Commensuration of the globalised higher education sector: how university rankings act as a credential for world-class status in China

Analysis of Academic Cooperation Network for Returnee Faculty Members to Realize Value from the Perspective of Economics

“…e research on RFMs mainly focuses on the talent mobility, performance, local adaptation, and recruiting policies. In the field of talent mobility, several studies have pointed out that globalization, innovation of science and technology, commonness of innovation activities, and good policy of emerging economies provide a good career development opportunity for overseas talents backflow [20][21][22][23], enhance the transformation of the talent mobility from linear mode to triangular mode, intensify the aggregation effect of returnees' mobility, and promote the technological innovation and progress of the country or region. For example, Wei found in his research that the university level, salary level, city level, city marketization degree, and per capita scientific research expenditure are the important "pulling" factors for the return of talents [24].…”

Adding an international lens to the university striving model: How both global and national indicators influence the Chinese higher education hierarchy

“…For instance, the former 985 universities have clear status given the government distinction, but crave recognition from the global community. Just as with domestic strivers, universities around the world have attempted to move up in the global rankings through strategies like funneling funds to research-intensive projects (Horta & Shen, 2020), investing in top faculty from elite universities (Altbach & Yudkevich, 2017), boosting recruitment of international students (Zhou et al., 2017), and creating global partners with other top-ranked universities (Allen, 2019). Similarly, global strivers of the Tier II type seek to build reputation in both the global and domestic sectors.…”

“…In the United States, the rankings from U.S. News & World Report have dominated the sector, changing institutional behaviors since the 1980s (Espeland & Sauder, 2008). Yet, scholars have pointed to similar status-seeking through international rankings (Allen, 2019;Gonzales & N uñez, 2014).…”

“…Some of these universities have even attempted to game the system to move up in the league tables, including the use of data fabrication (Kascak, 2017; Kim, 2018a). Striving university behaviors thrive in higher education systems dominated by governance by numbers, in which metrics and indicators such as league tables are overly used as performance and accountability measures, commodifying faculty output (Allen, 2019; Hazelkorn, 2015).…”

“…In this study, O’Meara’s striving model is theorized with a global perspective through interviews with faculty and staff at Chinese universities, a system that has quickly become one of the most influential globally (Allen, 2017; Rhoads et al., 2014). Chinese higher education provides an ideal setting for the study because the system has been especially attuned to the international standing of its universities, often connected to the government’s ambitious funding projects (Allen, 2019; Mok & Chan, 2008; Song, 2018), but the central government also has a much stronger role in the sector, as universities must align with domestic guidelines (Marginson, 2017). These characteristics of Chinese higher education can provide perspectives and understanding beyond the typical Western experience (Lo, 2016).…”