I used a qualitative research method. As Creswell suggests, one important reason for conducting a qualitative study is that the study is exploratory; not much has been written about the topic, and the researcher seeks to listen to informants and to build a picture based on their ideas (Creswell, 1998, p. 21). As explained earlier, this topic remains largely
underexplored and there is a need for baseline research. My study relies on substantial new firsthand information from a large number of semi-structured in-depth interviews with
authoritative and often behind-the-scenes players, as well as firsthand observation of lobbying activities and a comprehensive survey of the existing Chinese-language studies and other relevant documents.
Importantly, my direct access to information sources has given me a unique advantage. Researchers, even those working within a Chinese university, may at times find this topic challenging due to potential conflicts of interest, while foreign researchers may lack access to the core players. I have established, over many years, close connections with leading Chinese universities, including presidents, party secretaries, vice presidents and other key personnel in major policy areas/departments. These university leaders have rich experience in dealing with the government, and are familiar with the government’s operations. Many of them have served in the government before and are expected to take senior official posts later. My interviewees have shared with me their experiences, personal insights and back stories. In addition, I have participated in some of their formal and informal meetings, including some joint meetings with government officials, which provided me with useful insights on their interactions.
In 2013, during my fieldwork to China, I visited nine national research universities in Hangzhou, Nanjing, Beijing, Shanghai, Hefei, Harbin, and Xi’an. I selected a broad range of participants from these major research universities, including some high-profile figures in the sector based on their roles, policy expertise, professional experiences, strategic visions, and direct contacts with the government officialdom and other peer universities. Besides numerous university
leaders and personnel with professional roles (executives, directors and deans), I also interviewed a number of academics and government officials.25
During personal interviews (conducted in Chinese), I made it clear to interviewees that my interest was in the university–government interaction on policies and university lobbying practices.26 Interviews tended to begin with broad generalisations about the lobbying process, but participants would invariably end up providing examples and explanations of the lobbying process and their interactions with the government (see Appendix A–Interviews).
During 20132015, I also participated in a range of policy-related meetings and activities which universities and government officials attended. Those events were valuable opportunities for me to gain firsthand insights into universitygovernment and universityuniversity
interactions, both formally and behind the scenes, and enabled me to capture some important elements of their direct interactions and behaviour, subtle changes and nuance in attitudes, tones and expressions, which are important indicators of their relationships but cannot be recorded and traced in meeting documents and minutes.
I carefully organised and analysed my interview transcripts and research notes to extract the key issues, examples and findings. I selected some interviewees’ direct quotations and
translated them from Chinese into English. According to the National Ethics Protocol in Human Research, the names of individuals and institutions I interviewed should remain anonymous. The details and identifying features of the participants and institutions in the interviews are not disclosed in any unpublished or published material resulting from this study. This anonymity not only protected their identity but also encouraged frank, open discussions. In this thesis, I cite my interviewees using general terms such as ‘interviewee’ and ‘university executive’. I also use random letters to refer to universities (in quotations and examples), and the same letter can refer to different universities.
I also read numerous documents and articles collected through a number of sources:
25 My interviewees include: senior university executives (party secretaries, university presidents, vice presidents,
and provosts); key personnel (directors for policy and planning, directors of party and government relations office (dangzhengban 党政办), directors of student admissions, directors of teaching affairs, deans of undergraduate studies, international directors, directors of president’s office, and deans of graduate studies); scholars and researchers on education policy and government administration; and former and present government officials from various central organs.
26 My interview questions included their perceptions on universities’ role and autonomy, universitygovernment
relations, current education policy issues, the political regime and government processes, their firsthand
experiences and strategies as an individual lobbyist or part of a collective lobby group, as well as their self-reflection and evaluation about their influence and outcomes (see more information in Appendix A).
official government documents on policies and statistics, including the MoE, Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST), and Ministry of Finance (MoF);
government officials’ speeches, including by national leaders and members of the State Council;
academic research papers, journals and books, in both English and Chinese languages;
newspapers, magazines and media reports, including People’s Daily and University World
News;
websites of government agencies, Chinese universities and higher education associations;
publications of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the OECD Tertiary Review of China published in 2009; and
news and minutes of university meetings, provided by universities and interviewees or organised by myself.
In addition, I include numerous examples of university lobbying practices as empirical
evidence, which are selected according to their relevance, representativeness and significance. In particular, I investigated the elite university coalition of C9 (Chapter 3). I chose this case because the C9 is the first and most significant example of a lobby group in the higher
education sector under the special Chinese political context that emerged in 2003. It is a model and first-of-its-kind experiment of collective lobbying by Chinese universities. The distinct characteristics, past behavioural patterns, and lobbying experience of the C9 group have shed light on how collective lobbying works in the system and its limitations.