Higher education governance in Taiwan is facing great challenges due to low birth rates, mass expansion of higher education, and increasing global competition. Students become more heterogeneous. Universities are expected to make more significant contributions to economic and social development. Public universities are under strict scrutiny from the society. As a result, there are increasing tensions between universities and the government in leading the universities. The centralized, managerial approach of university governance is in conflict with academic freedom long valued by universities (Fullan & Scott, 2009；Kerr, 1963; Kerr & Gade, 1986; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; McLendon, 2003, 67).

The bureaucratization of university brings in internal conflict. Universities are rendered with autonomy. However, due to the centralization of decision making in university, university autonomy becomes authoritarian with a few people control the important decisions of universities. In a way, university autonomy becomes president autonomy. The impact on university governance and development is unclear. One thing for sure is that democracy is no longer the key slogan for higher education. Former Minister of Education of Taiwan, R.O.C. once said to the public that: “ There is no such thing called democracy in academic research”.

Three issues remain to be examined in higher education governance in Taiwan.  The first one is the relationship between the Ministry of Education and universities.  The second one is the internal operation of higher education. The third one is the impact of external environment on higher education management. All of these issues are related to the development of higher education institutions. It is necessary to reexamine the pattern of university governance under these new challenges.  

University presidents play important roles in leading higher education development. However, their structural positions in university governance affect their ability to lead. A university president’s structural position can be understood through the way they are recruited/hired and their position in the power structure of university governance. This paper aims to analyze the structural position of public and private university presidents and its impact on university governance in Taiwan.  Specific questions to be addressed are as follows:

1. How are the university presidents in public and private universities selected?
2. What are the power basis of university president in university governance?
3. How would the selection of university president and their position affect their governing power and the development of higher education?

Research Methods Document Review Laws and regulations, public announcements, and policy papers about university governance and president selection/recruitment were collected and analyzed. Semi-structured interview Semi-structured interview is conducted to collect answers to the research questions. Key interview questions are as follows. 1. How is the university president selected/recruited in public and private universities? 2. How would the selection/recruitment of university president affect the power basis of university president? 3. What’s the structural position of university president in university governance? What affects the ability of university president to lead in public and private universities? 4. How would the power structure of university president affect higher education development? All the interviews last for at least one hour and all the interviews are transcribed for analysis. Sample The interviewees were selected based on purposive sampling and snowball sampling. Targets of the sample includes former university presidents from public and private institutions. They were invited because they have more freedom in sharing their responses to the interview questions. The second group of interviewees are the former or current public officials from the Ministry of Education. The third group are the people who have participated in university president selection/recruitment. The fourth group of people are university scholars and administrators who have good knowledge and experiences about the research questions. A total of 54 people are interviewed. Analysis Transcriptions were analyzed according to the research questions. Key messages for each interview questions are coded followed by thick description. Similar codes are grouped together to create higher level codes.

Key findings are as follows. 1. President Selection/Recruitment (1) Public university presidents are selected by the recruitment committee. The composition of recruitment committee showed political calculation from the internal parties of the university. In some way, it works very much like the gang on the street that involves exchanges, struggles, attacks, and sometimes threats. Ministry of Education only have three seats among the recruitment committee. The whole process is very short with not enough opportunities for dialogues and deliberations, but long enough for the attacks by poison pen letter. (2) Private university presidents are hired by the Board of University. The recruitment committee is selected by the Board of University, too. In the other words, most university presidents do not have enough autonomy to lead the university. The quality of the Board of University determines the development of universities. 2. The Power Basis of University President (1) In public university, the power of the president is shared with different fractions since they are elected with the agreement and support from different fractions of the universities. (2) In private university, the power of the president is determined by the Board of University. It is quite common for the president not to have control over personnel and budget decisions. In some extreme cases, the president has responsibilities but power. 3. Impact on the Development of Higher Education (1) The development of the public universities is confined to the power fractions of the university. Presidents’ primary considerations would be the balance of power among different fractions so that he could remain on the position. (2) The development of the private universities is affected by the relationship between the Board of University and the university president as well as the quality of the Board of University.

Fullan, M. & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround Leadership for Higher Education, CA: San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Harman, G. (1992). Governance, Administration, and Finance. In B.R. Clark & G.R. Neave(eds.), The Encyclopedia of Higher Education, 1270-1293. Kerr, C., & Gade, M. (1986). The Many Lives of Academic Presidents. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2004). Meeting Today’s Governance Challenges: A Synthesis of the Literature and Examination of a Future Agenda for Scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 371-399. McLendon, M. K. (2003). State Governance Reform of Higher Education: Patterns, Trends, and Theories of the Public Policy Process, in J.C.Smart (ed.). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 18, 57-143. Rau, W.,& Baker, P. (1989). The Organized Contradictions of Academe: Barriers Facing the Next Academic Revolution. Teaching Sociology, 17(2), 161-175. Talburt, S. (2005). Ideas of a University, Faculty Governance, and Governmentality, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 20: 459-505.