Jinjing Guo , Fang Wang , Hong Wu , Jinxia Huang , Xiao Rui
{"title":"中日学者批判教育轨迹之比较分析","authors":"Jinjing Guo , Fang Wang , Hong Wu , Jinxia Huang , Xiao Rui","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Exploring the differences in the critical educational trajectories of academicians between China and Japan and identifying the influencing factors can provide valuable insights into the cultivation and growth of high-level domestic scientific talent. This study adopts the concept of ‘critical growth pathway’ to conduct a comparative analysis of academicians’ educational trajectories in China and Japan from the perspectives of educational continuity, educational institution diversity, and study abroad experience. Chinese academicians typically follow one of three education trajectories: (1) bachelor’s, (2) bachelor’s-master’s-doctorate, or (3) bachelor’s-work-master’s-work-doctorate, while Japanese academicians commonly follow: (1) bachelor’s-direct doctorate, (2) bachelor’s-master’s-doctorate, and (3) bachelor’s-work-doctorate. China tends to emphasise bachelor’s-master’s continuity and master’s-doctorate continuity, whereas Japan shows a stronger preference for direct doctoral continuity. Chinese academicians demonstrate greater diversity in their educational institutions compared to their Japanese counterparts. Most Chinese and Japanese academicians have no overseas study experience, although such experience is more common in Japan than China. Consistent and continuous scientific research training is a critical pathway for cultivating elite scientists, while maintaining coherence across educational stages supports their development. The role of overseas education in cultivating high-level domestic talent is important to reassess, attention should be placed on strengthening local talent development by enhancing mentorship, improving the effectiveness of domestic training systems, and addressing country-specific challenges, particularly as national research and education systems reach more advanced stages. The analytical model developed in this study provides valuable insights for institutional design in policy-driven latecomers and other developing countries.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 3","pages":"Article 101689"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative analysis of critical educational trajectories of academicians in China and Japan\",\"authors\":\"Jinjing Guo , Fang Wang , Hong Wu , Jinxia Huang , Xiao Rui\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joi.2025.101689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Exploring the differences in the critical educational trajectories of academicians between China and Japan and identifying the influencing factors can provide valuable insights into the cultivation and growth of high-level domestic scientific talent. This study adopts the concept of ‘critical growth pathway’ to conduct a comparative analysis of academicians’ educational trajectories in China and Japan from the perspectives of educational continuity, educational institution diversity, and study abroad experience. Chinese academicians typically follow one of three education trajectories: (1) bachelor’s, (2) bachelor’s-master’s-doctorate, or (3) bachelor’s-work-master’s-work-doctorate, while Japanese academicians commonly follow: (1) bachelor’s-direct doctorate, (2) bachelor’s-master’s-doctorate, and (3) bachelor’s-work-doctorate. China tends to emphasise bachelor’s-master’s continuity and master’s-doctorate continuity, whereas Japan shows a stronger preference for direct doctoral continuity. Chinese academicians demonstrate greater diversity in their educational institutions compared to their Japanese counterparts. Most Chinese and Japanese academicians have no overseas study experience, although such experience is more common in Japan than China. Consistent and continuous scientific research training is a critical pathway for cultivating elite scientists, while maintaining coherence across educational stages supports their development. The role of overseas education in cultivating high-level domestic talent is important to reassess, attention should be placed on strengthening local talent development by enhancing mentorship, improving the effectiveness of domestic training systems, and addressing country-specific challenges, particularly as national research and education systems reach more advanced stages. The analytical model developed in this study provides valuable insights for institutional design in policy-driven latecomers and other developing countries.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Informetrics\",\"volume\":\"19 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 101689\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Informetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725000537\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informetrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725000537","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparative analysis of critical educational trajectories of academicians in China and Japan
Exploring the differences in the critical educational trajectories of academicians between China and Japan and identifying the influencing factors can provide valuable insights into the cultivation and growth of high-level domestic scientific talent. This study adopts the concept of ‘critical growth pathway’ to conduct a comparative analysis of academicians’ educational trajectories in China and Japan from the perspectives of educational continuity, educational institution diversity, and study abroad experience. Chinese academicians typically follow one of three education trajectories: (1) bachelor’s, (2) bachelor’s-master’s-doctorate, or (3) bachelor’s-work-master’s-work-doctorate, while Japanese academicians commonly follow: (1) bachelor’s-direct doctorate, (2) bachelor’s-master’s-doctorate, and (3) bachelor’s-work-doctorate. China tends to emphasise bachelor’s-master’s continuity and master’s-doctorate continuity, whereas Japan shows a stronger preference for direct doctoral continuity. Chinese academicians demonstrate greater diversity in their educational institutions compared to their Japanese counterparts. Most Chinese and Japanese academicians have no overseas study experience, although such experience is more common in Japan than China. Consistent and continuous scientific research training is a critical pathway for cultivating elite scientists, while maintaining coherence across educational stages supports their development. The role of overseas education in cultivating high-level domestic talent is important to reassess, attention should be placed on strengthening local talent development by enhancing mentorship, improving the effectiveness of domestic training systems, and addressing country-specific challenges, particularly as national research and education systems reach more advanced stages. The analytical model developed in this study provides valuable insights for institutional design in policy-driven latecomers and other developing countries.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Informetrics (JOI) publishes rigorous high-quality research on quantitative aspects of information science. The main focus of the journal is on topics in bibliometrics, scientometrics, webometrics, patentometrics, altmetrics and research evaluation. Contributions studying informetric problems using methods from other quantitative fields, such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, economics and econometrics, and network science, are especially encouraged. JOI publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In general, case studies, for instance a bibliometric analysis focusing on a specific research field or a specific country, are not considered suitable for publication in JOI, unless they contain innovative methodological elements.