China’s double first-class initiative takes a new direction: what’s changing in universities and global engagement?

China's Double First-Class Initiative is a major national strategy designed to develop world-class universities and disciplines and strengthen the country's position in global higher education. After its first phase ran from 2016 to 2020, the initiative entered a new round in 2022. A policy review published in ECNU Review of Education on July 23, 2024, examines how the second round builds on, and departs from, the first and what these changes mean for Chinese universities and their international engagement.

Gaoming Zheng and Weiwei Li analyze the policy through a critical policy analysis framework. They situate the second round within a broader context of stronger state regulation, managerial approaches to university governance, and greater emphasis on educational equity. The policy documents they examine set out ambitions to expand the number of Chinese universities and disciplines with world-class standing, while strengthening higher education's contribution to talent development, scientific research, and national strategic goals.

One of the most notable changes is a more dynamic approach to selecting participating universities and disciplines. The second round includes 147 universities, with participating institutions concentrated in regions such as Beijing, Jiangsu, and Shanghai. At the same time, following quality assessment of the first round, the Ministry of Education issued public warnings for 16 disciplines at 15 universities. This signals a move away from the expectation that institutions, once selected, would remain in the initiative indefinitely. The authors argue that the new approach increases pressure on participating universities to meet policy standards while potentially opening the door for institutions not previously selected.

The balance between state oversight and university autonomy has also evolved. In the second round, Tsinghua University and Peking University were allowed to identify their own first-class disciplines. The authors view this as a sign of greater academic autonomy for these institutions. Yet the initiative as a whole continues to rely on government policy guidance, financial incentives, and external quality assessments. The result is a system in which selected universities have more room to set priorities, even as state direction remains central to higher education development.

Interdisciplinary research has gained greater prominence as well. Policy developments surrounding the second round place more emphasis on interdisciplinary postgraduate education and research, and some participating universities have incorporated interdisciplinary fields into their development plans. According to the authors, this reflects an effort to bring different areas of knowledge together and strengthen universities'capacity to pursue world-class research.

Equity is another important theme in the policy review. During the first round, competition for inclusion encouraged some regional universities to concentrate limited resources on a small number of disciplines. In the second round, the separate list of first-class disciplines was removed, and universities from regions not previously represented were included. The authors interpret these changes as part of a broader effort to address inequalities in Chinese higher education. However, they also note that participating universities remain concentrated in more economically developed regions.

The review also explores how the initiative is shaping China's approach to internationalization. The second round continues to support international cooperation, student mobility, participation in global innovation networks, and collaboration on shared scientific and educational challenges. At the same time, international engagement is increasingly framed around China's national development needs and institutional priorities. The policy also points to a shift away from relying on global university rankings as the sole measure of world-class status.

Looking ahead, the authors caution that the long-term implications of these policy changes remain uncertain. Based on their analysis of policy documents and existing literature, they suggest that China may take on several roles in global academia: collaborating with international partners, promoting its own approaches, competing with established institutions, and potentially assuming a greater leadership role.

The review concludes that the second round of the Double First-Class Initiative seeks to advance interdisciplinary research, address educational inequalities, and grant greater autonomy to selected universities, while maintaining strong state direction across the higher education system. The central challenge is how to pursue national development priorities and retain distinctively Chinese approaches to higher education while sustaining the international collaboration and academic openness associated with world-class universities.