Building Chinese interdisciplinary research centers : the case of Tsinghua University

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research centers (hereinafter IRCs) are rapidly being established in top Chinese universities, and are becoming increasingly important to national development strategies. The case of Tsinghua University (hereinafter THU) is particularly important, as it is China’s leading research university, with 354 research institutes in regular operation. THU aims to solve leading-edge, complex, and dynamically-evolving problems. This research examines the processes underpinning the establishment and development of THU’s IRCs. The literature review introduces the history of disciplines and interdisciplinarity, and the evolution of interdisciplinary research (hereinafter IDR) in Western and Chinese contexts. Also, Chinese interdisciplinary policies are discussed. Previous studies of IRCs have focused on several key concepts of the processes, including IDR programs, research collaboration, organizational attributes, organizational roles, barriers, and other challenges. Research methodologies have relied upon quantitative methods, case studies, and role theory. However, little has been revealed that can promote understanding of the unique processes of building Chinese IRCs to drive innovation. This research uses qualitative methods and semi-structured interviews of 52 academic researchers working at six affiliated IRCs in THU. The multiple case studies apply an input-process-output model. A multi-level analysis, guided by new institutionalism, is used to gain an understanding of IRCs’ initiation, government-university/IRC-individuals’ interactions, and other key factors that influence IRCs. This thesis contributes a new point of view for observing the developmental processes of Chinese IRCs, and assessing how they promote innovation. It demonstrates the key factors determining IRCs’ innovative success. THU’s IRC development can best be attributed to leadership, communication, and collaboration. This research has six main findings. First, a mixed top-down and bottom-up approach creates successful IRCs, which are isomorphic when established, but show heteromorphism in their outcomes. Second, charismatic leadership is a significant factor impacting IRCs’ development and innovation. Third, most researchers in substantive IRCs prefer face-to-face communication, while those in virtual IRCs generally prefer electronic communication. Fourth, interdisciplinary researchers are challenged by the need to build a common language with which to communicate with their fellow researchers form other disciplines. Fifth, researchers collaborate more with applied disciplines, and their major collaborative motivation is to gain mutual benefits based on by the complementation of effort. Sixth, center leaders collaborate with local governments to implement new collaborative and innovative strategies, leading to technology transfer and subsequent industrialization. In summary, this study offers a roadmap of IRCs’ developmental processes. The external environment of government policies and internal charismatic leadership are two significant factors influencing IRCs’ IDR and innovation. Future research could explore the occasional failures of IRCs and their technological transformation, investigate trust among government, IRCs, and research teams, and explain interdisciplinary researchers’ academic identities.