Higher Education Policy, 2018

Ó 2018 International Association of Universities 0952-8733/18

www.palgrave.com/journals

Original Article
Democratic Involvement in Higher
Education: A Study of Chinese Student
E-participation in University Governance
Xiuhan Lia and Guodong Zhaob
a
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong 999077, China.
E-mail: u3003557@hku.hk
b
Graduate School of Education, Peking University, 5 Yiheyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100871,
China.
E-mail: gdzhao@gse.pku.edu.cn

E-participation has become increasingly popular in many fields due to the widespread
usage of the Internet. As an effective approach to e-democracy, e-participation provides
more opportunities for college students to access university governance and facilitates
democratic administration in higher education institutions. This study explores student
e-participation in university governance in one university of China based on the social
interaction model. The evaluation framework of student e-participation consists of three
basic components: student engagement, interactions between students and the univer-
sity, and university support. A mixed-method research was conducted to assess the
current status of student e-participation in this university. The results show that the
overall level of student e-participation, from the perspective of students, is low. We also
analyzed some influential factors of students’ engagement in e-participation. It is sug-
gested that universities should actively respond to and provide support for student
e-participation in university governance to improve the quality of administration and the
relations between students and the university.
Higher Education Policy (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0094-8

Keywords: student e-participation; university governance; e-democracy; internet

Introduction
E-participation is increasingly discussed in a large number of studies considering
its popularity in the digital age. The popularity of e-participation is due to the high
development of information communication technologies (ICTs), leading to the
significant transformation of human society. Most previous studies connected
e-participation with e-democracy in the context of politics. For example, many
governments encourage and implement citizen e-participation as a fundamental
principle of democracy. It is suggested that participation is a typical democratic
activity for membership in organizational administration, where members can take
 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

part in the process of decision making in organizations (Mobini and Hansson,

2014). Therefore, e-participation is defined as ‘‘the use of ICTs to support the
democratic decision-making processes’’ in some studies (Macintosh, 2004, 1).
From a broader perspective, online participation is described as the interactions
between users and online communities on the Web (Lutz et al., 2014). Based on
this opinion, e-participation happens in various fields such as politics, business,
culture, health, and education. In this study, we focus on student e-participation in
higher education regarding the affairs of university governance.
In higher education, the development of student e-participation brings benefits
and challenges for both students and universities. Students’ participation is a
critical issue related to university governance, democracy education, and student
development, arousing the attention from university administrators and researchers
(Lizzio and Wilson, 2009). Beginning to be recognized as an important issue in the
late 1960s, this topic is not new (Ratsoy and Bing, 1999). In Skolnik and Jones’s
study (1997), 100% of universities investigated reported that they value student
participation in universities and have student members on the university boards for
decision making. Therefore, it is important to evaluate college student e-partic-
ipation in university governance. We conducted mixed-method research in this
study to explore student e-participation in university governance. Firstly, we
constructed the evaluation framework of student e-participation based on the social
interaction model and implemented the evaluation survey in one university of
China. After gathering both quantitative and qualitative data, we provided
comprehensive evidence to describe the current status of student e-participation
and students’ perceptions of this issue. This study may deepen the understanding of
the development of educational democracy in the digital age. The results of this
study can provide implications for stakeholders of university governance and help
build a good relationship between students and the university.

Literature Review
E-participation
E-participation is a complex concept with many elements and descriptions from
different perspectives. The definition of e-participation is rather vague due to the
lack of a clear conceptual and theoretical framework. Although in some studies the
term ‘‘e-participation’’ is equal to the term ‘‘online participation,’’ they are different
in some contexts (Lutz et al., 2014). For example, e-participation on Wikipedia
refers to ‘‘ICT-supported participation in processes involved in government and
governance,’’ while online participation is regarded as the interactions between
users and online communities on the Internet from a general perspective. It is
suggested that online participation describes different participatory behaviors on
the Internet, which provides the precondition of e-participation. E-participation is
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

often discussed in the contexts of e-democracy or e-government (Macintosh, 2004).

From a broader perspective, e-participation refers to ICT-supported interactions
between members and organizations (e.g., governments, companies, and schools)
regarding the affairs of democracy. Democracy is a kind of culture characterized by
a fair and equitable distribution of power in society, which is not only delimited in
the field of politics but also other organizations and communities (Downes, 2010).
Members of organizations almost pursue the goal of democracy in the process of
management considering their rights and obligations. For example, democracy is an
important goal in educational institutions for both teaching and administration
(Downes, 2010). In this study, we delimit e-participation as online involvement in
the process of organizational management.
The blooming development of e-participation is caused by the ubiquitous usage
of the Internet (Vicente and Novo, 2014). The rise of the Internet not only makes
the process of participation easier at the technical level but also reshapes
participatory awareness, democracy culture, and public sphere (Panjaitan, 2016).
Firstly, the easy accessibility of information on the Internet breaks down the
hierarchical mechanism of traditional management and provides opportunities for
grass roots to participate in democratic activities. Consequently, people’s
awareness of participation is being changed. Some studies show that compared
to offline participation in politics, people have more interest and enthusiasm in
e-participation, especially for youths (Zainon et al., 2017; Lee and Chan, 2015).
Furthermore, online media enables more people to consume, distribute, and
produce information more easily. Thirdly, the scrutiny of political elites by citizens
on the Internet can influence political decisions. Therefore, the decision makers
should seriously take e-participation into consideration, as either the ignorance or
misuse of e-participation may bring backfire. The ignorance of e-participation may
lead to the dissatisfaction of citizens and arouse critical issues on the Internet, such
as online crisis events (Hilgers and Ihl, 2010). Compared to offline participation,
the preponderance of e-participation can be summarized in four aspects (Anduiza
et al., 2010; Macintosh and Whyte, 2008): (1) access information easier and faster;
(2) share opinions with others; (3) increase engagement in political activities (e.g.,
online voting, online petition, online consulting, and online rating); and (4) reduce
cost of participation.
E-participation is not only a need of democracy but also a need of innovation.
Von Hippel (2005) proposed the concept of user-centered innovation in his book
Democratizing Innovation. He thinks that the innovation in online information
products and services becomes increasingly democratized in the digital age. It
means that online users can make contributions to the innovation of new products
and services by sharing their ideas and suggestions (Von Hippel, 2005). Online
user-innovation communities are created to gather rich intellectual commons. This
trend of democratized innovation emphasizes the participation of users in the
process of decision making and product design. Therefore, e-participation is the
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

premise of user-centered democratic innovation. It also works in others fields and

has a positive impact on social welfare.
The implementation of e-participation varies in different contexts with various
advanced information techniques and tools, leading to different corresponding
consequences. E-participation behaviors can be divided into formal and informal
ones based on interactive subjects and communities. Schossböck et al. (2016)
described many levels of official e-participation from information disclosure to
consultation, cooperation, and co-decision in e-government. It is suggested that the
formal e-participation is supported by the authorities and affects decision making
directly. Furthermore, a study of the USA investigated a series of informal
participatory behaviors in civic e-participation, such as publishing political pictures
or videos, signing a petition, contacting a member of parliament, writing a letter to
the editor, and publishing a news or blog commentary (Smith, 2013). Vicente and
Novo (2014) defined four types of e-participation in their study: reading social/
political information, discussing social/political issues, attending online petitions,
and attending public consultations. Krabina (2016) proposed a model of
e-participation ladder, consisting of eight steps of e-participation from unawareness
to indifference, passive participation, implicit participation, active participation,
intended participation, effective participation, and impact participation. This
model, with the steps being in order from the lowest ladder (unawareness) to the
highest one (impact participation), reflects different levels of users’ engagement of
e-participation and provides implication for the design and evaluation of
organizational e-governance.

Social interaction model of participation

The social interaction model of participation means that frequent and strong
interactions in the social network can increase humans’ participation in social
activities (McClurg, 2003). This model is grounded on the socio-cultural theory and
aims to explain the relationship between social membership and participation
interests. The effects of social interactions on participation happen in various fields,
such as learning and marketing. The principle of this model in politics postulates
that participants in social networks are exposed to politically relevant information
through social interactions, which can shape their thinking and affect their
participatory decisions (Huckfeldt, 2001). Many studies explored the effects of
social interactions on political participation (McClurg, 2003). For example, it is
suggested that neighborhood education has a positive impact on personal
involvement in politics (Huckfeldt, 2001).
Due to the ubiquitous application of the Internet and social media, it becomes
easy for netizens to access a broad range of information and connect with others.
Participants’ attitudes, opinions, and behaviors of political participation are
influenced by online information dissemination and peer communication (McClurg,

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

2003). Magro (2012) reviewed the related studies of social media in politics and
concluded that social media plays a significant role in e-government management
and e-participation. A study focusing on Dutch elections from 2010 and 2011 found
that the use of social media was highly associated with voting behaviors (Effing
et al., 2011). A report from Pew Research Center showed that almost 40% of
Americans were engaged in public participation through the social networks from
2008 to 2012 (Smith, 2013). As the digital generation, young people (including
college students) engage themselves in social media (Zainon et al., 2017). The
social interaction model can explain the phenomenon that young people show
increased enthusiasm for online political participation. It is reasonable to utilize this
model to analyze student e-participation in university governance in this study.

Student participation and e-participation

Student participation means that students are allowed to attend the process of
management and decision making regarding university affairs. It is meaningful for
universities to facilitate student participation in university governance as students
are an important group in universities. The multi-roles of students are defined from
various theoretical perspectives as customers, partners, stakeholders, novice
scholars, or service users (Lizzio and Wilson, 2009). Therefore, students’
legitimate roles equip them with a right and obligation to participate in university
administration (Kamvounias and Varnham, 2006). Students’ multiple roles in the
university determine the complex relationships between students and the university.
The decision makers should communicate and consult with students and take their
voice into consideration when making decisions.
Lizzio and Wilson (2009) emphasize the value of student participation in the
university from three dimensions: functional, developmental, and social. Firstly,
student participation can contribute to the quality of policy-making in university
governance from the functional perspective. The administrators should take
students’ views and suggestions into consideration, which can increase students’
satisfaction and trust toward the university (Panopoulou et al., 2014). Furthermore,
participating in university governance makes students learn more non-academic
skills and knowledge, such as critical thinking, leadership, collaboration, and
democratic civilization (Lizzio and Wilson, 2009). For example, it is suggested that
a close correlation exists between students’ transformational leadership and their
involvement in the university (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000). Lastly, participation in
university governance can help increase students’ democratic literacy. Universities
have a responsibility to prepare their students to be productive citizens in a
democratic society (Zainon et al., 2017). College students will be future directors
and leaders of nations after graduation. They are expected to be trained as
productive citizens with literacy and abilities of participation (Zainon et al., 2017).
Student participation in university governance is a pre-step for the participation in

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

society and politics. It is also an approach to facilitate democracy education and

civic education in the university (Yoldaş, 2015).
Previous studies of student e-participation have focused on two aspects: (1)
student e-participation in politics and (2) student e-participation in university
governance. For the former one, most studies paid attention to a broader sampling
range of youths in society, but only a few studies focused on college students
(Bershadskaya et al., 2013; Loader, 2007; Edelmann et al., 2008). Zainon et al.
(2017) investigated Malaysian student e-participation in politics in a university and
found that Malaysian youth students’ political awareness and interest are activated
by user-friendly social media channels, although there are some drawbacks to be
addressed in the future improvement.
The other aspect, student e-participation in university governance, attracts more
attention from scholars and administrators in higher education. A European
e-participation project, called Myuniversity, was conducted in seventeen European
universities to facilitate the cooperation and interaction between institutions and
stakeholders in higher education (Bohman et al., 2014). To engage students in the
process of higher education decision making, participants were provided with
various e-participation services and tools in an online platform. Also, they would
receive the newsletter, discuss in the forum, quick poll, send messages, and deliver
petitions. The title of the project, Myuniveristy, indicates that students are essential
members of the university and have the right to participate in the process of policy-
making. Sideri et al. (2017) narrowed down the e-participation approach and only
explored the effects of social media on the process of decision making in schools
and universities. Besides students, they adopted a broader perspective from other
stakeholders in the educational institutions, such as teachers and staff. They
suggested that students’ behaviors and performance in social media reflect their
desires and attitudes toward institutional management.
The development of digital campus lays the foundation for student e-participation
in university governance. Various ICT applications in universities enable students to
access information and service more easily. Zhao and Jiang (2010) think that
e-campus consists of e-learning, e-service, e-research, and e-management. Students’
engagement in various elements of e-campus forms their e-life in campus, which is
the pre-step for their e-participation in university governance. Many universities
adopt various ICT applications to keep in touch with students in university affairs,
such as BBS, social media, online vote, and online management system (Zhao and
Jiang, 2010; Selwyn, 2012). However, few studies systematically explore how to
implement and evaluate students’ e-participation in university governance.

Evaluation of e-participation
The evaluation of e-participation (i.e., to what degree the use of new media by
governments enhances citizen participation) is important to help reflect the quality

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

of democracy and governance in a particular context. It helps decision makers to

build a good relationship between the organization and members and recognize the
effects of e-participation on administration. Understanding the quality of e-partic-
ipation not only focuses on a high number of participants but also more on the
inclusive design and quality of contributions instead of mass participation
(Schossböck et al., 2016). It is necessary to assess an e-participation project from
many stakeholders’ perspectives, such as policy makers, users, experts of civil
society organizations in online participation, and technical administrators (Panjai-
tan, 2016).
Evaluation of e-participation is a systematic and complex work involving a full
range of factors and indicators (Smith et al., 2011). Studies regarding the
assessment of e-participation vary from different theoretical perspectives to various
sampling groups. Most studies evaluated e-participation under the framework of
e-democracy or e-government (Verdegem and Verleye, 2009). Whyte and
Macintosh (2003) proposed an integrated three-perspective framework for e-par-
ticipation: the political and democratic perspective, the technical perspective, and
the social perspective. This framework provided a philosophical basis for the
methodology of e-participation evaluation. Macintosh (2004) defined ten dimen-
sions to assess the implementation of e-participation in the policy-making process.
They are level of participation, stage of decision making, actors, technologies,
rules, duration and sustainability, accessibility, resources, outcomes, and influential
factors for success. These indicators demonstrate how information technologies are
utilized in online democratic activities and provide guidelines for the implemen-
tation of a successful e-participation project. Similarly, Panopoulou et al. (2014)
summarized 23 factors and specific related activities regarding the success of
e-participation through a systematic literature analysis. These factors cover a wide
spectrum of aspects from strategy, management, technique, operation, economy,
and social elements. Panopoulou’s framework of e-participation evaluation is
comprehensive to contribute to the design of an e-participation initiative. In this
study, we focused on student e-participation in higher education containing two
elements: student participation and e-participation. Some existing evaluation
criteria related to these two elements are summarized in Table 1 and are adapted
for our study.

Research gap
The current literature illustrates that even though a mass of studies focused the
youth e-participation in politics under the framework of e-government and
e-democracy, few studies paid attention to student e-participation of university
governance in higher education. Existing studies focusing on student participation
put efforts in the forms of traditional participation such as student representatives or
student governments (Lizzio and Wilson, 2009). Some studies investigated Chinese

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Table 1 Existing evaluation criteria related to e-participation and student participation

Construct Citation Main criteria

e-Government UN e-government (http://workspace.unpan. Online service, telecommunication

and org/sites/Internet/Documents/
e-participation UNPAN97854.pdf)
Siskos et al. (2014)
The Waseda University Institute of
e-government (http://www.e-gov.waseda.
ac.jp)
European Commission Benchmark
Measurement (2010)
Maier and Reimer (2010)
Verdegem and Verleye (2009)
Macintosh and Whyte (2008) and
Aichholzer and Allhutter (2008)
OECD (2007, https://www.oecd.org/mena/
governance/)
Student Astin (1984)
participation
National Survey of Student Engagement,
NSSE (2010, http://nsse.indiana.edu)
infrastructure, human capital
Infrastructures, investment, e-process,
users’ attitude
Network preparedness, required
interface functioning applications,
management optimization; national
portal, CIO in government,
e-government promotion,
e-participation
Online sophistication and full online
availability on services, user’s
experience, e-procurement, visibility
and availability
Engagement and empowerment,
transparency, conflict and consensus,
social acceptability, usefulness,
usability and accessibility
Awareness, intentions to use, access,
usage, satisfaction
Socio-technical criteria, project
criteria, democratic criteria
Prerequisites for online services,
infrastructure; regulatory framework
and enforcement, channel delivery
strategy and/or existence, prevalence
of national standards, cooperation and
coordination among organizations,
public–private partnerships, financing
support
Physical and psychological energy,
academic and non-academic matters,
quantitative and qualitative features
Academic challenge, active learning,
interactions, enriching educational
experiences, supportive learning
environment

young people’s perceptions and attitudes of civic participation (Tu, 2011), but few
tried to evaluate the holistic development of student e-participation in university
governance. To fill the research gap, this study attempts to disclose student
satisfaction and perceptions of e-participation in university governance and reflect
the development level of e-participation in higher education.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Research question
Adapted from Macintosh’s (2004) definition of e-participation, we conceptualized
student e-participation in university governance as an online involvement in which
college students utilize ICTs to participate in the process of administration and
decision making in the university. The overarching research question guiding this
study is: how to evaluate and understand college student e-participation in
university governance. The specific research sub-questions consist of:

RQ1: What are the indicators of student e-participation in university governance?

RQ2: What is the evaluation result of student e-participation in university
governance?
RQ3: What affects students’ engagement in e-participation in university
governance?
RQ4: How do students perceive the development of e-participation in higher
education?

Method
To explore in-depth interpretations of student e-participation in university
governance, we conducted a mixed-method research to gather both qualitative
and quantitative data (Creswell et al., 2003). The study was a survey-based
research, in which questionnaires and interviews are the primary instruments for
data collection.

Research framework
In this study, we proposed a model of student e-participation based on the social
interaction mode (see Figure 1). E-participation is an interactive process among
students and the university, in which the essence of the bilateral interaction is
information exposure and exchange (Haythornthwaite, 1996). The interaction
happens when information is exposed, delivered, and exchanged. According to
e-participation in e-government, such interactions include online polls, discussion
forums, petition, and consultation. Considering the multiple roles of students in the
university, the role-based functions of e-participation in university governance are
complex. The university needs to provide various supports to facilitate students to
attend interactions, and students need to engage themselves in e-participation and
interact with the policy makers or administrators (Macintosh et al., 2009).
We defined three key components for college student e-participation: student
engagement (SE), student–university interactions (S–UI), and university support
(US). Student engagement means the physical and psychological energy that

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Figure 1. The student e-participation model.

students put in e-participation activities (Astin, 1984). Interactions between

students and the university indicate the communication and information exchange
during the e-participation activities. University support covers various aspects, such
as infrastructure, policy, information, and service. The degree of student
e-participation depends on: how much students engage themselves in democratic
activities of university governance through the Internet, how much students and
administrators interact with each other, and how much the university provides
support for student e-participation. Based on the literature review, the sub-
constructs of three main constructs were adapted from evaluation criteria of two
perspectives: (1) e-government and e-participation (e.g., Macintosh and Whyte,
2008) and (2) student engagement (e.g., NSSE).

Instruments
We conducted a series of in-depth interviews with college students, teachers, and
staffs to verify the reasonability of our research model. Combining the literature
review and interviews, we developed a scale of e-participation with the explanation
of measurement items of each sub-construct in Table 2. A questionnaire with two
parts was designed based on the evaluation criteria for student e-participation and
released in Chinese. The first part involves ten questions referring to students’
demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, grade, and hometown) and their use
of the Internet. The second section contains 69 items of students’ perception of the
above-mentioned three constructs (engagement, interactions, and support) in
e-participation. The five-point Likert scale was used to evaluate students’

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Table 2 Evaluation criteria for student e-participation

First-level indicators Second-level Description

indicators

Student engagement Awareness To what extent students are willing to participate in online
(SE) administration activities
Range The range of online administration activities students can
participate in
Behavior Students’ behaviors in e-participation, such as reading,
discussing, commenting, and voting
Time How long and how often students participate in online
administration activities
Student–University Frequency How often students interact with the university in
Interaction (S–UI) e-participation
Feedback The university provides efficient and useful feedback for
quality students’ voice
University support (US) Infrastructure Hardware and software support for student e-participation
Policy The university makes some policies to guide student
e-participation
Information The university discloses information and protect the
privacy
Service The university provides various online services for students
regarding student affairs

perception with the markers ‘‘Strongly Disagree,’’ ‘‘Disagree,’’ ‘‘Neutral,’’

‘‘Agree,’’ and ‘‘Strongly Agree.’’

Participants
We carried out the study in Beijing because Beijing is the capital and the political,
economic, and cultural center of China. We randomly sampled 200 college students
in one university. The criteria of sampling include gender, grade, and major based
on the distribution of their dormitories (because students’ dormitories are allocated
by universities in China). We chose dormitories based on their demographics in
order to obtain a wide range of gender, grade, and major. The students were invited
to complete the questionnaires at their dormitories, and we reimbursed them for
their time with a small gift. We received 163 responses and retained 152 usable
responses based on the result of data filtering, leading to a response rate of 76.0%.
Of these available samples, the numbers of female and male students were 84
(55.3%) and 68 (44.7%), respectively.
For the collection of qualitative data, we encouraged participants to leave their
personal information in the questionnaires, and 25 students did that. We chose
some of them to attend semi-structured interviews considering their different
characteristics. We contacted them one by one until the interview information was
saturated. Finally, six participants attended the in-depth semi-structured interviews.
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Data collection and analysis

The data of questionnaires were processed with SPSS 16.0. Descriptive statistics
such as means and percentages were generated to show the current status of
Chinese student e-participation in higher education institutions, such as this one, in
China. Correlation factor analysis was conducted to find out the relationship
between variables. The statistical significance value was set below 0.05 (p \ 0.05).
NVIVO 10.0 was utilized to code the qualitative data from the interviews.

Result
Reliability and validity of instruments
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated with SPSS 16.0 to evaluate the inter-
item consistency of the questionnaire items, which reflects the reliability of a Likert
scale (Sekaran and Bougie, 2003). In this way of analysis, the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients of items within each indicator were more than 0.7 (see Table 3).
According to Sekaran and Bougie (2003), the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient above
0.70 is considered acceptable and above 0.80 is good. Therefore, the items in the
questionnaire were regarded to be highly reliable.
We tested the structural validity of the questionnaire by KMO and Bartlett’s
testing (see Table 4). The value of KMO with 0.761 ([ 0.7) means that the
structural validity of the questionnaire was well (Kaiser, 1974).

Descriptive statistics of the survey

One aim of this study was to evaluate the developmental level of college student
e-participation in university governance. Table 5 shows the result of the
quantitative evaluation gained from the questionnaires. The total score of student
e-participation is the average score of three constructs (SE, S–UI, and US). The

Table 3 Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the questionnaire items of each indicator

First-level indicators Second-level indicators Cronbach’s alpha Items

Student engagement (SE) Awareness/willingness 0.905 13

Range 0.823 9
Behavior 0.793 10
Time 0.785 5
Student–university interaction (S–UI) Frequency 0.797 6
Feedback quality 0.869 6
University support (US) Infrastructure 0.840 4
Policy 0.799 6
Information 0.734 5
Service 0.782 5

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Table 4 The result of KMO and Bartlett’s test

Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin measure of sampling adequacy 0.761

Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Approximately Chi-square 1616.520
df 861
Significance 0.000

Table 5 Student quantitative evaluation for e-participation in university governance

First-level indicators Second-level indicators Mean SD

Student engagement (SE) Awareness 3.52 0.57

Behavior 2.63 0.80
Range 3.17 0.60
Approach 2.74 1.34
Time 2.92 0.94
Student–university interaction (S–UI) Frequency 2.44 0.91
Feedback quality 3.08 0.82
University support (US) Infrastructure 2.74 1.20
Policy 2.25 0.97
Information 2.71 0.99
Service 3.49 0.84
Student e-participation Total score 2.84 0.54

overall rating of student e-participation was 2.84 with the deviation of 0.54, which
shows that students’ perception of e-participation is not positive totally. However,
students show positive perception (M [ 3) only for four sub-indicators: awareness
of e-participation, range of e-participation, quality of university feedback, and
university service. The most positive one was students’ e-participation awareness
(M = 3.52).
We compared the difference of students’ rating on the three dimensions under
different individual characters by using T test (for dichotomous variables) and one-
way ANOVA test (for discrete variables). It was found that students who are/were
leaders in student organizations (e.g., student union) show more positive
satisfaction with SE and US than students who are/were not, with the Sig being
0.030 and 0.015, respectively. It means that student leaders tend to be more
engaged in e-participation in college, and they also feel more satisfied with
university supports. There was a significant difference (Sig. = 0.017) between
students from cities and those from rural areas regarding the variable of SE. No
difference was found in other independent variables, such as gender, age, grade,
and discipline.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Students’ awareness of e-participation is a prerequisite of the e-participation

practice. The score of students self-evaluated awareness was 3.52, which was the
highest scored sub-construct in SE. It shows that most students value e-partici-
pation and are willing to participate in the online process of the university
management. Based on the interview responses, we summarized four kinds of
approach motivation and withdrawal motivation for e-participation in university
governance. Table 6 shows the percentage of participants who agree on the reasons
why they engage themselves in e-participation or not.
According to the interview, five types of e-participation behaviors in the campus
were redefined based on the framework of Vicente and Novo (2014): keeping
informed of university news and events, discussing with peers on social websites,
sending emails or messages to administrative staff, online voting, and online
evaluating and rating. Different degree of students’ engagement in these behaviors
is shown in Table 7. The most engaged behavior is ‘‘keeping themselves informed
of university news and events,’’ while the lowest engaged one is ‘‘online voting.’’
The targeted university rarely applied online voting application considering the
validity and reliability of this form. However, some innovative tools and forms
(e.g., online vote) were applied for students’ self-governance affair. For example,

Table 6 The percentage of students’ approach motivation and withdrawal motivation for
e-participation

Why (N = 122) Why not (N = 30)

It is very convenient to access 65.58%
participation by using online tools
Students, as members of the university, 57.38%
should contribute to the development of
the university
Students utilize ways of e-participation to 55.74%
protect their rights and interests
The Internet provides a free space to 28.69%
express opinions and suggestions
The university would not value 83.33%
students’ voice and opinions
I do not want to waste time and energy 70.00%
on e-participation in the university
There are not appropriate approaches 43.33%
and tools to participate in university
governance
I feel stressed to comment on the 20.00%
management of the university on the
Internet

Table 7 The degree of students’ engagement in different e-participation behaviors

E-participation behaviors Degree of engagement (5 in total)

Keeping informed of university news and events 4.12

Online evaluating and rating 3.96
Discussing with peers on social websites 3.78
Sending email or message to administrative staff 3.40
Online voting 2.61

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

one interviewee reported that his classmates would use online voting tools to make
decisions in the class or student unions, such as the selection of candidates for some
awards and honors.

Correlation analysis
To explore the factors affecting students’ satisfaction with college e-participation,
correlation analysis was conducted to build the relationship between student
engagement (SE) and other factors. The measurement of SE is an index of students’
self-evaluation for their e-participation. In this analysis, the construct of SE is the
dependent variable, while the individual characteristics, university support (US),
and student–university interactions (S–UI) are independent variables. The results
show that student engagement in e-participation is correlated with students’
Internet usage, S–UI, and US. No significant correlation was found between
students’ academic performance and SE.

Internet usage and student engagement

As e-participation is an ICT-based activity, it is assumed that college students’
usage of the Internet is correlated with their e-participation. In this research, we
utilized the indicators of online duration and online frequency to reflect college
students’ Internet usage. Correlation analysis was conducted between students’
Internet usage and SE in university e-participation (see Table 8). From Table 8, we
see that student awareness and behaviors of e-participation are associated with their
online frequency, with the correlation coefficient being 0.203 and 0.212,
respectively. This result supports the hypothesis that student e-participation in
university governance correlates with their usage of the Internet. Additionally, sub-
constructs in SE have a strong correlation with each other.

Table 8 Values of correlations among variables of Internet usage and student engagement (n = 152)

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Student engagement (SE)

Awareness 1
Range 0.316** 1
Approach 0.374** 0.313** 1
Behavior 0.437** 0.420** 0.303** 1
Time 0.312** 0.352** 0.281** 0.580** 1
Online duration 0.069 - 0.071 - 0.110 0.105* - 0.123 1
Online frequency 0.203** 0.088 - 0.137 0.212** 0.039 0.365** 1

Absolute values of correlations above 0.2 are significant at p \ 0.05 level.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Student–university interaction, university support, and student

engagement
Table 9 shows the values of correlation between variables related to student
engagement (SE), student–university interaction (S–UI), and university support
(US). The sub-variables of SE are all significantly correlated with the variables of
S–UI and US as shown in Table 9. One sub-construct, approach, has the highest
correlation (0.679**) to the variable of US. The variable of S–UI shows strong
correlations with the sub-variable of e-participation time.

Discussion
Student participation in higher education
In this study, a framework of assessment criteria for student e-participation based
on social interaction model was developed to explore the developmental level of
e-democracy in higher education. The total score of student e-participation
(M = 2.84; SD = 0.54) indicates a low level of e-participation in university
governance from the perspective of students. However, students have a strong
awareness of participation in university governance on the Internet. This result is
consistent with previous studies which concluded that youths show more
enthusiasm for online participation in politics compared to the traditional
participation (Zainon et al., 2017; Panopoulou et al., 2014).
E-participation is an interactive process between students and the university.
Although the students feel less satisfied with the frequency of the interactions
between students and the university, they report a high score for the quality of
university feedback. It may mean that they recognize that administrators value
students’ voice and attempt to provide satisfactory feedback for it. The university
wants to build a good online relationship between the university and students,

Table 9 Values of correlations among study variables of SE, S–UI, and US (n = 152)

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Student engagement (SE)

Awareness/willingness 1
Range 0.316** 1
Approach 0.374** 0.313** 1
Behavior 0.437** 0.420** 0.303** 1
Time 0.312** 0.352** 0.281** 0.580** 1
Student–university 0.377** 0.353** 0.370** 0.411** 0.478** 1
interaction (S–UI)
University support (US) 0.459** 0.458** 0.679** 0.457** 0.424** 0.470** 1

Absolute values of correlations above 0.2 are significant at p \ 0.05 level.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

which might benefit the reputation and management of itself. Therefore, the
university takes students’ online expression into consideration seriously and gives
effective feedback to satisfy students. The approaches to the interaction vary in the
use of social media on the Internet. Gustafsson and Wetzels (2000) found that
young people in Europe tended to be aware of political issues and share related
views positively through the social network sites several years ago. Similarly, in
this study, the most frequent e-participation behaviors involve receiving informa-
tion and discussing related issues through BBS and social Web sites. Similar to
e-participation in politics, students’ attitudes and opinions toward participation
heavily depend on information transformed by social media (Magro, 2012).
Lastly, students show different levels of satisfaction with various university
supports for e-participation. The highest one is online service (M = 3.49;
SD = 0.84), which is the basic component of online supports. It is not surprising
because information technologies drive the building of digital campus firstly, in
which students can receive various digital services, such as accessing the Internet,
registering for courses, submitting assignments, rating teaching and teachers, and
booking fitness and medical services (Xinning, 2005). In contrast, students show
less satisfaction with the support of policy, information, and infrastructure. It
indicates that the university should enact specific rules for student e-participation
and open more information on the Internet.

What influences student e-participation

From the social interactive model of student e-participation, the development of
student e-participation depends on two participatory elements: students and the
university. Students’ awareness of participation is the prerequisite of e-participa-
tion. Student participation in schools is affected by the organizational condition,
family and educational culture, and transformational leadership (Leithwood and
Jantzi, 2000). Students’ engagement in e-participation varies due to various
motivations. For the approach motivations, besides the consideration of tool
convenience, the main reason is the responsibility that students think ‘‘students, as
members of the university, should contribute to the development of the university.’’
This finding is consistent with the conclusion of Ratsoy and Bing’s study (1999). In
that study, Ratsoy and Bing (1999) rated five key reasons to engage in
participation: to improve university governance, to gain experience, for social
reasons, to serve other students, and in response to influence by friends or parents.
However, a few students hold the withdrawal motivations for e-participation
mainly because they think that the university does not care about their needs and
interests. This negative perception was also found as an important factor in Zainon
et al.’s study (2017). Furthermore, the lack of university supports, such as
approaches and policies, would reduce students’ enthusiasm toward e-participation.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Lastly, as the participation of university governance is less related to academic

affairs, some students do not want to spend time and efforts on it.
Individual factors also influence student engagement in e-participation in
university governance. Student leaders show more enthusiasm and interest in
e-participation in the university. Student representatives regard themselves as the
bridge between students and the university (Bond and Keys, 1993). They are more
aware of participation and are more willing to participate in university governance
in general (Lizzio and Wilson, 2009). Besides, students from different hometowns
show different engagements in e-participation caused by the gap of participation
awareness. Participants from cities may have rich experience of participation due to
a better economic and cultural environment (Smith, 2013). More cultural and social
factors influencing student e-participation should be explored in future studies.

E-participation and e-democracy in higher education

For the traditional forms of student participation in university governance, student
representatives are selected to attend some certain processes or procedures of the
administration on behalf of the whole student group (Lizzio and Wilson, 2009).
This form of student participation is similar to the mechanism of representative
democracy in politics. Most students receive the information and service passively
in traditional administration of the university. However, the development of the
Internet reshapes students’ perception of democracy, leading to the increasing
awareness of participation in the university. The Internet does not only create a free
space but also delivers a democratic idea that everyone on the Internet can access
democracy equally and directly. ICTs make the process of university governance
electronic and open and enhance college students’ connection and socialization
with each other. College students can easily access information and exchange their
opinions with peers. The enhanced social connection stimulates the interests of
students’ participation in both politics and university governance (Yoldaş, 2015).
In contrast to traditional student participation, e-participation breaks through the
barrier of the hierarchical management and, to some extent, transforms represen-
tative democracy to direct democracy.
Many universities have adopted some strategies to facilitate student e-partic-
ipation. However, it is worth noting that many challenges exist when implementing
the entire e-participation. Firstly, the effectiveness of e-participation is disputable.
For example, Zainon et al. (2017) argued that the abuse of social media would
undermine the validity and credibility of the message. Furthermore, this study
shows that students’ engagement is associated with student Internet usage (e.g.,
online frequency and online duration), which can cause an issue that those active
netizens represent students’ voice. The difference of online activities may lead to
another kind of bias for e-participation. Lastly, the efficiency of student
e-participation is deeply associated with their information literacy. Massive

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

information on the Internet may disorient youths if misused (Yoldaş, 2015). They
need more guidance and institutionalized norms to e-participate in university
governance on the Internet.

Limitation and recommendation

Some limitations exist in this study. Firstly, this study only investigated students’
perception of e-participation and ignored the perspective from university admin-
isters. More opinions can be gathered from various stakeholders in universities in
future study. Secondly, we did not compare some elements between offline/tra-
ditional participation and e-participation in the campus. Lastly, we only studied 152
students in one university. It is considered that some cultural and environmental
features of the university and the city might affect the students’ perceptions of
e-participation (Ratsoy and Bing, 1999). In future research, we need to extend the
sampling range and compare student e-participation in different universities from
different areas.
E-participation has been an irresistible trend for university governance, which is
beneficial to both the university and students. Universities should value student
e-participation and normalize the implementation of it. Based on the result of this
study, we recommend several suggestions for this topic. Firstly, universities should
set courses or programs to improve students’ information literacy and then guide
them in how to e-participate in university governance appropriately and efficiently.
Strong information literacy of students is the prerequisite of e-participation.
Furthermore, more supports should be provided for students to access university
governance. For example, policies and committees should be assigned for the
implementation of student e-participation. Lastly, the university should frequently
interact with students and give timely and effective feedback. It is necessary to
assess students’ satisfaction with the level of e-participation on campus, which can
help administrators find problems and improve the quality of administration. More
suggestions and recommendations can be gained from students considering their
multiple roles in the university.

Conclusion
Student e-participation in university governance plays a significant role in
university administration and democracy education. This study aims to explore
how Chinese college students e-participate in university governance. Conducting a
mixed-method research, this study constructed a social interaction model for
student e-participation and evaluated the level of college student e-participation
quantitatively. The results show that most students showed less satisfaction with the
overall level of e-participation in campus (M = 2.84), but they have a positive
perception of their awareness of e-participation, the range of participation, the
Higher Education Policy 2018
 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

quality of feedback, and the online service from the university. The low level of
student e-participation is strongly correlated with universities’ support, student
engagement, and students’ Internet usage. Finally, some recommendations are
provided for university administrators to improve the quality of e-participation.

References

Aichholzer, G. and Allhutter, D. (2008) Evaluation Perspectives and Key Criteria in eParticipation.
Paper presented at the 6th International Eastern European eGov Days: Results and Trends; 23–24
April, Prague, Czech Republic.
Anduiza, E., Gallego, A. and Cantijoch, M. (2010) ‘Online political participation in Spain: the impact of
traditional and Internet resources’, Journal of Information Technology and Politics 7(4): 356–368.
Astin, A.W. (1984) ‘Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education’, Journal of
College Student Personnel 25(4): 297–308.
Bershadskaya, L., Chugunov, A. and Trutnev, D. (2013) ‘E-participation development: a comparative
study of the Russian, USA and UK E-petition initiatives’, in T. Janowski, J. Holm and E. Estevez
(eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic
Governance; 22–25 October 2013; Seoul, Republic of Korea. New York: ACM, pp. 73–76.
Bohman, S., Hansson, H. and Mobini, P. (2014) ‘Online participation in higher education decision-
making’, JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government 6(3): 267–285.
Bond, M.A. and Keys, C.B. (1993) ‘Empowerment, diversity and collaboration: promoting synergy on
community boards’, American Journal of Community Psychology 21(1): 37–57.
Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., Gutmann, M.L. and Hanson, W.E. (2003) ‘Advanced mixed methods
research designs’, in A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and
Behavioral Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 209–240.
Downes, S. (2010) What is democracy in education, Half an Hour. Available on https://halfanhour.
blogspot.fr/2010/10/what-is-democracy-in-education.html.
Edelmann, N., Krimmer, R. and Parycek, P. (2008) ‘Engaging youth through deliberative e-participation:
a case study’, International Journal of Electronic Governance 1(4): 385–399.
Effing, R., Van Hillegersberg, J. and Huibers, T. (2011) ‘Social media and political participation: are
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems?’ in E. Tambouris, A.
Macintosh and H. de Bruijn (eds.) Electronic participation, proceedings of the 3rd IFIP WG 8.5
International Conference, ePart 2011; 29 August–1 September 2011; Delft, The Netherlands. Berlin:
Springer, pp. 25–35.
European Commission (2010) Digitizing public services in Europe: putting ambition into action: 9th
benchmark measurement, Brussels: European Commission, Directorate General for Information
Society and Media.
Gustafsson, S.S. and Wetzels, C.M. (2000) ‘Optimal age for first birth: Great Britain, the Netherlands
and Sweden’, in S.S. Gustafsson and D. Meulders (eds.) Gender and the Labour Market. Econometric
Evidence of Obstacles to Achieving Gender Equality, London: MacMillan Press Ltd., pp. 188–209.
Haythornthwaite, C. (1996) ‘Social network analysis: an approach and technique for the study of
information exchange’, Library and Information Science Research 18(4): 323–342.
Hilgers, D. and Ihl, C. (2010) ‘Citizensourcing: applying the concept of open innovation to the public
sector’, International Journal of Public Participation 4(1): 67–88.
Huckfeldt, R. (2001) ‘The social communication of political expertise’ American Journal of Political
Science 45(2): 425–438.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974) ‘An index of factorial simplicity’, Psychometrika 39(1): 31–36.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Kamvounias, P. and Varnham, S. (2006) ‘Getting what they paid for: consumer rights of students in
higher education’, Griffith Law Review 15(2): 306–332.
Krabina, B. (2016) ‘The e-participation ladder–advancing from unawareness to impact participation’, in
P. Parycek and N. Edelmann (eds.) CeDEM16 Proceedings of the International Conference for
E-Democracy and Open Government 2016; 18–20 May; Danube University Krems, Austria. Krems:
Edition Donau-Universität Krems, pp. 75–81.
Lee, F.L. and Chan, J.M. (2015) ‘Digital media use and participation leadership in social protests: the
case of Tiananmen commemoration in Hong Kong’, Telematics and Informatics 32(4): 879–889.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000) ‘The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school’, Journal of Educational Administration 38(2):
112–129.
Lizzio, A. and Wilson, K. (2009) ‘Student participation in university governance: the role conceptions
and sense of efficacy of student representatives on departmental committees’, Studies in Higher
Education 34(1): 69–84.
Loader, B.D. (ed) (2007) Young citizens in the digital age: political engagement, young people and new
media, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Lutz, C., Hoffmann, C.P. and Meckel, M. (2014) ‘Beyond just politics: a systematic literature review of
online participation’, First Monday. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.5260.
Macintosh, A. (2004) Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. Paper presented at the 37th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 5–8 January 2004, Big Island, Hawaii,
USA. Available on https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1265300/.
Macintosh, A. and Whyte, A. (2008) ‘Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation’,
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 2(1): 16–30.
Macintosh, A., Gordon, T.F., and Renton, A. (2009) ‘Providing argument support for e-participation’,
Journal of Information Technology and Politics 6(1): 43–59.
McClurg, S.D. (2003) ‘Social networks and political participation: the role of social interaction in
explaining political participation’, Political Research Quarterly 56(4): 449–464.
Magro, M.J. (2012) ‘A review of social media use in e-government’, Administrative Sciences 2(2):
148–161.
Maier, E. and Reimer, U. (2010) ‘Process support for increasing participation in eParticipation’, JeDEM-
eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government 2(1): 46–55.
Mobini, P. and Hansson, H. (2014) E-participation in higher education: The importance of non-technical
factors as identified in the EU-project MyUniversity. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education
Conference; 22–25 October 2014, Madrid, Spain. Available on https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/
7043998/.
Molesworth, M., Scullion, R. and Nixon, E. (eds) (2010) The marketisation of higher education,
Abingdon: Oxon, Routledge.
Panjaitan, R.P. (2016) ‘The use of online spaces by government for enhancing citizen participation:
Indonesia as a case study’, in P. Parycek and N. Edelmann (eds.) CeDEM16 Proceedings of the
International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 2016; 18–20 May; Danube
University Krems, Austria. Krems: Edition Donau-Universität Krems, pp. 85–93.
Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K. (2014) ‘Success factors in designing eParticipation
initiatives’, Information and Organization 24(4): 195–213.
Ratsoy, E.W. and Bing, Z. (1999) ‘Student participation in university governance’, The Canadian
Journal of Higher Education 29(1): 1–26.
Schossböck, J., Rinnerbauer, B., Sachs, M., Wenda, G. and Parycek, P. (2016) ‘Identification in
e-participation: a multi-dimensional model’, International Journal of Electronic Governance 8(4):
335–355.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2003) Research methods for business: a skill building approach, Chichester:
Wiley.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Selwyn, N. (2012) ‘Social media in higher education’, The Europa World of Learning, 1–10.
Sideri, M., Filippopoulou, A., Rouvalis, G., Kalloniatis, C. and Gritzalis, S. (2017) Social Media Use for
Decision Making Process in Educational Settings: The Greek Case for Leadership’s Views and
Attitude in Secondary and Tertiary Education. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences; 4–7 January 2017, Big Island, Hawai, USA. Available
on https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=hicss-50.
Siskos, E., Askounis, D. and Psarras, J. (2014). ‘Multicriteria decision support for global e-government
evaluation’, Omega 46: 51–63.
Skolnik, M.L. and Jones, G.A. (1997) ‘Governing boards in Canadian universities’, The Review of
Higher Education 20(3): 277–295.
Smith, S., Macintosh, A. and Millard, J. (2011) ‘A three–layered framework for evaluating e–
participation’, International Journal of Electronic Governance 4(4): 304–321.
Smith, A. (2013) ‘Civic engagement in the digital age’, Pew Research Center. Available on http://www.
pewinternet.org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/.
Tu, Y. (2011) ‘Citizenship with Chinese characteristics? an investigation into Chinese university
students’ civic perceptions and civic participation’, Frontiers of Education in China 6(3): 426–448.
Verdegem, P. and Verleye, G. (2009) ‘User-centered e-government in practice: a comprehensive model
for measuring user satisfaction’, Government Information Quarterly 26(3): 487–497.
Vicente, M.R. and Novo, A. (2014) ‘An empirical analysis of e-participation. The role of social networks
and e-government over citizens’ online engagement’, Government Information Quarterly 31(3):
379–387.
Von Hippel, E. (2005) Democratizing innovation, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Whyte, A. and Macintosh, A. (2003). ‘Analysis and evaluation of e-consultations’, e-Service Journal
2(1) ‘‘e-democracy in Practice’’.
Xinning, X.X.S. (2005) ‘Building a new generation digital campus of university’, New Technology of
Library and Information Service 1: 015.
Yolcu, E. (2015) ‘‘Analyzing the awareness of pre-service teachers’ towards democracy inclusion in
education’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 197: 1866–1873.
Yoldaş, Ö.B. (2015) ‘Civic education and learning democracy: their importance for political
participation of young people’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 174: 544–549.
Zainon, N., Hashim, R., Ismail, M.F. and Anuar, M. (2017) ‘Gauging e-political participation among
university students’, Advanced Science Letters 23(1): 308–312.
Zhao, G. and Jiang, Z. (2010) ‘From e-campus to e-learning: an overview of ICT applications in Chinese
higher education’, British Journal of Educational Technology 41(4): 574–581.

Appendix
See Table 10.

Higher Education Policy 2018

 Xiuhan Li and Guodong Zhao
Democratic Involvement in Higher Education

Table 10 The demographic profiles of questionnaire respondents

Category Type/group No. of Percentage

respondents (%)

Gender Male 68 44.74

Female 84 55.26
Identity Undergraduate 52 34.21
Postgraduate 100 65.79
Student leader Yes 55 36.18
No 97 63.82
Discipline Natural science 50 32.89
Humanity and 10 6.58
arts
Social science 73 48.03
Medical science 17 11.18
Others 2 1.32
Hometown Cities 108 71.05
Countryside 44 28.95
Academic record ranking Top 20% 43 28.29
21–40% 46 30.27
41–60% 37 24.34
61–80% 18 11.84
Bottom 20% 8 5.26
Average duration of Internet usage (daily) Less than 1 h 9 5.92
1–3 h 67 44.08
4–6 h 52 34.21
More than 6 h 24 15.79
Average frequency of Internet usage Everyday 115 75.66
(weekly) 4–6 days 35 23.03
1–3 days 2 1.31
Less than 1 day 0 0.00

Higher Education Policy 2018