While higher education has been considered as both an ‘engine’ for innovation and a ‘catalyst’ for sustainability development, the integration of both the ‘innovation engine’ and ‘sustainability catalyst’ roles is best reflected in higher education’s engagement in innovation ecosystems—the theme of this special issue, including 16 articles dealing with the topic from various perspectives. In this editorial, we outline an overarching framework about the relations between higher education and innovation ecosystem. When elaborating the framework, we provide a new definition of innovation ecosystem and identify three roles of university in innovation ecosystems, based on synthesizing relevant literature. The framework could facilitate readers to comprehend each of the collected articles and find synergy among them.

This paper explores how a novel university governance model at Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), largely learned from the West, has been implemented in the highly institutionalised and centralised Chinese higher education system. For this purpose, we first constructed an analytical framework, integrating the conceptualisation of an innovation process in higher education and the concept of embedded agency. This framework was then applied to analyse eight interviews, seven policy documents and six news media reports in our empirical investigation of the case university. Our major research findings are: the governance model adopted by SUSTech was a disruptive innovation and it was mostly challenged by the incompatibility between the norms around the governance model and the institutional context of Chinese higher education; this challenge was mitigated through three agency strategies, labelled by the metaphors of new wine in a new bottle, new wine in an old bottle and old wine in a new bottle. Successfully implementing these strategies calls on the visions, skills of playing power games and social capital of those initiating the innovation. Finally, we discuss the theoretical contribution and practical implications of the study in the conclusion.

This paper examined the coauthorship patterns in Chinese researchers’ cross-border research collaboration in the social sciences based on articles and reviews indexed in the Scopus database (2010–2019). We explored the evolution of coauthorship patterns by proportion of collaboration, year, research field, country/region, and research institution; additionally, the quality/impact of the coauthored publications was examined using four levels of paper quality (Q1–4), citations per paper, and FWCI. We found that collaboration between Chinese and international scholars is very common, and more than 40% of all papers published by Chinese scholars from 2010 to 2019 involved cross-border collaboration. The growth in collaboration was very steady over the past 10 years, increasing by an average of 20% per year. United States scholars are the most common research collaboration partners for Chinese scholars in the social sciences, followed by those in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The field of psychology seeks the most collaboration, followed by economics and finance, business and management, and social issues. The percentage of Q1 papers increased from 36% in 2010 to 66% in 2019. Thus, in the past 10 years, Chinese scholars’ cross-border collaboration has grown extensively in terms of both quantity and impact.

This paper examines the role of joint R&D institutes co-established by Chinese research universities and international enterprises. Guided by an analytical framework of institutional logics in the evolution of the Triple Helix model, this study aims to explore the institutionalization process of a joint R&D institute in the contexts of global and Chinese innovation systems; further, it analyzes which mingling institutional logics, respectively carried by a Chinese research university and an international enterprise, affect the collaboration between both parties moving from informal R&D collaboration toward an institutionalized organization. The case study method enabled the author to understand the complexity of the interlacing of international and national actors with regards to the joint R&D institutes. The contribution of the study to the existing literature is two-fold: on the conceptual front, it advances theoretical understandings of the interactions of institutional logics which result in varied patterns of joint R&D institute in a national context with transnational factors; on the empirical front, it examines the evolutionary path of a joint R&D institute established by a Chinese research university and an international enterprise.

Purpose: This paper examines the correlation between university discipline and industrial structure in the context of the integration and development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area (hereinafter the Greater Bay Area). It aims to determine the industrial structure deviation, and further identify human resource shortages and complementarity through the lens of the university discipline layout in the three regions of the Greater Bay Area, namely, the nine mainland Guangdong cities in the Pearl River Delta, Hong Kong, and Macau.Design/methodology/approach: The paper takes a quantitative Pearson correlation approach to determine the magnitude and strength of the relationship between regional university discipline and industrial structure in the Greater Bay Area, using predictor variables of percentage of compositions of GDP by sector to manifest the industrial structure and criterion variables of percentage of compositions of university enrollments by an academic program to represent the university discipline layout.Findings: The most significant empirical result suggests that industrial structure deviation exists in the secondary industries of both Guangdong and Hong Kong. This indicates the complementarity between regions of the Greater Bay Area: the number of science and engineering talents graduating from the universities in Hong Kong exceeds the demands of Hong Kong’s local needs, while the science and engineering talents cultivated by universities in Guangdong cannot satisfy the needs of its secondary industries. However, the cities of Guangdong are not the primary choice of most Hong Kong graduates (Zhaopin, 2019).Originality/value: There have been previous empirical studies dealing with the correlation between Chinese higher education discipline layout and industrial structure at the national level. There have been more case analyses at the provincial level, and some studies have used a comparative lens to find implications for the Chinese transformation. However, few studies have examined the correlation between higher education discipline layout and industrial structure in the context of the Greater Bay Area, with its emphasis on regional synergy and the distinction of “one country, two systems, and three tariff zones.” Based on its empirical findings, this study calls for a talent ecosystem that is beneficial for talent flow, talent sharing, and talent cultivation in a complementary manner.

This study analyzes the patterns of university co-authorship networks in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area. It also examines the quality and subject distribution of co-authored articles within these networks. Social network analysis is used to outline the structure and evolution of the networks that have produced co-authored articles at universities in the Greater Bay Area from 2014 to 2018, at both regional and institutional levels. Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) is used to analyze the quality and citation impact of co-authored articles in different subject fields. The findings of the study reveal that university co-authorship networks in the Greater Bay Area are still dispersed, and their disciplinary development is unbalanced. The study also finds that, while the research areas covered by high-quality co-authored articles fit the strategic needs of technological innovation and industrial distribution in the Greater Bay Area, high-quality research collaboration in the humanities and social sciences is insufficient.