In an increasingly competitive global economy driven by knowledge and innovation, higher education (HE) is critical to the success of a country. In recent decades, a range of social, economic and political factors have led to a dilemma for the HE system, where the cost of HE continues to rise in the face of tight public finances. In contrast, expectations of HE outcomes continue to rise. Policymakers and legislators are facing how to effectively use taxpayer funds to improve the productivity of HE and respond to escalating demands for accountability. PBF is a strategy to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of HE and has been one of the most crucial reform mechanisms in the last few decades. Many countries have begun to use PBF to allocate resources to HEIs.

In 2015, the Chinese government promulgated the ‘Double First-Class’ plan, which will play a leading role in the future of government funding for HE in China. The ‘Double First-Class' plan explicitly states that government funding for selected universities will dynamically adjust according to performance. More support will give to high-performing universities and less to low-performing ones. Senior and middle leaders' role in universities has become more complex in the face of the accountability pressures from PBF. The perceptions and application of PBF by academic leaders primarily affect the effectiveness of PBF implementation. Therefore, this study examines how university academic leaders perceive and respond to PBF in Mainland China's ‘Double First-Class’ universities.

This study used sense-making as the conceptual framework. Sense-making aims to create a holistic picture of the ambiguous event through three interrelated processes: creation, interpretation and enactment. First, ‘creation' can be seen as the process by which individual leaders generate their creative activities out of the practices of everyday activities that are constructed in response to changing realities. Secondly, school leaders rely on previous tools and materials from their work experience with past policies and apply them to new contexts. Through interaction with what they know and new demands, they create their interpretations of reform demands. Finally, 'policy enactment' describes educational reform as a process that is open to different interpretations. More specifically, policy enactment conveys 'the creative processes of interpretation, that is, the recontextualisation - through reading, writing, and talking - of the abstractions of policy ideas into contextualised practices'. This highlights school leaders’ active role in creatively shaping a particular policy into a specific set of circumstances.

This study adopts a qualitative approach based on the conceptual framework of sense-making. The specific research questions are as follows: (1) how do university academic leaders understand the requirements of the PBF? (2) how do university academic leaders make sense of their leadership roles by combining experience with the requirements of the PBF? (3)how can academic leaders in universities encourage and facilitate sense-making among academics in PBF?

Preliminary findings indicate that, firstly, regarding the understanding of PBF implemented by universities, most academic leaders consider the policy's requirements reasonable to a certain extent, as the cultivation of talents and doing scientific research are the work universities or academics should do. Secondly, regarding how academic leaders respond to PBF, they use their existing knowledge, values and social context to make trade-offs with policy messages. Finally, there are several ways in which academic leaders encourage and facilitate sense-making by academics. In formal settings, such as regular staff meetings, academic leaders may publicly recognise or reward high-performing academics or teams as a way of spurring low-performing ones. In informal settings, academic leaders may also take an active interest in academic performance and assist them.

This study adopted a qualitative research approach to investigate how university academic leaders understand and respond to PBF. The specific research questions are as follows. (1) How do university academic leaders understand the requirements of the PBF? (2) How do university academic leaders make sense of their leadership roles by combining experience with the requirements of the PBF? (3) How can academic leaders in universities encourage and facilitate sense-making among academics in PBF? This study interviewed 32 university academic leaders and academics in four academic areas (Physics, Social sciences, Business, and Engineering) from two ‘Double First-Class’ research universities in Mainland China. A purposive sampling method was used to select the interviewees, and semi-structured interviews were used for data collection, supplemented by some textual analysis. The data were analysed using three-level coding with the help of Nvivo12.

There are several preliminary observations. Firstly, regarding the understanding of PBF implemented by universities, most academic leaders consider the policy's requirements reasonable to a certain extent, as the cultivation of talents and doing scientific research are the work universities or academics should do. For example, an academic leader said, ‘Teaching is a job for academics and must be done well. Publishing articles and applying for projects are also good assessment indicators; otherwise, there is no better way to judge a scholar's academic level.’ Secondly, regarding how academic leaders respond to PBF, they use their existing knowledge, values and social context to make trade-offs with policy messages. For example, some academic leaders, drawing on their years of experience in academic circles, have judged the importance of 'talent' in improving performance. Therefore, with the university's resources and their personal connections, they hire academicians or Changjiang scholars at high salaries to head their disciplines, thus attracting a group of outstanding scholars and slowly forming a strong research team that brings security to the performance of the university. Finally, there are several ways in which academic leaders encourage and facilitate sense-making by academics. In formal settings, such as regular staff meetings, academic leaders may publicly recognize or reward high-performing academics or teams as a way of spurring low-performing ones. In informal settings, academic leaders may also take an active interest in academic performance and assist them. For example, an academic said, ‘Occasionally, when the Dean passed by my office, he would come in and care how my latest paper was published. Asking if I needed help or urging me to hurry up with my thesis.’

Bell, D. A. (2005).Changing organizational stories: The effects of performance-based funding on three community colleges in Florida. University of California, Berkeley. Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: Examining policy, practice and school positioning.Journal of education policy,25(4), 547-560. Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. T. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: Research literature review and policy recommendations. Community College Research Center.1-64. Favero, N., & Rutherford, A. (2020). Will the tide lift all boats? Examining the equity effects of performance funding policies in US higher education.Research in Higher Education, 61(1), 1-25. Fleming, P., & Amesbury, M. (2013).The art of middle management: A guide to effective subject, year and team leadership. Routledge. Fullan, M. (2014).The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. John Wiley & Sons. Hagood, L. P. (2019). The financial benefits and burdens of performance funding in higher education.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,41(2), 189-213. Jones, S. (2015). The game changers: Strategies to boost college completion and close attainment gaps.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,47(2), 24-29. Jacob, W. J., Neubauer, D., & Ye, H. (2018). Financing trends in Southeast Asia and Oceania: Meeting the demands of regional higher education growth.International Journal of Educational Development,58, 47-63. Koyama, J. (2014). Principals as bricoleurs: Making sense and making do in an era of accountability.Educational Administration Quarterly,50(2), 279-304. Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2015). Notice of the State Council on the Issuance of the General Plan for Coordinating the Construction of World-Class Universities and First-Class Disciplines. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xxgk/moe_1777/moe_1778/201511/t20151105_217823.html Ness, E. C., Deupree, M. M., & Gándara, D. (2015). Campus responses to outcomes-based funding in Tennessee: Robust, aligned, and contested.Final report to Tennessee Higher Education Commission and Ford Foundation. Schaller, J. Y. (2004).Performance funding in Ohio: Differences in awareness of Success Challenge between student affairs administrators and academic affairs administrators at Ohio’s public universities[Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University]. Teixeira, P., Biscaia, R., & Rocha, V. (2022). Competition for Funding or Funding for Competition? Analysing the Dissemination of Performance-based Funding in European Higher Education and its Institutional Effects.International Journal of Public Administration,45(2), 94-106. Weick, K. E. (1995).Sensemaking in organizations(Vol. 3). Sage.