Search

Bourdieu's concept of field offers an alternative explanation for the inevitable gap between policy initiative and implementation. While the existing literature mostly concentrated on the dichotomy of macro- and micro-politics in enacting education policies, the missing attention to meso-level, local governments as policy interpreters and implementers in some developing countries with a vast territory, China and Russia, for example, has hindered deeper exploration in policy studies. Adopting cross-field effects as the theoretical base and applying Bourdieu's conceptual triad as a whole, rather than considering habitus, practice, or field separately, this study examines Chinese transnational higher education (TNHE) policy enactment by subnational authorities, aiming to: first, contextualize Bourdieu's theoretical and empirical approaches in various political/economic systems while consider the policy practice at meso-level; second, demonstrate the essentiality of conversation rate and standard of capitals in field analysis; and third, based on these analyses, explore the formation of institutional habitus as a way of explaining the perennial inequality in the Chinese higher education (HE) system. The paper concludes with a theoretical reflection that Bourdieu's ever-developing definition of habitus and the criticism of his unavoidable relapse to objectivism result from the indiscriminate use of individual and institutional habitus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]