. This study discusses why the universities displayed strong ‘reactivity’ to RAE 2020 and explains academics’ practicality and resilience in coping with policy changes by drawing upon Hong Kong's colonial history, government-university relationship and institutional culture in the specific academic environment. This article calls for greater flexibility in assessment regimes to restore trust and autonomy to the professions and development of alternative patterns of academic prestige to elicit a healthy diversity of policy responses. Copyright © 2022 Taylor & Francis.