A Study on the Mechanism by Which Organized Scientific Research in Higher Education Institutions Influences the Output Level of Disciplines

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.12.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Promoting organized scientific research in higher education institutions is an important measure to serve national strategic needs. Currently, the effectiveness of organized scientific research in higher education institutions is insufficient. Research suggests that disciplines play a crucial foundational role in supporting organized scientific research in higher education institutions, and their output levels serve as the cornerstone for the collaborative efficiency of multidisciplinary research. Focusing on the key issue of how to enhance the output levels of disciplines, this study proposes the proposition of improving the organizational level of disciplines. Through a survey of 244 academic disciplines nationwide, this study employed higher-order factor analysis to validate the rationality of a second-order factor model of disciplinary organizational degree and, using structural equation modeling, revealed the underlying mechanisms by which disciplinary organizational degree influences disciplinary output levels. Empirical results indicate that disciplinary organizational degree significantly and positively impacts disciplinary output levels, with internal cohesion within disciplinary organizations playing a partial mediating role. Based on these findings, specific recommendations are provided on how to enhance disciplinary output levels by improving disciplinary organizational organization, thereby strengthening the foundational support role of disciplines in organized research at universities.

Key words: organized scientific research, the organizational degree of discipline, internal tightness of discipline, output level of discipline

Li Zheng, Yong Xuan. A Study on the Mechanism by Which Organized Scientific Research in Higher Education Institutions Influences the Output Level of Disciplines[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2025, 43(12): 34-49.

Figures/Tables 7

References

	光明网. (2022). 高校有组织科研怎么做?教育部提出四方面任务. (2022年7月19日). https://m.gmw.cn/baijia/2022-07/19/35894493.html.
	克拉克. (1994). 高等教育系统——学术组织的跨国研究(王承绪等译). 杭州: 杭州大学出版社.
	刘超, 刘新梅, 李彩凤. (2017). 吸收能力、组织整合、创造力与创新绩效的关系研究. 科研管理, 38 (10), 76- 84.
	刘小强, 彭颖晖. (2018). 一流学科建设就是建设一流的学科生产能力. 学位与研究生教育, 6, 19- 23.
	刘小强, 聂翠云. (2019). 走出一流学科建设的误区——国家学科制度下一流学科建设的功利化及其反思. 学位与研究生教育, 12, 18- 24.
	苏明.( 2023). 高校有组织科研合法性的形成与协调. 高等工程教育研究, 2: 110—115.
	吴家喜, 吴贵生. (2009). 内部组织整合与新产品开发绩效关系的实证研究: 以产品创新程度为调节变量. 软科学, 23 (3), 45- 49.
	王建华. (2023). 不确定的科学与有组织的科研. 高等教育研究, 44 (02), 20- 29.
	武建鑫, 周光礼. (2016). 世界一流学科: “以评促建”何以可能——基于系统科学的分析. 国家教育行政学院学报, 11, 53- 61.
	新华社. (2020). 习近平: 在科学家座谈会上的讲话. (2020年9月11日). http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2020-09/11/c_1126483997.htm.
	宣勇, 凌健. (2009). 大学学科组织化建设: 价值与路径. 教育研究, 30 (8), 31- 37.
	宣勇, 张金福, 凌健, 张鹏, 周守军, 张凤娟, 钱佩忠. (2009). 大学学科组织化研究: 多学科的审视. 教育发展研究, 29 (5), 45- 55.
	宣勇, 张鹏. (2021). 走出学科危机: 教育现代化进程中的大学学科建设. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 39 (3), 48- 58.
	中共中央、国务院. (2025). 教育强国建设规划纲要(2024—2035年). 中华人民共和国中央人民政府网(2025年1月19日). https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/2025/issue_11846/202502/content_7002799.html.
	张民. (2011). 基于社会服务产出类型的工科大学分类法研究. 高等工程教育研究, 6, 47- 53.
	张东亚, 姜嘉伟. (2024). 从组织论到关系论: 我国学科建设的理论转向. 江苏高教, 10, 25- 33.
	赵智兴. (2022). 大学学科组织化研究(博士学位论文). 中国矿业大学.
	赵小丽, 贺随波. (2024). 高校有组织科研的概念辨析、模式争论与行动审视. 江苏高教, 9: 21—31.
	周长辉, 曹英慧. (2011). 组织的学习空间: 紧密度、知识面与创新单元的创新绩效. 管理世界, 4, 84- 97,188.
	Barki, H. , & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). A Model of Organizational Integration, Implementation Effort, and Performance. Organization Science. Advance online publication. 16(2), 165—179.
	De Jong, S. P. L., van Arensbergen, P., Daemen, F., van der Meulen, B., & van den Besselaar, P. (2011). Evaluation of research in context: an approach and two cases. Research Evaluation, 20 (1), 61- 72.
	Ettlie, J. E., & Reza, E. M. (1992). Organizational Integration and Process Innovation. The Academy of Management Journal, 35 (4), 795- 827.
	Germain, R., & Iyer, K. N. S. (2006). The interaction of internal and downstream integration and its association with performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 27 (2), 29- 52.
	Goodwin, G. F., Blacksmith, N., & Coats, M. R. (2018). The science of teams in the military: Contributions from over 60 years of research. American Psychologist, 73 (4), 322- 333.
	Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481- 510.
	Guetzkow, H., & Simon, H. A. (1955). The Impact of Certain Communication Nets Upon Organization and Performance in Task-Oriented Groups. Management Science, 1 (3-4), 233- 250.
	Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73 (4), 532- 548.
	Harvey S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of management review, 39 (3), 324- 343.
	Jansen, D., Wald, A., Franke, K., Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2007). Drittmittel als Performanzindikator der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung zum Einfluss von Rahmenbedingungen auf Forschungsleistung. Kolner Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 59 (1), 125- 149.
	Kniffin, K. M., & Hanks, A. S. (2018). The trade-offs of teamwork among STEM doctoral graduates. American Psychologist, 73 (4), 420- 432.
	Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1- 47.
	Mairesse, J., & Pezzoni, M. (2015). Does Gender Affect Scientific Productivity? Revue Économique. 66(1), 65—113.
	Martín-Sempere, M. J., Garzón-García, B., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Team consolidation, social integration and scientists’ research performance: An empirical study in the Biology and Biomedicine field. Scientometrics, 76 (3), 457- 482.
	Nahapiet J. , & Ghoshal S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational.
	Pelz, D. C. , & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research and development (pp. xii, 318). John Wiley.
	Schoenherr, T., & Swink, M. (2012). Revisiting the arcs of integration: Cross-validations and extensions. Journal of Operations Management, 30 (1), 99- 115.
	Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61 (4), 674- 698.
	Wong C W Y, Lai K H, & Cheng T C E. (2011). Value of information integration to supply chain management: roles of internal and external contingencies. Journal of management information systems, 28 (3), 161- 200.

		AVE	DC	DL	CD	DI	OC	RO	SO	QT
DC	学科方向凝聚程度	0.849	0.921
DL	学科组织领导力	0.741	0.748	0.861
CD	学科内部分工协作程度	0.737	0.721	0.889	0.858
DI	学科运行的制度化程度	0.824	0.765	0.785	0.854	0.908
OC	学科组织内部紧密度	0.839	0.636	0.709	0.755	0.784	0.916
RO	科学研究产出水平	0.799	0.676	0.727	0.789	0.785	0.799	0.894
SO	社会服务产出水平	0.809	0.632	0.681	0.716	0.759	0.732	0.912	0.899
QT	人才培养产出水平	0.789	0.681	0.688	0.741	0.792	0.771	0.863	0.837	0.888

模型	因子	拟合度	目标系数
一阶因子模型	学科方向凝聚程度	绝对适配度指标：CMIN=312.237***，GFI=0.911，AGFI=0.872.RMR=0.036，RMSA=0.077；增值适配指标：NFI=0.961，IFI=0.971,TLI=0.963，CFI=0.971；简约适配度指标：PNFI=0.768，PCFI=0.777，CMIN/DF=3.717	89.1%
	学科组织领导力
	学科内部分工协作程度
	学科运行的制度化程度
二阶因子模型	学科组织化程度	绝对适配度指标：CMIN=350.425***，GFI=0.899，AGFI=0.859.RMR=0.040，RMSA=0.082；增值适配指标：NFI=0.956，IFI=0.966，TLI=0.959，CFI=0.966；简约适配度指标：PNFI=0.783，PCFI=0.677，CMIN/DF=4.075

DV		IV	Estimate	S.E.	Z	P	Std	R²
学科组织化程度	--->	学科组织内部紧密度	0.887	0.053	16.825	***	0.816	0.665
学科组织内部紧密度	--->	学科产出水平	0.338	0.052	6.461	***	0.339	0.790
学科组织化程度	--->	学科产出水平	0.642	0.065	9.884	***	0.591	0.790

学科产出水平中介效应检验		点估计值			Bootstrapping
					Bias Corrected 95%CI		Percentile 95%CI
			SE	Z	Lower	Upper	Lower	Upper
学科组织化程度—>学科产出水平	Total	0.942	0.064	14.718	0.826	1.073	0.828	1.076
	Direct	0.642	0.097	6.618	0.450	0.854	0.462	0.850
	Indirect	0.3	0.072	4.166	0.173	0.452	0.163	0.443