Abstract
Abstract To promote research excellence, China’s government has been offering substantial financial support for a small group of selected universities through three national research programs (Project 211, Project 985, Double First Class). However, admission to these programs may not be completely merit based. Based on a statistical analysis of Chinese universities’ scientific activities, this paper shows that this institutionalized hierarchy is not supported by empirical data on research performance, which contributes to inequalities and inefficiencies in Chinese higher education. To build and maintain research capacity, China must support meritocracy across the research system.
Highlights
China’s research activities experienced rapid growth over the last 25 years, in parallel with the significant development of its economy
Based on a statistical analysis of Chinese universities’ scientific activities, this paper shows that this institutionalized hierarchy is not supported by empirical data on research performance, which contributes to inequalities and inefficiencies in Chinese higher education
In addition to sizable investments—China is the world’s second largest R&D spender (Normile, 2018)—this growth in scholarly production can be associated with the creation, since the 1990s, of three national programs promoting university research (Project 211, Project 985, and Double First Class)
Summary
China’s research activities experienced rapid growth over the last 25 years, in parallel with the significant development of its economy. In addition to sizable investments—China is the world’s second largest R&D spender (Normile, 2018)—this growth in scholarly production can be associated with the creation, since the 1990s, of three national programs promoting university research (Project 211, Project 985, and Double First Class) These programs provide substantial financial support to a small group of selected universities that represent the bulk of the research output of the country (57.5% of China’s Web of Science [ WoS] publications [National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2019]). These programs have been criticized for lacking transparency in how universities are chosen for admission, as well as perpetuating inequalities in the Chinese higher education system (Qi, 2017). This paper describes the development and stratification of China’s higher education system, with an analysis of universities’ scientific output since the 1990s
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
