Author(s)

ZiTing Jian

Affiliation(s)

The Department of Education, The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea.

Corresponding Author

ZiTing Jian

ABSTRACT

In the era of the knowledge economy, academic resources—such as research funding, project approvals, publication outlets, and institutional recognition—have become increasingly scarce and strategically valuable. The expansion of public administrative authority and the instrumentalization of academic evaluation within higher education have created conditions under which administrative discretion can be converted into private gain. Educational administration represents an activity deeply intertwined with ethics. The moral dimension of administrative action embodies commitments to fairness, justice, democracy, and responsibility. This article examines the ethical dimensions of academic corruption that arise under the influence of administrative power in Chinese higher education. Drawing on a targeted literature synthesis and  detailed case analysis, the study articulates the mechanisms through which administrative actors may appropriate academic resources, the institutional vulnerabilities that enable such practices, and the normative functions of educational administrative ethics in preventing corruption. This paper explores the ethical foundations and challenges of educational administrative ethics within Chinese higher education, with a particular focus on the Wuhan University corruption case. Through theoretical and case-based analysis, the study reveals how the concentration of administrative power, the erosion of moral conscience, and institutional deficiencies jointly lead to ethical degradation. The findings suggest that administrative academic corruption is primarily driven by weakened ethical responsibility among officials, concentrated discretionary authority, and inadequate transparency and accountability systems. To address these challenges, the paper proposes an integrated set of reforms—comprising institutional redesign, strengthened ethical socialization, procedural transparency, and legal reinforcement—to realign administrator incentives with the public interest and to safeguard scholarly integrity.The research further proposes a threefold pathway for strengthening administrative ethics: legislative codification, ethical rule-making, and conscience-based education. Integrating insights from both theoretical discourse and empirical evidence, the paper contributes to a comprehensive framework for understanding and improving ethical governance in higher education.

KEYWORDS

Educational administrative ethics; Academic corruption; Higher education governance; Administrative power;  Ethical reform

CITE THIS PAPER

ZiTing Jian. Ethical reflections and pathways for strengthening administrative ethics in higher education: insights from the Harbin University and Wuhan University case. Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities Research. 2025, 3(6): 35-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/tsshr3180.

REFERENCES

[1] Joo S. Administrative philosophy: Issues of justice, fairness, and responsibility. Seoul: Korean Educational Administration Press, 2007. ISBN: 9788975501234.

[2] Chen Y. The three dimensions of educational administrative ethics and their core spirit. Heilongjiang Higher Education Research, 2016(4): 1-4. ISSN: 1003-2614.

[3] Fu B. Educational administrative ethics and school management. Journal of Educational Administration, 2002(2): 33-40. ISSN: 1672-0504.

[4] Cheng L, Zhai J. Teacher ethics education oriented toward ethical decision-making: Why and what. Educational Development Research, 2021(24): 16-23. ISSN: 1008-3855.

[5] Zhang L. A reflection on the Wuhan University corruption case and its ethical governance implications. Journal of Higher Education Ethics, 2019, 8(2): 45-52. ISSN: 2095-5125.

[6] Pu R. On the ethical spirit of educational administration. Educational Research, 2007(9): 39-44. ISSN: 1002-5731.

[7] Huo J. On the characteristics of educational administrative ethics. Academic Forum, 2010(3): 240-241.

[8] Bi X. Institutional and individual dimensions of educational administrative ethics. Theory and Practice of Education, 2003(5): 15-20. ISSN: 1004-633X.

[9] Guo S, Chen F. Tracing and reflection on the problem of university administration in China: The development process of administrative power in Chinese universities. Journal of Hunan University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), 2014, 17(1): 176-180. ISSN: 1672-7835.

[10] Mao R. The alliance of academic bureaucratization and academic capitalization: The collusion of power and the alienation of academia. Jiangsu Higher Education, 2011(4): 1-5. ISSN: 1003-8418.

[11] Liu Y. Educational corruption: Connotation, causes, and governance. New Horizons, 2012(1): 110-112.

[12] Lin J. School administrative ethics and the relationship between educational leadership. Contemporary Educational Science, 2015(24): 60-64. ISSN: 1672-2221.

[13] Xiao W. The meaning of educational administrative ethics. Journal of School Administration, 1998(3): 22-29. ISSN: 1001-8656.

[14] Wei M. Research into the educational management mechanism and system management innovation at colleges and universities. In: 6th International Conference on Mechatronics, Computer and Education Informationization, 2016, 877-881. DOI: 10.2991/mcei-16.2016.178.

[15] Li Q. Constructing pathways for improving administrative ethics in universities. Modern Education Management, 2020(6): 12-18. ISSN: 1674-5485.