Comparing Doctoral Education in China and Finland: An Institutional Logics Perspective

Abstract

This chapter explores and compares the institutional logics of Chinese and Finnish doctoral education systems through on-desk research of secondary data. Findings show that in both Chinese and Finnish doctoral education systems, there are five underlying institutional logics, namely state logic, profession logic, family logic, market logic and corporation logic; however, the differences lie in which of them are more dominant, and how they interact with each other. Findings also indicate that, to a large extent, the logics underlying Finnish and Chinese systems are compatible, and can serve as a solid foundation for developing cooperation between both countries. Based on the findings, we contend that in cooperation practice, stakeholders and practitioners in the cooperation need to be aware of the differences of logics.

“My Cross-Border PhD Journey”: A Qualitative Study on the Educational and Life Challenges of Mainland Chinese PhD Students in Hong Kong

“…When proper equity and protection for students are in shortage in the supervisory relationship, it seems easier for those from East Asian universities (e.g., China, Korea, Japan) to accept this supervisor-centered, hierarchical relationship as they are more likely to endorse traditional Confucian values [ 68 , 69 ]. However, this phenomenon is unusual in European universities (e.g., German, Finland, Luxembourg) [ 70 , 71 ]. Culture may be a significant factor that affects the supervisory relationship in the academic environment.…”

Operationalising University Excellence in Doctoral Education: The Case of Top-Ranked Russian Universities

“…Similarly, Salmi (2016) notes that several excellence initiatives provide additional funding to foster talent concentration, build favourable conditions, and develop attractive career prospects to doctoral candidates and early career academics and researchers (ECRs). Embedded into their excellence initiatives, several countries have reformed and strengthened various aspects of doctoral education structures, for example, (a) Japan has established Centres of Excellence with doctoral students working alongside top international researchers and launched national grants to create 'leading graduate schools ' (Kitagawa and Oba, 2010); (b) Malaysia has significantly increased the number of PhD holders and provided full financial support to doctoral students (Azman et al, 2016); (c) Germany has established graduate schools (of excellence) alongside new funding schemes to stimulate research education (Bloch, 2018); and (d) China has introduced monetary incentives for doctoral supervisors and students and concentrated doctoral training provision in universities rather than research institutes (Huang, 2017;Zheng et al, 2019).…”

Embarking on the postdoc journey: Unveiling Chinese doctoral graduates' expectations and experiences

“…Whilst doctoral candidates and graduates have become a major workforce for knowledge production and transfer globally (Zheng et al, 2023) and China is home to one of the largest doctoral education systems in the world, studying the employment of Chinese doctoral graduates is crucial for understanding their role in advancing scientific knowledge and contributing to global scholarship. From 2015 to 2020, this system produced approximately 290,000 doctorates, with an average employment rate of 94.01% (Luo et al, 2022).…”