Lessons Learned

For those who are interested in what I learned while in Hong Kong, the following is a newsletter article I wrote for a nonprofit consulting firm:

Cultural Challenges to Institutional Change in Hong Kong

Almost a decade ago, Hong Kong government initiated a grand experiment. At great cost, universities are moving from a 3-year university system that favors early specialization to a 4- year system with a strong general education component. The intent is to fundamentally change the educational system in order to develop the creativity, innovation, and citizenship skills needed to sustain HK in this century. During 5 months in 2010 I was part of a group of American Fulbright scholars who worked with individual universities on the implementation of change. I share here some of the cultural challenges to change that I have encountered and some principles for approaching them.

Resonate with local values: Hong Kong is a pragmatic society. This pragmatism is built on narrow, technical specialization. General Education goals involve integration rather than specialization—societal impacts of technology; ethical implications and frameworks for making choices; the relationship between China and the world, to name of a few examples. In HK the value of general education needs to be translated. Integrative learning is about educating students for the jobs they will have over a lifetime. Specialized training becomes obsolete quickly in today’s economy. Places that continue to thrive economically are those that generate new ideas and are built on cultures of risk-taking and entrepreneurship. New ideas are often found at the boundary between bodies of knowledge.

Find ways to tell the truth while saving face: All cultures want to portray their societies and cultures in the best light. Hong Kong sits between identities. It became part of mainland China in 1997, moving toward a stronger identification with being Chinese, yet there is a great deal of ambivalence due to the PRC’s political system. On the other hand, the British colonial history also leads to feelings of ambivalence. Should the portrayal of Chinese civilization be an “idealized” view of Chinese culture? Truth-telling about oneself is difficult, but even more difficult when part of the PRC and embedded within a culture of “face-saving.” Yet exploring the complexities of identities in their diversity is an essential part of a rich general education program that develops critical thinking and self-understanding. One approach around this problem could be to focus on students’ every day experiences—gender roles historically within their families, or family histories and their connection to larger themes in Chinese history. This approach may allow for diversity of perspectives to arise, grounds the subject matter in the real lives of students, and perhaps allow some of the larger pressures to be sidestepped.

Remember that learning involves relationships: In Hong Kong, much confidence is placed in quantitative measures, whether these are teaching evaluations or university rankings. Knowledge is treated as if it is “objective” and just factual. Courses can be lists of topics rather than well-developed perspectives that form a whole. This approach leads to faculty replacing their "voice" with lists of facts. Students struggle to find the meaning in learning because it is not being modeled by faculty--the faculty cannot talk about the meaning of this material to themselves personally or share their own life journeys. Yet it is at these moments of honesty and transparency that true learning occurs on the part of both the faculty member and the student. Where does this come from? It is possible that an emphasis on social harmony encourages this tendency. Yet a good teacher must have "voice" and share something of him or herself to be effective in the classroom. On the other hand, a fine line exists between transparency and advocacy. One is grounded in sharing a life journey and the other is "telling."

Keep answering the” why” question. One of the challenges in developing a general education program in Hong Kong is the "why" question. The structure and purpose of the university system has been to train workers for employment in HK (not the world). In the past, all programs and their size had to be tied to local employment needs. No “why” question was necessary. But why a liberal a liberal arts education? Certainly it is tied to creating life-long learners who will change careers many times. But also it has always included a sense of creating global citizens, adults who can contribute to civil society and the good of the whole. The “why” question in HK needs to be answered with a new, consistent, and clear vision for higher education. The universities sit at the boundary between East and West, creating an enormous opportunity to impact China in terms of the development of its civil society, and moderate its worldview.

These are the lessons I take home: Listen to find ways to frame issues to resonate with local values. Find ways to tell the truth while allowing for face saving. Remember that relationships are crucial to learning. And always, always, keep asking the “why” question. And of course, always think big: How are you going to take advantage of your unique position to impact the world?