Identifies systemic flaws in China's S&T reforms, suggesting a humanistic-institutional approach to foster innovation.
Why have repeated reforms of China's science and technology (S&T) system often fallen short of expectations? Prevailing policy‐centric approaches overlook a critical flaw that the systemic dominance of institutional logic has marginalized the humanistic logic essential for innovation. Using a mixed‐methods approach, this study identifies four systemic characteristics that sustain this imbalance: variation among actors, environmental unpredictability, multidimensional complexity and ambiguous objectives. Moving beyond diagnosis, we propose an integrative humanistic–institutional framework as a necessary paradigm shift. This model redefines S&T system reform not solely as institutional restructuring but also as a process that strategically cultivates human potential. By delineating clear roles for system components and stakeholders, our study offers both a theoretical lens and a practical roadmap for developing adaptive, innovation‐driven S&T ecosystems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: