Higher Education

, Volume 69, Issue 4, pp 583–605

A comparison of Chinese and Australian university academics’ valence for teaching and cross-disciplinary research

Article
  • 536 Downloads

Abstract

Corporate reforms have taken place in Australian and Chinese higher education systems to increase efficiency and productivity, and to accommodate the emergence of global markets by exposing universities to market competition. The competing demands of teaching and research arguably have emerged as an important issue for both Australian and Chinese higher education. This study provides insights into the two primary functions of higher education, namely teaching and research. Expectancy Theory is used to investigate Chinese and Australian university academics’ valence for teaching and cross-disciplinary research, with reference to the key individual cultural values at the individual level, allocentrism and idiocentrism. A two-stage cluster sampling method was employed to select Chinese and Australian university academics. The Chinese sample comprised 213 universities academics from Beijing and Hangzhou, and the Australian sample consisted of 112 academics drawn from universities in Australia. Exploratory factor analysis was applied to identify factors in the Chinese and Australian data. The common factors identified for the Chinese and Australian samples were then compared, and posited hypotheses tested. There was no statistically significant difference between the Chinese and Australian participants’ valence for teaching. However, the Australian academics reported significantly higher valence for cross-disciplinary research than the Chinese academics. In general, the Australian academics scored significantly higher on idiocentric factors and lower on allocentric factors than their Chinese counterparts. Findings suggest that it may be helpful to categorise academic activities according to individual and group orientations and matching academic activities with academics’ cultural orientations may improve their motivation. In order to promote cross-disciplinary research, an environment of in-group cooperation may need to be fostered before any real progress can take place, especially when academics with allocentric orientations are involved.

Keywords

Allocentrism Idiocentrism Valence Chinese and Australian university academics Teaching and research Cross-disciplinary research 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y., Segall, M., & Dasen, P. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, J. W., & Triandis, H. C. (2006). Culture. In K. Pawlik & G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.), Psychological concepts: An international historical perspective (pp. 47–62). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bond, M. H. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  5. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canaan, J. E., & Shumar, W. (2008). Higher education in the era of globalization and neoliberalism. In J. E. Caanan & W. Shumar (Eds.), Structure and agency in the neoliberal university (pp. 1–32). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2000). Allocentrism and idiocentrism as predictors of in-group perceptions: An individual difference extension of cultural patterns. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandler, J., Barry, J., & Clark, H. (2002). Stressing academe: The wear and tear of the new public management. Human Relations, 55(9), 1051–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, C., Lee, S.-Y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6, 170–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, C. E. (2008). Study abroad for Chinese university presidents: How China is reforming higher education. Change, 40(3), 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Currie, J., & Newson, J. (1998). Universities and globalisation: Critical perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism-collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24, 265–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Gu, J. (2012). Harmonious expansion of China’s higher education: A new growth pattern. Higher Education, 63, 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gudykunst, W. B., Lee, C. M., Assessing, M., et al. (2003). Assessing the validity of self construal scales: A response to Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29(2), 253–274.Google Scholar
  19. Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. (1996). The relationship between teaching and research—A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 507–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s universities, 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict. New York: Garland Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K. P., & Greenholz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hemmings, B., Rushbrook, P., & Smith, E. (2005). To publish or not to publish: that is the question? Learned Publishing, 18, 63–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hofstede, G. (1980, Summer). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1),42–63.Google Scholar
  24. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hulme, D., & Toye, J. (2006). The case for cross-disciplinary social science research on poverty, inequality and well-being. Journal of Development Studies, 42(7), 1085–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inglis, L. (1999). Motives and performance: Why academics research?. Caulfield East: Victoria: Monash University: Department of Management, Faculty of Business and Economics.Google Scholar
  30. Johnsrud, L., & Rosser, V. (2002). Faculty members’ morale and their intention to leave: A multilevel explanation. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & Ç. Kağitçibaşi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 1–49). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  32. Kim, U. (1995). Individualism and collectivism: A psychological, cultural and ecological analysis. Copenhagen: NIAS.Google Scholar
  33. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Wittenbaum, G. M., Shearman, S. M., et al. (2003). Self-construal scales lack validity. Human Communication Research, 29(2), 210–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Marin, G., Gamba, R. J., & Marin, B. V. (1992). Extreme response style and acquiescence among Hispanics. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 498–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marsh, H., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relationship between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal of Higher Education, 73, 603–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGorry, S. Y. (2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(2), 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2013, December 14). http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_634/201205/135137.html.
  41. Neumann, B. (1992). Perceptions of the teaching-research nexus: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 23, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. People’s Daily Online. (2011, March 11). http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/98649/7315789.html.
  44. Pratt, G., & Poole, D. (2000). Global corporations ‘R’ us? The impacts of globalization on Australian universities. Australian Universities Review, 42(2), 16–23.Google Scholar
  45. Rubin, K. (2007). Where the students are in East Asia? International Educator, 16(4), 26–35.Google Scholar
  46. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce’s claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Stark, E. M. (2000). Interdependence and preference for group work: Main and congruent effects on the satisfaction and performance of group members. Journal of Management, 26, 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sinha, J. B. P., & Verma, J. (1987). Structure of collectivism. In Ç. Kağitçibaşi (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 123–129). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  50. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sun, M. (2010). Education system reform in China after 1978: Some practical implications. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(4), 314–329.Google Scholar
  52. The Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18(2), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Triandis, H. C. (1989). Self and social behavior in differing social contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  55. Vidovich, L., & Currie, J. (2011). Governance and Trust in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vroom, V. (1995). Work and motivation (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  57. Webster, D. (1986). Research productivity and classroom teaching effectiveness. Instructional Evaluation, 9, 14–20.Google Scholar
  58. Winter, R. P., & Sarros, J. C. (2001). Corporate reforms to Australian universities: Views from the academic heartland. Caulfield, Victoria: Monash University, Department of Management, Faculty of Business and Economics.Google Scholar
  59. Yang, R. (2009). Enter the dragon: China’s higher education returns to the world community. In J. Smart & W. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and practice (pp. 431–467). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Yang, R. (2011). Self and the other in the Confucian cultural context: Implications of China’s higher education development for comparative studies. International Review of Education, 57, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yang, R., & Welch, A. (2001). Internationalising Chinese universities: A study of Guangzhou. World Studies in Education, 2(1), 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Feng Li
    • 1
  • John McCormick
    • 2
  • Kerry Barnett
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Educational Research Institute, School of EducationThe University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations