The Majority Are Left Behind
Uploaded by
JohnThe Majority Are Left Behind
Uploaded by
JohnHigher Education (2024) 88:85–100
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01106-9
“The majority are left behind”: the promotion of bilingual
education 2030 policy in Taiwan and its potential to widen
horizontal inequalities
Yi‑Hsuan Irene Huang1
Accepted: 6 September 2023 / Published online: 20 September 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
English as a medium of instruction (EMI) is commonly adopted as a strategy for higher
education internationalisation. While there are numerous studies on the teaching prac-
tices of EMI programmes, the relationship between EMI and structural inequalities has
been less investigated, especially in “universal” higher education systems. To address the
research gap, this study investigates the EMI practices of two Taiwanese higher education
institutions (HEIs) under current government initiatives. Qualitative data from policy doc-
uments and semi-structured interviews are analysed with an institutional logics approach
and reflexive thematic analysis. The findings suggest that while state, managerial, and aca-
demic logics jointly shape EMI strategies in the public university case, EMI practices in
the private university of technology case are predominantly driven by market and manage-
rial logics and challenged by academic logic. Furthermore, this study reveals the structural
“stuckness” encountered by the private case. In Taiwan’s hierarchical higher education sys-
tem, the promotion of EMI could result in widening horizontal inequalities among HEIs.
More specifically, under the EMI grading certification scheme for students and the tiered
award system for HEIs, the majority may be left behind whereas the few with linguistic
capital are spotlighted. Therefore, this study concludes that in light of organisational condi-
tions, policymakers should allow greater flexibility for HEIs to develop performance indi-
cators appropriate to their students’ needs.
Keywords English as a medium of instruction · Bilingual education · Language policy ·
Higher education internationalisation · Educational inequality
Introduction
English as a medium of instruction (EMI) has become a global phenomenon in recent
decades (Kedzierski, 2016; Pulcini & Campagna, 2015). In Europe, EMI prevalence has
been attributed to the Bologna Process and Erasmus programmes (Phyak & Sah, 2022).
* Yi‑Hsuan Irene Huang
[email protected]
1
School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
86 Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100
In Asia, EMI has been regarded as a primary means to “internationalise” higher education
systems (Kedzierski, 2016). As Galloway and Rose (2015) state, internationalisation move-
ments “are inextricably linked with increasing the role of English in the university setting”
(p.230). In this context, Turkey implemented EMI in private universities following the
Higher Education Act in the 1980s to escalate its scientific competitiveness (Aslan, 2018).
Japan has also encouraged higher education institutions (HEIs) to provide EMI courses
through the Global 30 Project in 2001 and the Top Global University Project in 2014, lead-
ing to a significant increase in international students from 117,302 in 2004 to 312,214 in
2019 (Japan Student Services Organization[JASSO], 2019; Rose & McKinley, 2018). In
Korea, since the 1995 Education Reform, EMI has been applied as an internationalisation
strategy benefiting domestic and international students (Kim, 2021). While higher educa-
tion internationalisation includes cross-border and on-campus activities (Knight, 2012),
these EMI policies are believed to ease international students’ obstacles in cross-border
learning and facilitate on-campus multicultural teaching.
In this trend, Taiwan is not an exception. In 2018, the Taiwanese government announced
the Blueprint for Developing Taiwan into a Bilingual Nation by 2030, with an ambition to
make English a major language of Taiwan (Ferrer & Lin, 2021; Taiwan’s Executive Yuan,
2018). Following this policy, Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (MOE) has promoted EMI in
HEIs (Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, 2021). While there are numerous studies focusing
on EMI issues (see Doiz et al. (2012) for European and Asian contexts and Walkinshaw
et al. (2017) for Asia-Pacific studies), Taiwan is a context less discussed. In particular,
unequal access to English-taught courses is under-researched in “universal” higher educa-
tion systems such as Taiwan and Japan. In a recent review article on inequality research,
Deem et al. (2022) point out that the inequality of educational participation is less explored
through qualitative methods, with studies looking into institutional-level practices as a rela-
tively new line of inquiry. Hence, this study expects to offer critical insights into structural
inequality issues by investigating EMI strategies at national and institutional levels. More
specifically, this study highlights power and structural inequalities in Taiwan’s higher edu-
cation system that may be exacerbated through EMI.
The remaining parts of this paper are composed of five sections. It begins with a review
of the relevant literature on the relationship between EMI and social inequality. The theo-
retical framework used to identify the logics shaping government policies and institutional
EMI practices is then introduced. In the “Taiwan’s higher education system and current
internationalisation policies” section, an overview of Taiwan’s higher education system
and its current language-of-instruction policy is provided. The “Case study: EMI imple-
mentation at two Taiwanese HEIs” section presents case selection criteria and an analysis
of two Taiwanese HEIs. Policy implications and research suggestions are discussed in the
“Conclusion” section.
EMI implementation and social inequality
Since its proposal, the concentric circle model of Kachru (1985) has long-lastingly
impacted the theorisation of English diffusion. The inner circle comprises English-
speaking countries that spread English to their colonies in the outer circle. In this situ-
ation, outer-circle countries, such as Singapore and India, generally recognise English
as their second language. In this model, Taiwan is situated in the expanding circle
where English is a foreign language (Kachru, 1990). In the context that English has
13
Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100 87
become a lingua franca under neoliberal trends, an exuberant boost of English educa-
tion in the expanding circle has been witnessed. With globalisation, “Englishisation”
has facilitated the development of a global knowledge economy and borderless talent
mobility (De Wit, 2011). Nevertheless, it simultaneously reinforces “English linguis-
tic imperialism”, which represents the cultural and structural inequalities between the
dominant English and other languages (Aslan, 2018; Phillipson, 2015).
In recent decades, the internationalisation of higher education (IoHE) has been a
significant driving force of EMI prevalence (Hu et al., 2014; Rose & McKinley, 2018).
A widely accepted definition regards EMI as “the use of the English language to teach
academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the
first language of the majority of the population is not English” (Macaro et al., 2018,
p. 37). In East Asia, “English medium” is almost considered synonymous with “inter-
nationalisation” and will not only attract international students but also create inter-
national-like experiences for domestic students (Rose et al., 2022; Rose & McKinley,
2018). As Kedzierski (2016) suggests, the prevalence of EMI in this region is estab-
lished on a neoliberal imaginary that presumes “a chain of equivalence between eco-
nomic prosperity, modernisation, social mobility and proficiency in English” (p. 385).
In this situation, the benefits of EMI are strongly envisaged.
However, English may serve as a gatekeeper for social mobility. Based on the
Chinese context, Hu et al. (2014) reveal that with higher tuition fees and admission
requirements, EMI programmes strengthen English as a linguistic capital exclusively
accessible to those with better socioeconomic resources. In South Korea, Choi (2021)
finds that EMI promotion exacerbates socioeconomic polarisation and social strati-
fication among university students with varied English proficiency. Similarly, Sahan
(2021) argues that social disparities have been widened as EMI courses are primarily
offered in elite Turkish universities. Therefore, instead of fostering social mobility as
imagined, EMI programmes may, in contrast, consolidate social structures by increas-
ing linguistic capital and positional goods to certain social groups.
Nevertheless, if EMI only benefits certain social groups at others’ cost, how are
such policies legitimated? In conformity with Kedzierski (2016), Price (2014) shows
that neoliberal discourses, though in fact favour language education providers, serve
to legitimise English language education in Taiwan. Especially in this post-Confucian
society, the responsibility for education lies primarily with individuals and families
(Marginson, 2013). In this situation, neoliberal discourses assuming that English pro-
ficiency will lead to promising educational and career prospects may further natural-
ise the existing social order. Among the few literature reflecting on this controversial
belief, most are grounded on either national policy reviews (Ferrer & Lin, 2021; Li
et al., 2021) or a single case study (Graham et al., 2021).
Adding to these critical reflections, this study aims to contribute to a deeper under-
standing of the relationship between current EMI initiatives and the persisting social
structure. In this way, I echo the call of Bowles and Murphy (2020) for “more political
economic studies of university-based populations with a focus on the presumed socio-
economic benefits of EMI” (p. 21). While national policies are primarily dominated by
neoliberal discourses, it is necessary to investigate organisational practices in order to
identify the embodiment, coexistence, and interactions of multiple forces. Hence, this
study utilises an institutional logics approach to examine the ideological debates on
Taiwan’s EMI implementation.
13
88 Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100
Analytical framework: the institutional logics approach
Institutional logics are “the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices,
assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their
material subsistence, organise time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality”
(Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). This definition reveals that institutional logics are con-
stituted by both material and symbolic elements. More specifically, the material basis refers
to social structures and actors’ corresponding practices, and the symbolic aspect relates to
the ideas and meanings constructed in a particular sociocultural context (Thornton et al.,
2012). With such contextual awareness, this approach is flexible for analysing language-of-
instruction policies, which are highly context-dependent.
Following Thornton and Ocasio’s (2008) typology, four logics potentially influence
Taiwan’s EMI implementation: market, managerial, academic, and state logics. In mar-
ket logic, students are consumers, while universities are the marketers competing to pro-
vide educational products. In this context, universities tend to engage in market-oriented
decisions in order to dominate significant market positions (Rhoades et al., 2019). Further-
more, managerial logic represents intra-organisational changes that universities are “cor-
porate actors oriented towards market competition and that performance should be man-
aged through a well-defined hierarchy, where authority rests on the top management and it
is legitimised by hierarchical relationship” (Canhilal et al., 2016, p. 177). The third logic,
academic logic, highlights HEIs’ role in producing and disseminating knowledge. In this
logic, professional knowledge and personal expertise are the primary sources of institu-
tional legitimacy (Thornton et al., 2012). A university’s status is evaluated by its reputation
among peers and the quality of research and teaching. Lastly, state logic can be character-
ised as generating resource distribution and increasing public welfare through democratic
participation and bureaucratic domination (Thornton et al., 2012).
With this theoretical framework and based on empirical evidence, this study aims to
address the following questions:
1. What are the underlying logics shaping EMI strategies at governmental and institutional
levels?
2. How may EMI strategies affect Taiwan’s hierarchical higher education system?
Taiwan’s higher education system and current internationalisation
policies
Taiwan has a dual-track system, including academic and polytechnical education. The for-
mer institutions are universities, whereas the latter are universities of technology. To meet
the market’s demand for skilled labour, Taiwan’s higher education system was expanded in
the 1980s. This expansion, mainly realised through technical colleges upgrading into uni-
versities of technology, transformed the system into a “universal” stage. Currently, Taiwan
has 148 HEIs hosting a total of 1.18 million students, with an enrolment rate of over 80%
(Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, 2022).
Since the 2000s, IoHE has become a focus of government policies (Chan, 2021). Not-
ing the severe shortage of domestic students due to low birth rates, international student
recruitment has been prioritised in Taiwan’s internationalisation approach (Ma, 2014).
13
Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100 89
Under this collective objective, the government introduced policies for different HEIs. The
Top University and Excellent Research Centre Project (ATUP, 2006–2015) was announced
to support 12 research universities, mainly public ones, to become “world-class” universi-
ties (Tang, 2019). Meanwhile, 31 public and private HEIs were funded by the Programme
for Promoting Teaching Excellence of Universities to enhance their teaching practices.
According to Lo (2009), these policies facilitated not only horizontal diversification but
also vertical stratification of Taiwanese HEIs. A hierarchical system was established, with
the 12 public research universities on the top, universities funded for teaching excellence at
the second tier, and most universities, mainly private ones, at the lower tier.
On this basis, there are currently three major policies for IoHE. First, considering Tai-
wan’s geopolitical challenges, the New Southbound Policy (NSP) was launched by the Tsai
Ing-wen government in 2016. Since the Tsai government holds a more pro-independence
attitude, tensions have intensified between Taiwan and mainland China (Li & Zhang,
2017). While mainland China is Taiwan’s largest trading partner, the Tsai administration
has sought alternative opportunities in Asia-Pacific to compensate for the economic losses
and enhance Taiwan’s geopolitical position. Against this backdrop, a major goal of NSP
is to recruit international students from the target countries, namely, Southeast and South
Asia, New Zealand, and Australia.
Furthermore, in 2018, the government announced the Higher Education SPROUT Pro-
ject (HESP). This new competitive grant funds all public and private HEIs to improve
teaching quality and enhance local connectedness. In addition, 23 of them are given extra
funding for pursuing international excellence, such as establishing “world-class” research
centres and increasing Taiwan’s global visibility (Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, 2018).
Compared to the previous ATUP, in which 12 research universities received 85% of the
government’s annual funding, the 23 globally target HEIs in HESP only share 65% of the
total funding (Chang, 2021). In this situation, Hou et al. (2020) argue that Taiwan’s higher
education policies have transformed from elitism to egalitarianism. However, to what
extent the established hierarchical structure would be flattened remains questionable, espe-
cially under the most recently launched EMI policy. As a language-of-instruction policy,
the Programme on Bilingual Education for Students in College (BEST) has been imple-
mented since 2021. The role of EMI in internationalising Taiwan’s higher education sector
is explicitly stated in the policy paper,
by using English as a medium of instruction to assist universities and colleges in
pushing forward “EMI” on a certain level of English proficiency, so as to build a
bilingual teaching and learning environment for universities and colleges, and in
turns improve the English proficiency of students in higher education and the inter-
national competitiveness of universities in Taiwan. (Taiwan’s Ministry of Education,
2021, p. 2)
More specifically, the government aims to realise these objectives through four strategies:
focused development, generalised enhancement, bilingual talent recruitment, and sharing and
collaboration (Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, 2021). The first strategy, focused development,
selects four flagship universities and 41 flagship colleges in 25 HEIs as the role models. It antici-
pates that by 2030, at least 50% of sophomores and first-year master’s degree students in these
HEIs will take half of their credits in English. Given that the percentage of EMI courses in Tai-
wanese HEIs was less than 5% (Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, 2021), this policy goal seems
challenging. The second strategy, generalised enhancement, funds 37 HEIs to improve students’
and staff’s English proficiency and enhance the English learning environment. The third strategy
13
90 Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100
aims to recruit 500 international teachers with English teaching abilities by 2030. The fourth
strategy is establishing regional EMI centres to facilitate collaborations among HEIs.
With these strategies, the impacts of managerial and state logics are manifested. For
one thing, managerial logic is embodied as a top-down process is adopted to select suitable
HEIs, with a clear set of key performance indicators (KPIs) and an accountability system
for those funded. Under this logic, the government aims to ensure the efficiency of finan-
cial resources and hence concentrate funding on those HEIs with more desirable conditions
for achieving policy goals. For another, as the mass private education sector is included,
it indicates the government’s role in distributing financial resources and ensuring overall
teaching quality under state logic. Since all four flagship universities establish regional
EMI centres, they share the government’s responsibility to upgrade local EMI practices
and facilitate nation-building. In this way, the Taiwanese government is striking a balance
between selective elitism and the overall enhancement of the system.
Nevertheless, the BEST causes heated debates. While some scholars act positively and
consider the difficulties as temporary and necessary for transforming Taiwan’s higher edu-
cation system (Liu et al., 2022), others are vehemently opposed to EMI promotion and cri-
tique it as “the fantasy of bilingual nation” (Liao et al., 2022). For instance, Ferrer and Lin
(2021) point out that although the BEST is officially claimed as a bilingual policy, English
is central to the policy document as the other language is not explicitly defined. Such an
“Englishisation” ambition not only ignores Taiwan’s multilingual nature but also narrows
the scope of internationalisation with an excessive focus on English proficiency (Gallo-
way et al., 2020). In this situation, without careful design, the Englishisation of teaching
practices may be a self-colonising process and oppress local cultures and epistemologies
(Phyak & Sah, 2022).
Moreover, while closely examining the policy reasoning, the BEST highlights the role
of higher education in serving industrial interests by expecting students to “even follow
the labour migrant inside the global market in response to the industrial deployment in
Taiwan” (Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, 2021, pp. 1–2). In other words, EMI is valued
for “strengthening Taiwan’s industrial competitiveness, providing people with quality job
opportunities, and elevating Taiwan’s economic development” (p. 3).
Here, the impact of market logic is demonstrated. In the context of reducing overre-
liance on mainland China and exploring non-Mandarin alternatives under the NSP, EMI
promotion can not only cultivate domestic talents for industries but also alleviate the barri-
ers to international students studying in Taiwan. It is therefore not surprising to identify the
significant impact of neoliberal ideology and geopolitical concerns on Taiwan’s approach
to higher education internationalisation.
Furthermore, how funds are distributed under the BEST policy should be noted to
understand the interaction of EMI implementation and the existing hierarchical structure.
According to Table 1, all four flagship schools are public, top-ranked, and research univer-
sities. Besides these four universities, the 25 HEIs funded to establish flagship colleges are
eight public universities, 14 private universities, and three public universities of technol-
ogy. None of them is a private university of technology. Regarding the 37 HEIs funded for
generalised enhancement, 14 are public universities, ten are private universities, seven are
public universities of technology, and six are private universities of technology.
This table shows a highly imbalanced distribution of government grants among
different types of HEIs. Public universities, hosting 26.6% of all tertiary students,
are continuously favoured by policies, as 26 out of 32 are funded. On the one hand,
13
Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100 91
Table 1 Funding status of Taiwanese HEIs under the BEST
Type Number of Percentages Number of Number of HEIs being rewarded
students HEIs
Flagship Flagship Generalised
schools colleges enhancement
University Public 315,855 26.6% 32 4 8 14
Private 324,815 27.4% 38 0 14 10
University Public 138,212 11.6% 15 0 3 7
of Tech- Private 407,673 34.4% 63 0 0 6
nology
Total 1,186,555 100% 148 4 25 37
Source: organised by the author from the database of the Department of Statistics, Taiwan’s Ministry of
Education (https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED4500/Default.aspx)
only six of the 63 private technology universities receive funding for promoting EMI
courses. Furthermore, none of the six HEIs is a flagship school or college. While flag-
ship schools and colleges are set as role models for other HEIs, the differences in
organisational contexts should be noticed. Meanwhile, the funding amount for different
HEIs varies greatly, with the four flagship universities receiving 62.5 million NTD per
year on average, and the funding for generalised enhancement HEIs ranges from one to
three million.
Under the current funding structure, the existing “horizontal inequalities”, namely,
the stratification within the higher education level, may be widened. In Taiwan, the
academic track has a higher status than the technical path, with a few top public uni-
versities of technology as exceptions (Tsai & Shavit, 2007). Yu and Chen (2022)
further clarify that, in general, public universities are highly selective and dominate
higher statuses. Through national standardised examinations, these universities con-
sistently and legitimately recruit high-SES students (Smith et al., 2016).
Although Taiwan has a “universal” higher education system, the educational expan-
sion mainly increases the chances of middle- and low-SES students to enter private
universities and the technical track. This highlights the different nature of Taiwan’s
HE system compared to Anglophone countries, where private HEIs are generally elite
institutes. Furthermore, what worsens these students’ position is that they pay higher
tuition fees while attending HEIs with lower selectivity and statuses (Yu & Chen,
2022). According to Taiwan’s Ministry of Education (2022), the range of public HEIs’
tuition fees is 2784–3998 USD, while it is 3832–7520 USD for private HEIs. In other
words, the highest fee for students in public universities is almost equal to the lowest
fee for their cohorts in private universities.
Considering the correlated differentiation of HEIs and students’ backgrounds, this study
claims that the unequal distribution of government funding for EMI may exacerbate the
“hidden” horizontal inequalities in this hierarchical system. While HESP is believed to be
designed with an egalitarian intention as mentioned earlier (Hou et al., 2020), BEST may
show an elaborate return to elitism in which private HEIs are included but funding is largely
allocated to public top-ranked HEIs. The actual situation of such horizontal inequalities is
further deliberated in the following case study of two cases.
13
92 Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100
Case study: EMI implementation at two Taiwanese HEIs
In addition to policy analysis, this study adopts a multiple case study design to answer the
how and why questions at the institutional level (Yin, 2018). A maximum variation sam-
pling technique is used to select the cases. This technique emphasises case heterogeneity
in order to construct a holistic understanding of the shared or unique patterns (Suri, 2011).
As reviewed above, institutional differences between public/private and academic/technical
HEIs under current policies can be expected. Therefore, a public university (case A) and a
private university of technology (case B) are chosen. Case A is funded as a flagship univer-
sity, and case B is supported for generalised enhancement. Although Taiwan’s HE system
has undergone decentralisation, HEIs tend to follow government guidance closely under a
post-Confucian tradition (Marginson, 2013). Hence, both cases have established a Centre
for Bilingual Education (CBE) to implement EMI strategies effectively.
Case A is a comprehensive top-ranked public university with over 20,000 students,
including more than 1000 exchange students and approximately 2000 international degree
students. In 2021, over 10% of the courses in case A were taught in English. To encourage
academic staff to deliver EMI courses, case A has provided incentives such as increasing
hourly fees, giving a one-time award, and training EMI teacher assistants. On the other
hand, case B is a private university of technology with more than 8000 students, including
approximately 200 exchange students and over 800 international degree students. Follow-
ing the BEST, case B started providing EMI courses in 2021. To ensure students’ accept-
ance of English-taught courses, case B currently delivers less than ten courses and will
increase gradually. Regarding incentives, the CBE of case B increases hourly fees for lec-
turers and offers scholarships to students taking EMI courses.
To understand their EMI practices, semi-structured interviews were conducted with aca-
demic staff and administrative leaders, such as the Director of the Office of International
Affairs, in the two cases. Documents on their EMI strategies, including annual plans, press
releases, and public information on websites, were collected to further contextualise the
analysis. In total, 15 interviews were conducted, with 7 in case A and 8 in case B.
Based on a reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021, 2022), three themes are
identified for interviews and documentation: the necessity and appropriateness of EMI,
realistic considerations, and structural stuckness. The cases are compared with a method
of difference in which their varied organisational tributes are regarded as the source of
variation (Rohlfing, 2012). As interaction effects are inevitable in real-world research, this
paper strives to describe case contexts adequately while presenting the results.
The necessity and appropriateness of EMI
Interviewees from both cases raised questions about the top-down EMI implementation.
Nevertheless, their focuses differ nuancedly. While academic staff from case B questioned
the necessity of EMI, their cohorts from case A generally agreed with the necessity but
challenged the appropriateness of such an initiative. More specifically, similar to the rel-
evant literature (Chang, 2022; Lin, 2020), interviewees from case B expressed concerns
about teaching quality and learning outcomes (B-4, B-6, B-7, B-8). Their attribution
confirms the existence of structural inequalities. For one thing, many students of case B
come from low-SES backgrounds (B-2, B-3, B-5, B-7, B-8) and can hardly afford the rel-
evant cost of EMI courses, such as English textbooks. As an EMI lecturer said,
13
Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100 93
English textbooks are expensive. In fact, thanks to the Ministry of Education’s grant,
the school has done well to subsidise students to buy English textbooks. However,
students still have to pay part of the cost, so they are less willing to buy textbooks. In
this situation, complete and systematic learning is lacking. (B-7)
For another, most students chose the vocational education track because they struggled
in subjects like English and Chinese (B-4, B-6, B-7). In this context, promoting EMI in
case B might be challenging. Some lecturers pointed out that EMI courses were delivered
at nearly half the pace of Chinese-taught courses (B-6, B-7). As a lecturer stated,
EMI is about teaching subject content, not English......but in Taiwan, the English
skills of students in the technical education system must first be improved. So, I have
a question: Is EMI really what we need? (B-6)
These opinions showed the interviewees’ hesitation in promoting EMI at case B in con-
sideration of students’ financial conditions and linguistic abilities. In this situation, EMI
strategies were less legitimated and raised academic worries.
On the other hand, informants in case A showed high conformity on the necessity of
EMI (A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5). As a top-ranked research university, informants expected
their students to become the bridge between Taiwan and the world (A-1, A-4). From an
instrumentalist perspective, high English proficiency is necessary to realise this goal. Fur-
thermore, over 60% of the academic staff at case A have doctorates from English-speak-
ing countries. Interviewees also mentioned that their students had high English scores in
national standardised examinations (A-1, A-4, A-6). This not only confirms the high selec-
tivity nature of public universities (Smith et al., 2016; Tsai & Shavit, 2007; Yu & Chen,
2022) but also rationalises EMI implementation in case A with such favourable conditions.
Nevertheless, some informants challenged the appropriateness of EMI strategies. For
instance, a department head mentioned the issue of interdisciplinary differences:
Take the Department of History as an example. If we have to explain the connota-
tions of the Mazu faith, it may be preferable for both students and teachers to use the
common language of Taiwan, Chinese, to teach it. Using English to discuss Taiwan’s
development or beliefs would be strange, especially when the target audience is Tai-
wanese students. (A-4)
Here, from academic logic, the localness of knowledge and academic autonomy are
highlighted in consideration of teaching effectiveness. While EMI is promoted by admin-
istrative leaders holding managerial values, academic staff expect a flexible and bottom-
up approach to enable locally tailored implementation. It aligns with scholars’ beliefs that
grounded policy-making processes can inform better EMI practices (Phyak & Sah, 2022;
Rose et al., 2022).
Another issue is ensuring the quality of EMI courses and keeping students motivated
(A-5, A-6). As a linguistic professor suggested,
Even if students know that this is an important compulsory subject, their motivation
may be reduced because they do not understand the content in English very well. If
this happens every week, one can imagine that students’ learning would be worse.
(A-6)
In addition, national examinations related to many disciplines, such as lawyers and pub-
lic servants, are still conducted in Chinese (A-4). In a practical consideration of examina-
tion preparation, this may reduce students’ willingness to take EMI courses. To sum up,
13
94 Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100
driven by academic logic, faculty members at case A are concerned with better teaching
practices that suit their students’ needs rather than achieving government-mandated KPIs
(A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7).
Realistic considerations
While the previous theme revealed some concerns about EMI practices, this theme dis-
cusses why these case universities respond to this challenging policy. For case A, the
administrative executives suggested that internationalisation is a primary reason. As the
university’s mission is to become “a great university in Asia”, establishing English-taught
programmes and recruiting more global talents are necessary. In this situation, a leader of
international affairs reported that
We know that bilingual education is an almost unachievable goal, but it is worth a
try. …… As the government promotes this policy, we can use it to provide students
with more English-taught courses and a better bilingual environment. The university
may not have had additional resources to do this, or departments may not have felt it
was something they should do. However, with the resources brought by this policy,
we can now take the opportunity to internationalise ourselves further. (A-2)
For case A, the BEST provides a valuable framework for motivating departmental
actions. As a public flagship university, the role of case A in cultivating domestic talents
and contributing to nation-building is generally agreed upon by informants. It was evi-
denced by the belief of several academic staff that EMI should be not only for international
student recruitment but, more importantly, for domestic student empowerment (A-4, A-5).
In the context that nation-building and talent cultivation are pursued in a top-down manner,
the underlying mechanism of EMI implementation in case A can be concluded as “collec-
tively shaped by state, managerial, and academic logics”.
On the other hand, as presented above, students in case B have lower English proficiency
and may face difficulties in EMI courses. In this context, international student recruitment
is an important reason for its EMI practices (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-7). Currently, this
university attracts mainly overseas Chinese students and Vietnamese students. However, it
aims to explore higher education markets in Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia and Thai-
land. As a former leader of international affairs suggested,
EMI will contribute to the recruitment of international students. We have been
approached by many countries, such as Indonesia and India, about sending their
students here. However, these students need English-taught courses as they cannot
speak Chinese. With the BEST, we will be able to accept more international students.
The composition of international students will be more diverse and will no longer be
limited to specific countries. (B-7)
With a similar consideration, another leader valued the BEST for teacher training:
A key aspect of bilingual education is that we can train teachers with English teach-
ing capacity, which I consider meaningful for internationalisation. This policy will
identify teachers capable of teaching in English so that if international students come
and need English-taught courses, we can provide them. (B-4)
These arguments support case B’s use of EMI courses as a strategy for meeting the
needs of overseas markets, confirming the power of market logic. Even though EMI may
13
Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100 95
not fit most domestic students’ learning needs, this policy benefits the university in a realis-
tic way. Under such a market consideration, the EMI implementation at case B can be sum-
marised as “collectively driven by market and managerial logics despite being challenged
by academic logic”.
Structural “stuckness”
In addition to the abovementioned issues, more critically, this study identifies the structural
“stuckness” of private universities of technology and their students. In Taiwan, case B is a
private university of technology with a great domestic reputation. The president stressed
that pursuing international rankings is not their goal (B-1). Instead, this university empha-
sises collaborations with local and overseas companies and ensures its students graduate
with the necessary employability. Such a decision may be a result of market segmentation
and, simultaneously, a reflection of structural “stuckness”.
Considering market segmentation, it is reasonable for universities of technology to pro-
vide practical-oriented education that fits markets’ needs. However, students in private uni-
versities of technology typically have less proficiency in English than their cohorts in other
types of HEIs (Hsu, 2010). As a senior leader suggested,
Students in technical universities and colleges are relatively weak in English, so we
have to select the most suitable students for our EMI courses by data. The Language
Centre keeps records of students’ English ability information, so we can find the
right students to take the courses. (B-3)
Since the government suggests that students taking EMI courses should have CEFR B2
or above levels of English proficiency, case B applies a corresponding selective process.
However, while the BEST suggests a tiered degree certification marking students’ credits
from EMI courses, it may further label and stratify students. In the government-proposed
“EMI Level Certification” scheme, students’ performance in EMI learning is rewarded by
five levels. EMI level 1 to EMI level 5 represent that students have completed more than
12.5%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of their graduate credits from EMI courses, respectively
(Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, 2021). In a credential society, certifications are deemed
evidence for students’ competencies and differentiate their competitive position (Collins,
2019). In this context, such a system could not only define students with better English
ability as the winners but, more crucially, worsen the competitive position of those without
an EMI certification. In particular, the “EMI Level Certification” scheme can further strat-
ify students in the same types of HEIs in addition to the previously mentioned structural
disparities among different HEIs.
While the BEST aims to “select outstanding schools with international competitiveness,
transform them into bilingual beacon schools, and cultivate specialized bilingual talents in
professional fields to serve as the models for domestic universities and colleges in promot-
ing bilingual education” (Taiwan’s Ministry of Education, 2021, p. 14), an EMI lecturer at
case B commented on this policy objective:
Very often, universities have put much effort into the framework set by the govern-
ment, which tells us that there are several good examples and let us keep going!
However, we seem to ignore the other 90% or 95% of cases. (B-6)
From a systemic perspective, the BEST policy may be further stratifying HEIs accord-
ing to their varied funding statuses, from flagship schools and colleges, generalised
13
96 Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100
establishment HEIs, to those without grants. In the meantime, at the individual level, the
“EMI Level Certification” scheme may differentiate students’ positional goods, from stu-
dents who graduate with different levels of EMI certification to those without one. In other
words, the way the BEST has been crafted may “force” all HEIs and students with unequal
starting points onto the same battlefield, exacerbating “horizontal inequalities”. Since pri-
vate universities of technology hosted 34.4% of domestic students in 2021 (Table 1), the
neglected majority may be left and “stuck” behind.
Conclusion
This study reports varied reasons for the government and the two case HEIs to promote
EMI. At the government level, the BEST policy is strongly guided by market logic and
co-shaped by state and managerial logics. For the public research university, EMI has been
viewed as an effective strategy for IoHE with the support of government funding. In this
case, EMI is driven by managerial, state, and academic logics collectively. On the other
hand, for the private university of technology, EMI is generated by managerial and market
logics despite being challenged by academic logic. In addition to the progressive increase
in EMI courses for domestic students, the main reason for its efforts is to meet the needs
of overseas markets and international students. In this view, EMI is valued for institutional
financial sustainability and market competitiveness in this case.
Furthermore, while the inequality of access to higher education is a common research
topic, this study sheds light on horizontal inequalities in “universal” higher education sys-
tems that have not been adequately investigated. Based on a case study of two Taiwanese
HEIs, this study suggests that as public universities have more resources to provide EMI
courses, it may increase their students’ positional goods and worsen the competitive status
of students from other types of HEIs. This study regards such exacerbation and widen-
ing of horizontal inequalities as structural stuckness, reflecting the dilemma encountered
by HEIs with a lower position in the hierarchical system (Lo, 2009). In particular, as evi-
denced by the interviews, students in private universities of technology may typically come
from lower SES, pay higher tuition fees, and be less proficient in English (Hsu, 2010; Yu &
Chen, 2022). This fact should be carefully considered by policymakers.
In line with Phillipson (2015), this study reveals that “language policy plays a crucial
role in the societal structures and practices that consolidate dominance and subordination”
(p.22). Such consolidation exists in both international competition and national systems.
The role of English as a gatekeeper of social selectivity in national systems may be sig-
nificant. In Taiwan’s context, due to limited resources, EMI courses may be implemented
hastily and selectively without preparing students and teachers well. While the government
subsidises the chosen HEIs for EMI programmes, it, intentionally or unintentionally, cre-
ates the monolingual supremacy of English and deepens the disparity between those who
possess linguistic capital and those who do not. In this situation, the BEST may demon-
strate an elaborate return to elitist intentions from the egalitarian foundation established by
the current government.
Based on these arguments, two suggestions are made for policymakers. First, given
that Taiwan is a multilingual society, the government should ensure students’ compe-
tence in both national and international languages. A recent book focusing on EMI
and IoHE also claims that policies could “include local languages and cultures in a
13
Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100 97
more explicit way, in order to acknowledge the diversity which is an intrinsic fea-
ture of internationalization and provide students with a more realistic global outlook”
(Bowles & Murphy, 2020, pp. 20–21). Although some Taiwanese universities, such
as National Taiwan Normal University, subsidise lecturers for delivering courses in
national languages, their impact is far less than that of government initiatives. As a
society in the expanding circle (Kachru, 1990), an English-friendly environment may
be more desirable than promoting a bilingual future. Meanwhile, since the policy
document reflects an instrumentalist viewpoint of EMI, academic staff in both cases
pointed out an overlook of intercultural competencies. There is a need to give lec-
turers a sufficient policy timeframe to redesign EMI courses incorporating local and
international knowledge.
Second, the two cases in this study reflect considerable differences in organisational
conditions resulting from perpetuating role differentiation and structural inequalities.
In particular, although government-set KPIs for generalised enhancement schools are
lower, several practical difficulties of EMI implementation are still reflected by inform-
ants from case B. Some informants claim that English for Specific Purposes (ESP) or
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) may be more needed than EMI. Hence, consid-
ering contextual variations, HEIs should be allowed greater flexibility to develop KPIs
appropriate to their students’ needs. Meanwhile, while including private HEIs in the
funding scheme demonstrates an egalitarian spirit in Taiwan’s context, the funding allo-
cation may be redesigned to further reduce structural inequalities.
Since Taiwan is in the preliminary stages of promoting EMI, more empirical
research is needed. As this study only investigates EMI in two types of HEIs, further
research could explore EMI practices in public universities of technology and private
universities. Furthermore, since the application of an institutional logics approach is
still insufficient in non-western settings (Lounsbury et al., 2021), this study engages
in theoretical development by utilising it empirically. It is vital to demonstrate the
specificity of non-Western cultures and governance systems to avoid epistemologi-
cal self-colonisation. Following the call of Cai and Mountford (2021), future studies
are encouraged to apply this framework to higher education research fields, such as
English language teaching or internationalisation (e.g., Qi, 2022). Finally, by using an
institutional logics approach, this study focuses more on reasoning and explaining the
driving forces of EMI practices. Further research may investigate and theorise the pol-
icy outcomes of different HEIs based on the underlying logics identified in this study.
Studies may also interview policymakers to understand their considerations of award
distribution.
In this study, I advance the discussion on EMI implementation and structural ine-
qualities by linking governmental- and institutional-level discourses. Drawing on the
findings, I echo Choi’s (2021) caution regarding “the complicit role of EMI that might
perpetuate and accentuate a class-based English divide and its inherent equalities” (p.
11). When the Taiwanese government is promoting EMI in HEIs with positive inten-
tions, it is imperative to look beyond the achievement of quantifiable KPIs and rethink
the substantive impact of the policy on HEIs and students.
Data Availability The data are not publicly available in order to protect interviewees’ privacy.
Declarations
Competing interests The author declares no competing interests.
13
98 Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Aslan, M. (2018). The debate on English-medium instruction and globalisation in the Turkish context: A
sociopolitical perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(7), 602–616.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1417413
Bowles, H., & Murphy, A. C. (2020). EMI and the internationalization of universities: An overview. In H.
Bowles & A. C. Murphy (Eds.), English-medium Instruction and the Internationalization of Universi-
ties (pp. 1–26). Palgrave Macmillan.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive
thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psycho-
therapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis : A practical guide. Sage.
Cai, Y., & Mountford, N. (2022). Institutional logics analysis in higher education research. Studies in Higher
Education, 47(8), 627–1651. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1946032
Canhilal, S. K., Lepori, B., & Seeber, M. (2016). Decision-making power and institutional logic in higher
education institutions: A comparative analysis of European universities. In M. Lounsbury, R. Pinheiro,
F. O. Ramirez, K. Vrangbaek, & L. Geschwind (Eds.), Towards a comparative institutionalism: Forms,
dynamics and logics across the organizational fields of health care and higher education (pp. 169–
194). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20150000045019
Chan, S.-J. (2021). Internationalization and universities in Taiwan: Policies, practices, and prospects. In A.
Y.-C. Hou, T.-L. Chiang, & S.-J. Chan (Eds.), Higher education in Taiwan: Global, political and social
challenges and future trends (pp. 103–121). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4554-2
Chang, D.-F. (2021). Taiwan’s higher education policy: From neoliberalism to public goods In A. In Y.-C.
Hou, T.-L. Chiang, & S.-J. Chan (Eds.), Higher education in Taiwan: Global, political and social chal-
lenges and future trends (pp. 49–62). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4554-2
Chang, S.-Y. (2023). English medium instruction for whom and for what? Rethinking the language-content
relationship in higher education. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 36(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07908318.2022.2104304
Choi, L. J. (2021). English as an important but unfair resource: University students’ perception of English
and English language education in South Korea. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13562517.2021.1965572
Collins, R. (2019). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. Columbia
University Press.
De Wit, H. (2011). Globalisation and internationalisation of higher education. RUSC, 8(2), 241–247.
Deem, R., Case, J. M., & Nokkala, T. (2022). Researching inequality in higher education: Tracing changing
conceptions and approaches over fifty years. Higher Education, 84(6), 1245–1265. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10734-022-00922-9
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2012). English-medium instruction at universities: Global chal-
lenges. Springer.
Ferrer, A., & Lin, T.-B. (2021). Official bilingualism in a multilingual nation: A study of the 2030 bilingual
nation policy in Taiwan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-13. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01434632.2021.1909054
Galloway, N., Numajiri, T., & Rees, N. (2020). The ‘internationalisation’, or ‘Englishisation’, of higher edu-
cation in East Asia. Higher Education, 80(3), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00486-1
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing global Englishes. Routledge.
Graham, K. M., Pan, W. Y., & Eslami, Z. R. (2021). A critique of Taiwan’s bilingual education policy
through a road-mapping of teacher experiences. Current Issues in Language Planning, 22(5), 516–534.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2021.1884434
13
Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100 99
Hou, A. Y. C., Hill, C., Hu, Z., & Lin, L. (2022). What is driving Taiwan government for policy change in
higher education after the year of 2016–in search of egalitarianism or pursuit of academic excellence?
Studies in Higher Education, 47(2), 338–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1744126
Hsu, H.-F. (2010). The impact of implementing English proficiency tests as a graduation requirement at Tai-
wanese universities of technology [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of York.
Hu, G., Li, L., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction at a Chinese University: Rhetoric and reality.
Language Policy, 13(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-013-9298-3
Japan Student Services Organization[JASSO]. (2019). Result of an annual survey of international students
in Japan 2019. https://www.studyinjapan.go.jp/
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer
circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world (pp. 11–30). Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1), 3–20.
Kedzierski, M. (2016). English as a medium of instruction in East Asia’s higher education sector: A
critical realist cultural political economy analysis of underlying logics. Comparative Education,
52(3), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2016.1185269
Kim, S. (2021). Internationalization of Korean higher education (1945-2018) : A success story. In J.
Thondhlana, E. C. Garwe, H. de Wit, A. Gacel, J. Vila, F. Huang, & W. Tamrat (Eds.), The Blooms-
bury Handbook of the Internationalization of Higher Education in the Global South (1st ed., pp.
79–99). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350139275.ch-007
Knight, J. (2012). In D. K. Deardorff, H. D. Wit, J. D. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), Concepts, rationales,
and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education (pp. 27–42). The SAGE
handbook of international higher education. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218397
Li, Y., & Zhang, E. (2017). Changing Taiwanese identity and cross-strait relations: A post 2016 Taiwan
presidential election analysis. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 22(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11366-016-9452-9
Li, Y.-C., Lingard, B., Reyes, V., & Sellar, S. (2023). Performative bilingual policy: An analysis of two
Taiwanese white papers on international education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and Inter-
national Education, 53(2), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2021.1889359
Liao, H.-H., Her, O.-S., Chiang, W.-Y., Chen Chang, P.-L., Chang, S.-Y., Chern, C.-L., Chou, C.-T., &
Luo, D.-S. (2022). The fantasy of bilingual nation. National Taiwan University.
Lin, H. Y. (2020). Perceptions of the Englishization of higher education in Taiwan: Implementation
and implications. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(5), 617–634.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1579778
Liu, M., Lin, T.-B., Liaw, H.-M., & Hsu, C.-C. (2022). Opportunities with options: Strategies for the
implementation of EMI curriculum in National Taiwan Normal University. Journal of Education
Research, 336, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.53106/168063602022040336003
Lo, W. Y. W. (2009). Reflections on internationalisation of higher education in Taiwan: Perspectives and
prospects. Higher Education, 58(6), 733–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9209-x
Lounsbury, M., Steele, C. W., Wang, M. S., & Toubiana, M. (2021). New directions in the study of insti-
tutional logics: From tools to phenomena. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 261–280. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320111734
Ma, A.-H. S. (2014). The development of international student recruitment policies in Taiwan: A 60-year
trajectory. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(2), 120–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1028315312473781
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium
instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261
444817000350
Marginson, S. (2013). Emerging higher education in the post-Confucian heritage zone. In D. Araya & P.
Marber (Eds.), Higher education in the global age (pp. 89–112). Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (2015). English as threat or opportunity in European higher education. In S. Dimova, A.
K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European higher education (pp.
19–42). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614515272
Phyak, P., & Sah, P. K. (2022). Epistemic injustice and neoliberal imaginations in English as a medium
of instruction (EMI) policy. Applied Linguistics Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/appli
rev-2022-0070
Price, G. (2014). English for all? Neoliberalism, globalization, and language policy in Taiwan. Language
in Society, 43(5), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000566
13
100 Higher Education (2024) 88:85–100
Pulcini, V., & Campagna, S. (2015). Internationalisation and the EMI controversy in Italian higher edu-
cation. In S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren, & C. Jensen (Eds.), English-medium instruction in European
higher education (pp. 89–114). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614515272
Qi, J. (2022). China’s international higher education policies 2010–2019: Multiple logics and HEI
responses. Higher Education, 83(3), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00695-7
Rhoades, G., Castiello-Gutierrez, S., Lee, J. J., Marei, M. S., & O’Toole, L. C. (2019). Marketing to
international students: Presentation of university self in geopolitical space. The Review of Higher
Education, 43(2), 519–551. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0109
Rohlfing, I. (2012). Case studies and causal inference: An integrative framework. Springer.
Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2018). Japan’s English-medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of
higher education. Higher Education, 75(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0125-1
Rose, H., Sahan, K., & Zhou, S. (2022). Global English medium instruction: Perspectives at the cross-
roads of global Englishes and EMI. Asian Englishes, 24(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488
678.2022.2056794
Sahan, K. (2021). Implementing English-medium instruction: Comparing policy to practice at a Turkish
university. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.
20094.sah
Smith, M., Tsai, S.-L., Matějů, P., & Huang, M.-H. (2016). Educational expansion and inequality in Taiwan
and the Czech Republic. Comparative Education Review, 60(2), 339–374.
Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2),
63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
Taiwan’s Executive Yuan. (2018). Blueprint for developing Taiwan into a bilingual nation by 2030. https://
www.ey.gov.tw/Page/448DE008087A1971/b7a931c4-c902-4992-a00c-7d1b87f46cea
Taiwan’s Ministry of Education. (2018). Higher education SPROUT project. https://sprout.moe.edu.tw/
Sproutweb
Taiwan’s Ministry of Education. (2021). The program on bilingual education for students in college. https://
www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=4F8ED5441E33EA7B&s=3DFEC1726D932EE7
Taiwan’s Ministry of Education. (2022). Overview of the enrollment rate of freshmen in colleges and uni-
versities. https://depart.moe.edu.tw/
Tang, C. W. (2019). Creating a picture of the world class university in Taiwan: A Foucauldian analysis. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 20(4), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09581-5
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organi-
zations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Jour-
nal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K.
Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–128). https://doi.org/10.
4135/9781849200387
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach
to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/97801
99601936.001.0001
Tsai, S.-L., & Shavit, Y. (2007). Taiwan: Higher education-expansion and equality of educational opportu-
nity. In Y. Shavit, R. Arum, & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Stratification in higher education: A comparative
study (pp. 140–164).
Walkinshaw, I., Fenton-Smith, B., & Humphreys, P. (2017). EMI issues and challenges in Asia-Pacific
higher education: An introduction. In B. Fenton-Smith, P. Humphreys, & I. Walkinshaw (Eds.), Eng-
lish medium instruction in higher education in Asia-Pacific: From policy to pedagogy (pp. 1–18).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51976-0_1
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods, applied social research (6th ed.). Sage.
Yu, P., & Chen, Y.-C. (2022). Understanding students’ college choices in Taiwan: An investigation of social-
class inequalities in choices of institutional types and college pathways. Asia Pacific Journal of Educa-
tion, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2114421
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13
© The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under
http://creativecommons.org/licens
(the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms
and Conditions, you may use this content in
accordance with the terms of the License.
