The first comprehensive study of China’s STEM research environment based on 731 surveys by STEM faculty at China’s top 25 universities found a system that stifles creativity and critical thinking needed for innovation, hamstrings researchers with bureaucracy, and rewards quantity over quality.

Authored by news.ucsb.edu and submitted by mvea

China’s President Xi Jinping has repeatedly stated his aim of transforming the country into a “science and technology superpower.” But when it comes to China’s science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) research environment, newly published research suggests that they may have a long way to go.

UC Santa Barbara distinguished research professor Richard P. Appelbaum, former MacArthur Chair in Sociology and Global & International Studies, and Xueying Han, a former postdoctoral scholar at UCSB who now works for the Science and Technology Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., have co-authored the first comprehensive quantitative analysis of China’s STEM research environment.

The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, explores key challenges that face this burgeoning area of Chinese higher education as the nation pushes to become an academic superpower. While prior research has relied on anecdotal accounts and small focus groups, Appelbaum and Han gathered data from 731 surveys completed by STEM faculty at China’s top 25 universities. They sought to understand not only the issues facing the country’s top researchers, but how government policies might affect their capacity to innovate.

“Our research shows that the Chinese educational system stifles creativity and the critical thinking necessary to achieve innovative breakthroughs, too often hamstrings researchers with bureaucratic requirements, and rewards quantity over quality,” said Appelbaum. “China’s emphasis on rote learning and memorization reinforces this, as does a strong cultural emphasis on respect for authority.”

Among other concerns, the study explores two major relational issues in Chinese higher education: perceived bias toward foreign degree holders and the existence of exclusionary research cliques. “Past studies have suggested that foreign degree holders get many advantages — higher salaries, easier access to promotions, bigger lab space — compared to their domestic counterparts,” said Han. “But we discovered that Chinese domestic degree holders also thought that a foreign degree would give you better recognition from colleagues. In China, recognition from colleagues plays a very large role because it influences the other people you interact with, and this recognition could open doors that might not be available to domestic degree holders.”

Appelbaum and Han also sensed tension between China’s interest in competing with western countries and its nationalist policies. “Our main takeaway is that if China wants to make this transition successfully, it still has a very long way to go,” said Han. “That’s because the challenges that are facing China’s research environment are not things that can be easily fixed by money. They’re cultural challenges, and that’s going to require a major shift in thinking.”

The scholars, who completed the project while working for the former National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society based at UCSB, see their research as a baseline, establishing the atmosphere of China’s current STEM environment in higher education so that future studies can compare and contrast. “Our study should be replicated within China, by a Chinese university, in an open survey that protects confidentiality and encourages a high response rate,” said Appelbaum.

The team also hopes their findings will serve as the impetus for a shift in the focus of Chinese higher education metrics. “The Chinese government would do well to take seriously our conclusions,” said Appelbaum. “They should monitor progress in reforming the educational system to encourage more creative and innovative thought, rather than simply counting publications and patents.”

“We’re very hopeful that someone within Chinese government who is able to make changes sees this study and sees that there is a collective voice among Chinese faculty,” commented Han.

RamsHead91 on April 8th, 2018 at 20:18 UTC »

It has been know for a while that China has an invocation problem which is why they do what they can to get other nations tech. They do well in that duplication.

They also have been known to steal paper and just republish them in China as their own. I was at a conference where a Chinese doctorate was presenting my one of my grad professors papers.

highland_aikidoka on April 8th, 2018 at 15:31 UTC »

This may be the first time that this has been reported in sociology circles, but I remember reading similar investigations by the institute of physics about 3 years ago. I thought by this point it was a relatively well known issue.

I think the pressure for quantity over quality is part of the reason academic publishers like nature are starting Asian versions of some of their journals, to spread out the sheer volume of submissions that are received. It's sad to see that academic publishing is starting to be broken up geographically because of this, and in the long run will lead to an insular system where research is not shared globally that will only serve to hurt China's research ambitions and put the scientific community as a whole at a disadvantage.

mvea on April 8th, 2018 at 11:44 UTC »

The title of the post is a copy and paste from the subtitle and fourth paragraph of the linked academic press release here:

UC Santa Barbara researchers publish the first comprehensive study of China’s STEM research environment in higher education

“Our research shows that the Chinese educational system stifles creativity and the critical thinking necessary to achieve innovative breakthroughs, too often hamstrings researchers with bureaucratic requirements, and rewards quantity over quality,” said Appelbaum.

Journal Reference:

Xueying Han, Richard P. Appelbaum.

China’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research environment: A snapshot.

PLOS ONE, 2018; 13 (4): e0195347

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195347

Link: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195347

Abstract

In keeping with China’s President Xi Jinping’s “Chinese Dream,” China has set a goal of becoming a world-class innovator by 2050. China’s higher education Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) research environment will play a pivotal role in influencing whether China is successful in transitioning from a manufacturing-based economy to an innovation-driven, knowledge-based economy. Past studies on China’s research environment have been primarily qualitative in nature or based on anecdotal evidence. In this study, we surveyed STEM faculty from China’s top 25 universities to get a clearer understanding of how faculty members view China’s overall research environment. We received 731 completed survey responses, 17% of which were from individuals who received terminal degrees from abroad and 83% of which were from individuals who received terminal degrees from domestic institutions of higher education. We present results on why returnees decided to study abroad, returnees’ decisions to return to China, and differences in perceptions between returnees and domestic degree holders on the advantages of having a foreign degree. The top five challenges to China’s research environment identified by survey respondents were: a promotion of short-term thinking and instant success (37% of all respondents); research funding (33%); too much bureaucratic or governmental intervention (31%); the evaluation system (27%); and a reliance on human relations (26%). Results indicated that while China has clearly made strides in its higher education system, there are numerous challenges that must be overcome before China can hope to effectively produce the kinds of innovative thinkers that are required if it is to achieve its ambitious goals. We also raise questions about the current direction of education and inquiry in China, particularly indications that government policy is turning inward, away from openness that is central to innovative thinking.