Hong Kong’s Role in the Development of Science and Technology in Chinese Higher Education

• In Event: Global and Comparative Perspectives on STEM Education and Research

Proposal

The question of how China has developed its formidable capacity in science and technology is often answered by pointing to the rapid expansion and modernization of its research university system. This system has been central to the country's efforts, producing the majority of its highly skilled STEM students and generating significant research outputs. Observers are frequently struck by how modern these institutions appear, especially considering the most substantial expansion began in 1999. Since then, Chinese higher education has grown rapidly, currently encompassing 47 million students, with several universities ranked among the world's top institutions.

The conventional explanation for this growth emphasizes the role of government directives, which have driven Chinese universities to push forward on multiple fronts. According to Rhoads, Wang, et al. (2014), these institutions transitioned from Soviet-style origins into a modern, globally competitive system by focusing on entrepreneurship, innovation, and internationalization. They sought to commercialize research, establish joint programs with foreign universities, and attract top talent by offering competitive compensation and advanced facilities. The government invested heavily in research infrastructure through initiatives like Project 985 and Project 211, and promoted collaboration with industry. These universities also took on social responsibilities, such as supporting ethnic minorities and impoverished regions. The rapid accumulation of talent and infrastructure is seen as a result of these efforts.

However, this narrative largely describes surface-level phenomena. Deeper forces are better understood through two theoretical perspectives—structuralism and culturalism.

# Structuralist Perspectives

Structuralist explanations conceptualize universities as shaped by structural forces that compel actors to behave in particular ways. These forces, such as "globalization" or "regional competition," often remain abstract, while scholars argue they "push" universities to internationalize, collaborate with industry, or cultivate elite scientists and engineers (e.g., Jin & Horta, 2018; Hou et al., 2021; Wang & Jones, 2021; Sun & Cao, 2023). These forces remain somewhat hidden, serving as a backdrop for institutional actions.

While useful for understanding behavior, this perspective has limitations. It assumes rational choices drive actions but doesn’t account for contingency or decision-making complexity. For instance, "global competition" can be too vague to explain specific policies.

# Culturalist Perspectives

Culturalist explanations emphasize the role of cultural factors in shaping Chinese higher education. Scholars like Yang (2022) and Hayhoe et al. (2014) argue that Chinese higher education reflects a pursuit of cultural modernity shaped by Western influences and traditional Chinese values. As China integrates into the global economy, there is a drive to maintain a distinct identity through its universities.

However, this approach also assumes cultural traditions persist unchanged over time, oversimplifying cultural dynamics. The idea of a singular "Chinese culture" continuously shaping education may be rhetorical rather than accurate. Both perspectives fail to connect thought and action effectively, relying heavily on interviews and archives that can be inconsistent in the Chinese context.

# Evolutionary Framework and China's Higher Education Catch-Up

Drawing from Dosi and Nelson (2018) as well as Lee and Malerba (2018), evolutionary institutionalism explains development as a dynamic process driven by learning, innovation, and capability building rather than just capital accumulation. It views institutions as central to fostering technological advancements and knowledge transfer. The framework emphasizes that successful “catch-up” systems do not merely replicate existing models but adapt and innovate based on local contexts, creating unique developmental trajectories. This concept of “catch-up” involves risk, trial and error, and depends heavily on the interaction of national institutions, firms, and sectoral innovation systems to overcome capability and system failures. This framework, traditionally applied to economic development, extends to Chinese higher education, particularly in science and technology (S&T). China’s growth in S&T, evidenced by the number of scientific papers produced and highly cited research, is not a mere imitation of Western systems. Instead, China developed institutional structures, organizational frameworks, and niche areas that suit its context.

A key part of China’s capacity-building strategy in S&T has been its collaboration with Hong Kong universities. In the 1980s and 1990s, Chinese mainland universities lacked the capacity to produce high-caliber S&T talent, making overseas education a natural choice. While past studies focused on collaborations with U.S. and European institutions, our findings reveal a lesser-known pathway—collaboration with Hong Kong universities. Hong Kong’s proximity, linguistic compatibility, and financial support made it an attractive destination for mainland students, facilitating the development of a highly skilled S&T workforce.

# Data and Analysis
We conduct bibliometrics analysis on all the PhD graduates in relevant fields from the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) from 1960s to 2020s. We first demonstrate how each institution's developmental trajectory has shaped the programs they emphasize and the students they nurture. HKU excels in engineering, particularly civil engineering, while CUHK has developed expertise in medical subfields like pathology and anatomy. These distinctions reflect how each university’s evolution contributed to its strengths in China’s S&T landscape.

Secondly, Hong Kong’s role as a hub for international collaboration is evident in the bibliometric data, which shows that researchers in Hong Kong engage more frequently in international partnerships than their mainland counterparts. This internationalization, shared by both institutions, enhances the quality and global reach of research produced in Hong Kong, solidifying the city’s role in China’s S&T development.

Finally, researchers with PhDs from Hong Kong play a pivotal role in elevating the level of research collaborations. They act as bridges between Chinese and international scientific communities, facilitating knowledge transfer and innovation. This dynamic aligns with the evolutionary institutionalism framework, which emphasizes building capabilities through international networks to support successful catch-up.

# Contribution
This study is among the first to apply an evolutionary framework to empirically examine the development of higher education in China. By combining cutting-edge quantitative analysis with historical methods, it provides new insights into how university systems emerge and evolve. Most importantly, it contributes to the growing body of knowledge on the unique pathways through which China's higher education system has developed its own S&T capacity.

Authors

• Yisu Zhou, University of Macau

• Yang SHEN, City University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen Research Institute

• Xinyue Yao, Faculty of Education，University of Macau