A Multidimensional Analysis of China's Double First-Class Initiative Policy : Focusing on Cooper's Policy Analysis Framework = 中国“双一流”建设政策的多维分析:以Cooper政策分析模型为中心

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the era of the knowledge economy, global competition in higher education is intensifying, and the development of world-class universities has become a core strat- egy for nations to enhance their soft power and secure a leading position in science, technology, and talent. China’s “Double Firs t-Class” initiative, built upon and up- graded from the “211 Project” and “985 Project,” serves as a key institutional arrange- ment to drive the transformation of higher education from scale expansion to quality enhancement, thereby supporting the national strategies of revitalizing the country through science and education and innovation-driven development. After two rounds of ten-year implementation, while the “Double First-Class” initiative has achieved significant results, it still faces practical challenges such as value tensions, implemen- tation deviations, homogenized development, distorted evaluation, and insufficient in- centives for key stakeholders. Existing research has largely focused on policy inter- pretation, effectiveness evaluation, and case studies, suffering from limitations such as a narrow perspective, insufficient theoretical integration, weak empirical research, and a lack of a comprehensive, multi-dimensional systematic framework. Conse- quently, it has been difficult to fully reveal the underlying mechanisms and constraints of policy implementation. This study adopts Cooper’s policy analysis model as its theoretical framework to systematically analyze the ten-year implementation process of China’s “Double First-Class” initiative from four dimensions: normative, structural, constitutive, and technical. It aims to address the shortcoming s of existing research in theoretical par- adigms, research perspectives, and empirical support, thereby providing a theoretical basis and decision-maki ng reference for the high-quality advancement of the third round of the “Double First-Class” initiative. The study comprehensively employs lit- erature review, policy text analysis, narrative analysis, and case studies. By integrating policy texts, publicly available data, and the cognitive experiences of internal univer- sity stakeholders, it conducts an in-depth analysis of the policy’s value orientation, historical institutional context, organizational structure for implementation, stake- holder perceptions, and the full -process mechanisms of selection, development, and performance evaluation. The study found that: In the normative dimension, the “Double First-Class” con- struction policy centers on the core value of “Chinese characteristics and world-class standards,” forming a value system where local miss ions and global benchmarks co- exist. However, an inherent tension between the two affects policy implementation outcomes and the realization of these values. In terms of structure, the policy imple- mentation framework has shifted from vertical management to a three-tiered “central- local-university” coordination model with multi-stakeholder governance, transition- ing from rig id roles to dynamic adjustments. Nevertheless, issues such as path de- pendence, administrative dominance, and insufficient cross-stakeholder collaboration persist. In terms of composition, department-level leaders, section-level administra- tors, and frontline faculty within universities have undergone cognitive and behavioral transformations under pressure. However, refined performance evaluations and indi- cator-based management have fostered utilitarian tendencies, leading to implicit ob- stacles characterized by an overemphasis on metrics at the expense of fundamental academic principles. Fourth, on the technical dimension, while the mechanisms for selection, development, and performance evaluation are meticulously designed, they suffer from biases such as a preference for quantification, homogenization of evalua- tions, mismatches between evaluation cycles and disciplinary rhythms, and an over emphasis on performance at the expense of contributions. These issues require systematic correction through value reconciliation and structural optimization. The innovation of this study lies in: systematically applying Cooper’ s policy analysis model to research on the implementation of the “Double F irst-Class” initiative, thereby constructing an integrated analytical framework; inte- grating the four-dimensional perspectives of normative, structural, constitutive, and technical dimensions to address the fragmentation inherent in single-dimensional re- search; and combining a decade-long historical perspective with the experiential nar- ratives of key stakeholders to enhance the study’s empirical and process-oriented na- ture. The study proposes optimization recommendations in four areas: value reconcil- iation, enhancement of organizational effectiveness, stimulation of internal motivation among stakeholders, and differentiated classification-based evaluation. These recom- mendations can provide support for refining the policy system, improving governance effectiveness, and promoting the distinctive and high-quality development of univer- sities. The limitations of this study lie in the fact that data sources primarily consist of publicly available information and narrative materials, and the data from the second round of “Double First-Class” evaluation has not yet been released, which imposes certain constraints on the overall assessment. Future research could deepen compara- tive studies across multiple cycles, expand empirical data and cross-case analysis, and more comprehensively reveal the implementation patterns and evolutionary logic of China’s key higher education development policies.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• CHAPTER 1. Introduction １
• 1.1 Research Necessity and Objectives １
• 1.2 Research Questions ６
• CHAPTER 2. Theoretical Background ７
• 2.1 Definition of Concepts ７
• 2.1.1 “Double First-Class” Conceptual Definition ７
• 2.1.2 Defining the concept of ‘WCU’ １１
• 2.2 Theoretical Models for Multidimensional Educational Policy Analysis １４
• 2.2.1 The Necessity of a Multidimensional Educational Policy Analysis Theory and Model １４
• 2.2.2 Cooper’s Policy Analysis Model １７
• 2.3 Previous Research ２６
• 2.3.1 Previous Domestic Research on the “Double First-Class” ２６
• 2.3.2 Previous International Research on “WCU” Development ３２
• 2.3.3 Previous Research on the Cooper Policy Analysis Model ３８
• CHAPTER 3. Research Methodology ４１
• 3.1 Research Analytical Model ４１
• 3.1.1 Normative Dimension ４４
• 3.1.2. Structural Dimension ４４
• 3.1.3. Constituentive Dimension ４５
• 3.1.4 Technical Dimension ４６
• 3.2 Data Collection and Analysis ４６
• 3.2.1 Literature Review and Analysis ４６
• 3.2.2 Interviews and Application of Findings ５２
• CHAPTER 4. Research Findings ６４
• 4.1 Normative Dimension ６４
• 4.1.1 Value Articulations in Policy Texts and the Discursive Construction of Authoritative Information ６４
• 4.1.2 The connotations of the core policy objectives as perceived by various stakeholders within HE institutions ９０
• 4.2 Structural Dimension ９６
• 4.2.1 The Political and Historical Institutional Context of Policy Selection and Formulation ９６
• 4.2.2 Changes and Characteristics in the Organisational System for the Implementation of ‘Double First-Class’ Development Policies １０７
• 4.2.3 Perceived Changes and Characteristics of Policy Implementation Struc-tures Among Internal Stakeholders in Universities １１１
• 4.3 Constituentive Dimension １１９
• 4.3.1 Abstract: From Inertial Interpretation to Dialectical Cognition １１９
• 4.3.2 Orientation : Mission Pressure and Value-Driven Motivation Amidst Inter-twined Multiple Contexts １２５
• 4.3.3 Complicating action : Policy implementation encounters multidimensional developmental bottlenecks １２７
• 4.3.4 Evaluation: Functional Positioning, Global Context and Reform Logic １３４
• 4.3.5 Resolution: Grounded in practical scenarios, exploring effective pathways for policy implementation １３９
• 4.3.6 Coda : The tension between the pressure of high occupational adaptability and the commitment to one’s original aspirations １４８
• 4.4 Technological Dimension １５５
• 4.4.1 Phased Characteristics of the Implementation of the DFCI １５６
• 4.4.2 Phased Characteristics of “Double First-Class” Development at Case Universities １６５
• 4.4.3 Perceptions of Development Outcomes Among Various Stakeholders Within the University １９０
• 4.5 Summary １９６
• CHAPTER 5. Conclusions and Recommendations １９９
• 5.1 Conclusions and Recommendations １９９
• 5.2 Research Limitations and Future Prospects ２０６