Differences in perceived advantages between returnees and homegrown scholars may contribute to animosity between the two groups. Past studies [ 10 , 44 – 46 ] have alluded to the possibility that homegrown scholars may be resentful of the advantages that returnees receive, particularly through repatriation programs such as the Thousand Talents Program [ 10 ]. This study is the first, to our knowledge, to show that both homegrown scholars and returnees overwhelmingly acknowledge that there are numerous advantages to having a foreign degree, and that homegrown scholars feel that returnees have greater work and financial success because they have foreign degrees. It is important to note that none of our survey respondents indicated that there was any animosity, resentment, or jealousy between the two groups. Many homegrown scholars have stated that returnees are important to improving China’s higher education and research environments [ 10 ]. We only note that by providing returnees with extra benefits (e.g., more pay, better start-up package, housing allowances or subsidies, etc.), the Chinese central government creates an unfair environment that may hinder collegiality and collaboration. Similarly, by providing advantages and bestowing titles on returnees for which homegrown scholars are ineligible, the government tacitly diminishes those who were educated by Chinese institutions of higher education by implicitly sending a message that Chinese institutions of higher education are not as good or as valued as foreign institutions.

Survey results also showed that approximately four-fifths of both returnees and home-grown scholars acknowledged that having a foreign degree provides an individual with advantages in China. The two groups differ, however, on the types of advantages that are provided. Both agreed that a foreign degree provides individuals with a better education and/or better knowledge of their field, and that it provides individuals with more prestige. Homegrown scholars, however, were statistically more likely to attribute job-related and financial success to having a foreign degree than returnees. Homegrown scholars believed that a foreign degree provided a person with better pay, better job opportunities, better professional networks, and better recognition from colleagues. Returnees, on the other hand, were more likely than homegrown scholars to believe a foreign degree provided them with better advisors/mentorship.

We also found that the vast majority (83%) of our survey respondents received their terminal degree from a Chinese institution of higher education and that less than one-fifth hold a foreign degree. We note that the overall percentage of faculty members who hold foreign degrees is likely lower, since those who return to China preferentially select top-tiered institutions since they have better resources and can offer more competitive benefits packages to attract those who have studied abroad. The percent of foreign-trained Chinese faculty members, however, is likely to increase over time. Returnees identified more job opportunities and family as the top two reasons for returning to China. Combined with competitive salaries, and start-up and benefits packages offered by China’s incentive programs (e.g., Thousand Talents Program or Young Thousand Talents Program), increased numbers of foreign-trained Chinese researchers may find returning to China a more attractive option than those in the past. Whether more returnees will be able to bring about changes to China’s research environment, however, is a different question altogether. Given that the top four challenges identified by survey respondents are top-down in nature and the fifth challenge (the reliance on human relations) is a deeply ingrained cultural phenomenon, changing China’s higher education research environment will likely require more than just increased numbers of returnees. Just like the challenges, which are predominantly top-down, changing China’s research environment will likely require a top-down approach as well. Until China’s central government cedes control back to the universities and academic community, faculty members may have little to no sway in implementing changes to the research environment.

We found that 96% of our survey respondents have doctorate degrees and 3% have Master’s degrees. This is a remarkable increase even from the early 2000s, when it was estimated that only 30% of all faculty members held postgraduate degrees, a consequence of China’s Cultural Revolution [ 43 ]. This increase is expected as the first- and second-generation of professors after the Cultural Revolution retire and are replaced by those with doctorate degrees. We recognize that the overall percentage of Chinese faculty members with postgraduate degrees is likely lower than what we observed for two reasons: (1) our survey respondents come from China’s top-tiered institutions and it is reasonable to assume that China’s second- and third-tier institutions may not have as stringent requirements for their faculty members; and (2) as this survey was distributed electronically, we acknowledge that older faculty members (i.e., those that are most likely to not have a postgraduate degree) may have been less likely to respond thereby skewing our respondents to those with postgraduate degrees.

Challenges and opportunities

Of the 466 respondents who identified challenges in China’s research environment, only 5% stated that there were no challenges. Respondents described numerous challenges, which we categorized into broader challenges for reporting ease and to better account for interdependencies among challenges. Despite being presented as separate challenges, we note that all challenges are interconnected and contribute to one another. For instance, even though short-term thinking and instant success was the most identified challenge, decreasing governmental, administrative, and bureaucratic intervention, and increasing overall freedom was the most suggested solution on how to improve China’s research environment. Overall, China’s research environment is hindered by a central government that insists on regulating both the research and academic aspects of the system to fast-track China’s development and international standing. Instead of allowing research to direct itself based on findings and progress, the central government identifies a national research priority list that has specific amounts of funding allocated to each research priority. Oftentimes, there are also regional and local research priority lists. To get funding, researchers must align themselves with these research priorities or restructure their research to fall in line with these priorities. Respondents asked for increased freedom in determining their own research trajectory or research project. Specifically, respondents noted that they would like to see more non-designated research funding allowing researchers to pitch their own ideas rather than responding to a targeted research request.

Similarly, respondents were discontent with the amount of government overreach in academia. The most brought up example is that the central government dictates the number of graduate students a university is allowed to enroll each year. The university then allocates a specific number of graduate students to each department depending on how highly it values that research field. A department that specializes in a research area that is targeted by the national research priority list will typically receive more enrollment slots than one that does not appear on the list. Respondents noted that because of this allocation, each professor can typically enroll only one graduate student a year, regardless if he/she has the funding to support more. This also results in situations in which professors are unable to pick which graduate students they would like to accept, since sometimes they only have one applicant who they must accept if they hope to have any graduate students to help them with their research. The overall sentiment among respondents is that universities should be given the right to govern themselves, and academic affairs should be solved by those in the academic community–and not by individuals who have little expertise with academia but happen to be in positions of power.

In China’s urgency to become a key player in the scientific community, the government has focused on research quantity over research quality. This has resulted in the much maligned evaluation system that respondents are keen to see changed. As many respondents indicated, more faculty members are spending their time trying to meet their university and department requirements for research and teaching than actually doing research and teaching. Many respondents echoed that this has resulted in a situation where very few still enjoy doing research. As stated before, the goal of research in China is no longer seen as about the pursuit of knowledge; rather, it has become a pursuit designed to meet quantitative indicators for one’s evaluation.

The current evaluation system is a clear source of distress among survey respondents, one that, many argued, does not adequately assess an individual’s research potential or quality. This has resulted in an environment where researchers are forced to engage in short-term, low-hanging research to meet publication requirements. It has, as respondents noted, resulted in a proliferation of academic misconduct and fraud that has marred China’s scientific reputation [47–50]. The latest case that resulted in a retraction of 107 papers by 521 Chinese authors resulted in an investigation by the Ministry of Science and Technology [51]. Investigators concluded that authors and third party agencies provided phony reviewers and compromised the integrity of the peer review system. After each widely acknowledged incident and public outcry of plagiarism, fraud, or buying of co-authorship, the government has pledged to change the system to avoid future cases of scientific misconduct. Despite its promises, very little has changed. The current evaluation system, as criticized by respondents, contributes to increased scientific misconduct by Chinese researchers and does not promote innovative or quality research. Failure is a natural and essential part of science. Without it, progress cannot be made. China’s current evaluation system does not allow room for failure, it does not even tolerate it.

Another clear source of frustration among survey respondents is the connection between guanxi and research funding. Since funding is a common part of a researcher’s evaluation, it is understandably a source of stress. This is exacerbated by the fact that funding appears to be an unfair process in which select individuals receive most of the funding and that one’s guanxi plays a large role in determining if one gets funding. The role of guanxi in China has been well documented (see [52–55]) and we do not expand upon it in this study. We note that guanxi in academia and research appears to have transitioned itself to a new phenomenon—this idea of a research circle where those within the circle look out for each other. It appears that those within the research circle benefit from better access to funding and those outside the circle may have trouble getting adequately funded.

As evidenced from the results section, respondents provided a myriad of ways to improve China’s research environment. It seems clear that despite all of the challenges facing China’s research environment, the vast majority of respondents are hopeful that the environment will improve in the future. Although many solutions were offered, it seemed clear that decreasing governmental, administrative, and bureaucratic intervention, and increasing overall freedom would probably result in the biggest improvement to China’s research environment. Respondents indicated that they would like to see more power and control be returned to universities and the academic community in general. China has made tremendous progress over the past three decades and is now entering an era where the government should take on more of an oversight body role and return control to the academic and research communities.

We acknowledge that many of the challenges identified by survey respondents are not specific to China’s research environment. The pressure on faculty members to “publish or perish,” and the use of quantitative metrics, such as number of publications and amount of funding, to make decisions on promotions within the academic system are also challenges faced by faculty members within the U.S. [56–59]. There may be many similarities between China’s research environment and that of the U.S. but systematic studies are needed on both sides to conduct comparative analyses. The trajectory of China’s research environment is likely to differ from that of the U.S. given cultural and political differences but that does not mean that the two countries cannot learn from one another on ways to improve their respective research environments.