The Science and Technology Paradox in Chinese Universities: An Efficiency Decomposition Perspective Under Different Stages and Motivations

IF 3.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Lei Tong, Qinwei Cao
{"title":"The Science and Technology Paradox in Chinese Universities: An Efficiency Decomposition Perspective Under Different Stages and Motivations","authors":"Lei Tong,&nbsp;Qinwei Cao","doi":"10.1111/ejed.70271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Chinese universities face a persistent paradox: Despite substantial investments in R&amp;D and strong knowledge production performance, their socioeconomic impact remains limited. To address this disconnect, we develop a dual-stage efficiency framework distinguishing knowledge production (KPE) from knowledge transformation (KTE) and implement a three-stage DEA-Malmquist approach to isolate managerial efficiency. Analysing panel data from 56 leading Chinese universities, we identify technological regression in knowledge transformation—rather than input or scale inefficiency—as the core constraint. Notably, Project 211 universities outperform their Project 985 counterparts in knowledge production efficiency, while 985 institutions demonstrate superior transformation efficiency. Both groups, however, exhibit nearly identical technological stagnation in transformation, underscoring systemic—rather than tier-specific—barriers. These findings challenge conventional resource-centric policy paradigms and emphasise the critical need to realign incentive structures and build translational capabilities to resolve China's science–technology paradox.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47585,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Education","volume":"60 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejed.70271","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chinese universities face a persistent paradox: Despite substantial investments in R&D and strong knowledge production performance, their socioeconomic impact remains limited. To address this disconnect, we develop a dual-stage efficiency framework distinguishing knowledge production (KPE) from knowledge transformation (KTE) and implement a three-stage DEA-Malmquist approach to isolate managerial efficiency. Analysing panel data from 56 leading Chinese universities, we identify technological regression in knowledge transformation—rather than input or scale inefficiency—as the core constraint. Notably, Project 211 universities outperform their Project 985 counterparts in knowledge production efficiency, while 985 institutions demonstrate superior transformation efficiency. Both groups, however, exhibit nearly identical technological stagnation in transformation, underscoring systemic—rather than tier-specific—barriers. These findings challenge conventional resource-centric policy paradigms and emphasise the critical need to realign incentive structures and build translational capabilities to resolve China's science–technology paradox.

Abstract Image

中国高校科技悖论:不同阶段和动因下的效率分解视角
中国的大学面临着一个长期存在的悖论:尽管在研发方面投入了大量资金,知识生产表现强劲,但它们的社会经济影响仍然有限。为了解决这种脱节,我们开发了一个区分知识生产(KPE)和知识转化(KTE)的双阶段效率框架,并实施了一个三阶段DEA-Malmquist方法来隔离管理效率。通过分析来自56所中国一流大学的面板数据,我们发现知识转化中的技术回归——而不是投入或规模效率低下——是核心制约因素。值得注意的是,211工程院校在知识生产效率上优于985工程院校,985工程院校在知识转化效率上优于985工程院校。然而,这两个群体在转型中都表现出几乎相同的技术停滞,强调了系统而非特定层次的障碍。这些发现挑战了传统的以资源为中心的政策范式,强调了重新调整激励结构和建立转化能力以解决中国科技悖论的迫切需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Education
European Journal of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: The prime aims of the European Journal of Education are: - To examine, compare and assess education policies, trends, reforms and programmes of European countries in an international perspective - To disseminate policy debates and research results to a wide audience of academics, researchers, practitioners and students of education sciences - To contribute to the policy debate at the national and European level by providing European administrators and policy-makers in international organisations, national and local governments with comparative and up-to-date material centred on specific themes of common interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信