“Sustainable or Unsustainable” in Higher Education Internationalization Development: Exploring the Post-Doctoral System in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Abstract

The current reforms in the internationalization of the post-doctoral system in China’s higher education institutions is implemented using both governmental and institutional policies, especially in the humanities and social sciences. These reforms are situated in evolving strategies for the internationalization of China’s post-doctoral system. This study explored various stakeholder perspectives on this internationalization process; we analyzed 34 institutional post-doctoral recruitment documents and the transcripts from 36 interviews we conducted with academics, university senior administrators, and vice presidents. The findings suggest that internationalizing the post-doctoral system in the humanities and social sciences still faces challenges and difficulties: the postdocs’ role ambiguity as “temporary researchers” without the “iron rice bowl”; non-guaranteed funding, which creates a “survival of the fittest” postdoc environment; quality versus quantity of work positioning “paper as the primary productivity”; and governance and management disorder being seen as “shifting from management to service”. The internationalization of the post-doctoral system still embodies ambiguities and dilemmas. Suggestions are offered for future research in the last.

1. Introduction

Since the concept of “sustainable development” was put forward in the 1990s, sustainable development, as a new development view, has attracted more and more attention from all over the world. As an important component of the higher education teaching process, post-doctoral education plays an important role in promoting the improvement in the overall quality of higher education in China. Therefore, we need to change the traditional thinking of higher education development, reshape the social function of higher education, and optimize the ecological environment of higher education to promote the development and progress of the reform of post-doctoral education in China. It is widely acknowledged that the post-doctoral system can be traced back to Johns Hopkins University in the United States in the 1770s, and that it was officially established after World War II [1]. In China, internationalizing the post-doctoral system is parallel to reforming it. Since the 1990s, the Chinese central government has systematically implemented a series of policies to internationalize or reform the post-doctoral system in China. In 1985, the State Council issued The National Development Document (No. 88) to launch China’s post-doctoral system, which marks its establishment. The emergence of the post-doctoral system in China was firmly linked to the establishment of government programs for overseas students, which is directly related to attracting overseas students back to Mainland China. In 1985, the China Post-doctoral Science Foundation was established and has invested a total of RMB 2.71561 million over the past 30 years. The total amount of subventions has been increasing yearly. From 1985 to 2018, a total of 207,840 post-doctoral researchers were recruited; by the end of 2019, there were 66,511 postdocs in the Centers for Post-doctoral Research [2]. From one post-doctoral candidate in 1986 to more than 1000 in 1995, it then took only another 14 years for that number to reach over 10,000. In 2015, the number of post-doctoral students in China reached its historical peak of 16,694, and it continues to increase steadily [3]. During the past decades, 88,023 postdocs in China have obtained academic achievement at the Center for Post-doctoral Researchers [4].

However, there are limited studies on exploring the current situation in the internationalization of the post-doctoral system in China’s higher education institutions. Some previous research has indicated that the post-doctoral system has become a platform for the growth of high-level talent in China, many of whom have worked in China’s research-oriented universities and national research institutes. They not only participate in important national research projects but have also made high-level research achievements in the fields of economics, science and technology, and national defense; this has become an important force in promoting China’s scientific and technological innovation [5]. Prior to the present study, little evidence had been published about different stakeholders’ perspectives and perceptions (e.g., post-doctoral researchers, co-advisors, and senior administrators) on internationalizing the post-doctoral system in China. Therefore, there is a gap in examining the stakeholders ‘perceptions of the post-doctoral system in China. Along with this, this study explored the influence of post-doctoral policies in China in the context of pursuing a world-class university status. It drew on the analysis of 34 institutional post-doctoral recruitment documents and also of semi-structured interviews with 36 post-doctoral researchers and co-advisors in the humanities and social sciences and with institutional senior administrators. This study addressed two major research goals: (1) it examined the recruitment policies in China for post-doctoral researchers, and (2) investigated different stakeholders’ (i.e., post-doctoral researchers in the humanities and social sciences, co-advisors, and senior administrators) perspectives and perceptions on internationalizing the post-doctoral system.

1.1. Three Phases of Post-Doctoral Recruitment Policies in China

Initial phase: 1985–1988: In 1985, the establishment of the Center for Post-Doctoral Studies was approved by the State Council, led by the State Science and Technology Commission, to form the national post-doctoral management committee for unifying the organization and coordination of national post-doctoral affairs. During the period 1985–1987, the Chinese central government successively promulgated a series of post-doctoral policies including the Notice on National Science and Technology Commission about the Application of Center for Pilot Post-doctoral studies, Several Issues on Establishing the Post-doctoral Scientific Research from the National Science and Technology Commission, Interim Provisions of Post-doctoral Researcher Management, and The Interim Provisions on Post-doctoral Fund Management. All of these documents promoted the recruitment policies by focusing mainly on the creation of post-doctoral training institutions, recruitment conditions and training requirements, student welfare and treatment, and/or on research funding [6,7].

Developmental phase: 1988: In 1988, the Ministry of Personnel Affairs was assigned responsibility for post-doctoral policies to expand post-doctoral recruitment, disciplines, and countries. For example, in 1988, the Notice of the National Post-Doctoral Management Committee on Several Issues Concerning the Current Post-Doctoral Work was proposed to recruit self-funded post-doctoral students to expand enrollment autonomy. In 1992, The Ministry of Personnel, the National Post-Doctoral Management Committee on the Approval of Peking University, and 13 other units in the field of social sciences set up a Center for Post-Doctoral Studies, which was approved to recruit post-doctoral researchers in the social sciences. In 1998, The Ministry of Human Resources of the China Post-doctoral Management Committee proposed to undertake and implement the China–Korea young scientists exchange program, which marked the launch of China’s official governmental post-doctoral exchange program for post-doctoral internationalization. Thus, regulating post-doctoral research funding is considered another major issue for guaranteeing post-doctoral research training [8,9].

Boom phase: 1988–present: Since 2011, along with The National Medium- and Long-Term Talent Development outline (2010–2020), the Chinese central government has paid more attention to post-doctoral internationalization. For example, the Notice of the National Post-Doctoral Management Committee on Accepting African Researchers to Conduct Post-Doctoral Research in China was approved to allow African researchers to conduct their post-doctoral research in China’s higher education institutions (HEIs). It also aims to apply the China–Africa science and technology partnership to recruit African post-doctoral researchers. The Notice on Mainland China–Hong Kong Joint Training Post-Doctoral Researchers was also proposed in 2011, which implemented the “Xing Jiang Scholar Plan” to support Chinese candidates “going abroad” to undertake post-doctoral studies. Both expansion and internationalization contribute to the deepening development of China’s post-doctoral policies. In short, China’s post-doctoral system has achieved much over the past decades but continues to face serious problems and concerns. For one thing, it is difficult to recruit excellent doctors to be postdocs. Furthermore, China’s post-doctoral system reform lacks a comprehensive national strategy, and the system design lags the development of a market economy. Many post-doctoral fellows, moreover, have different attitudes toward the post-doctoral system, especially in the humanities and social sciences [10].

1.2. Stakeholders’ Perspectives on and Perceptions of Internationalizing the Post-Doctoral System in China

Different stakeholders, especially post-doctoral fellows in the humanities and social sciences, hold different attitudes toward the internationalization of China’s post-doctoral system. Some scholars have offered critical and negative perspectives on the current status of and issues around facilitating the post-doctoral system; these issues include academic identity, interpersonal communications, funding allocation, and management systems [11]. For example, the post-doctoral role conflict originates from the perspectives of theory, inducement, and adjustment. Chinese government should establish an attractive post-doctoral incentive mechanism. Shaping these communicative relations is essential to promote the conservational support for integrating ideas and approaches. We need to build a funding system that promotes the internationalization of China’s post-doctoral education [12]. The current post-doctoral researchers are faced with tremendous challenges such as the ambiguous status of post-doctoral education, pressures on professional development, low salaries, and poor academic environments. The daily post-doctoral research expenses represented the basic funding required to ensure successful post-doctoral research and life, but current research grant funding is limited, especially in the humanities and social sciences [13].

Other scholars have offered positive perspectives on shaping China’s post-doctoral system by advocating for world-class universities and the internationalization of higher education. For example, promoting world-class universities stimulates professional post-doctoral development in China [14]. Shaping post-doctoral internationalization is closely related to the construction of world-class universities in China [15]. We should set up post-doctoral training consciousness, build a post-doctoral research platform for international exchanges, create a relaxed academic environment, and improving the innovative competencies of post-doctoral fellowships to make them more international [16]. It is suggested that to internationalize the post-doctoral system in China, it will be necessary to implement policy optimization from “single-center governance” to “multi-center co-governance” through establishing policy objectives and priorities, strengthening policy supervision, and promoting the coordination and diversification of policy tools. It is suggested to set up a scientific assessment and evaluation of the post-doctoral system—an essential step in promoting the internationalization of China’s post-doctoral system. They posit a need to build incentives and restriction mechanisms for post-doctoral education through the creation of a fair competition environment, evaluation system reform, and improvement in the quality of teachers’ post-doctoral career planning and teacher training; the goal is to comprehensively improve the post-doc quality and teachers’ post-doctoral training of their critical thinking and idea [17]. Like China, other countries’ post-doctoral systems raise similar questions with respect to their higher education systems, the role of post-doctoral fellows, institutional management, and academic employment. The higher education systems and the role of post-doctoral fellows play a pivotal role in influencing the perceptions and experiences of post-doctoral fellows. The federal government should implement bureaucratic reforms [18]. The dissatisfaction among post-doctoral researchers with the nature of their position and with their future employment prospect [19,20].

2. Methods

The aim of this study was to provide an in-depth understanding of the experiences with and perceptions of the post-doctoral researchers, co-advisors, and institutional administrators of the current post-doctoral system in China. The naturalistic and interpretive nature of our qualitative approach was able to tap into the personal insights and first-person perspectives of various stakeholders on China’s current post-doctoral policies.

2.1. Background and Case Selection

Since 2017, the attainment of world-class status has been a goal for China’s top universities as an integral part of their pivotal policy position to create internationally recognized exemplary HEIs. The sampled universities in this study have followed The Report of the 11th Five-Year Plan for the Construction of World-Class Universities to formulate a diversified schedule to get into the world-class league [21,22]. In light of this goal, the selected universities have devoted themselves to the internationalization of their post-doctoral recruitment and cultivation policies to raise the quality of their post-docs. To achieve this, various incremental efforts have been made toward implement institutional post-doctoral policies and reforms to achieve world-class academic goals. The predominant disciplines of these eight universities, moreover, are Comprehensive (3), Humanities and Social Sciences (3), and Science and Engineering (2). Over the past few decades, all of the selected universities have implemented various post-doctoral recruitment policies to attract post-doctoral researchers/fellows for the purpose of expanding their international academic exchanges.

This study concentrated on two data sources: (1) A total of 34 institutional post-doctoral recruitment documents and policies of world-class universities; and (2) 36 semi-structured interviews with selected post-doctoral researchers, co-advisors, and institutional administrators. Post-doctoral recruitment documents and post-doctoral outbound policies were collected from the official websites of 34 quasi-world-class Chinese universities; field visits were conducted at five universities from December 2018 to September 2019. Each field visit lasted over 60 min. The 34 universities were selected on the basis of criteria outlined in the Notice on the Promulgation of the List of World-Class Universities, and the Universities and Disciplines for the Construction of First-Class Disciplines, which were jointly issued by China’s National Development and Reform Commission of the Ministry of Education and Finance in 2017 [23].

Semi-structured interviews were conducted from September 2016 to May 2017 at six universities, with 16 post-doctoral researchers (10 graduated from local universities and six from foreign universities), 11 co-advisors, five senior administrators, and four vice-presidential administrators in charge of scientific research. This study obtained an official approval letter from each of the selected universities. Each interview lasted approximately 35–45 min. In addition to the interviews, both the participant and non-participant observations were conducted; that is, we engaged in and observed some of the participants’ academic activities across different departments. The interview questions included: “What is your attitude toward China’s current post-doctoral system?”; “What are your concerns/worries regarding your post-doctoral life?”; and “Do you have any comments/recommendations on how to change this situation that you have suffered”?

Of the 34 selected universities, 14 were comprehensive research universities, 10 were humanities and social sciences, six were normal universities affiliated with the Ministry of Education, and four were sciences and engineering. Twelve of the selected universities were located in Northern China, 11 in Eastern China, three in Western China, and the other 11 in Central China. Post-doc interviewees majoring in the humanities and social sciences were recruited using “purposive sampling” and “snowball sampling” strategies. In sociology fields, snowball sampling refers to a non-probability sampling method, which includes purposive sampling. Researchers begin with a small population of known people and enlarge the sample by asking those initial interviewees to find others who would like to participate in the study. Thus, a sample “snowballs” into a larger sample throughout the study. We applied a snowball sampling technique to initially identify and locate post-doctoral fellows in the humanities and social sciences in the selected universities. Given the nature of this method, the resulting sample is not regarded as representative for statistical goals. However, it is an appropriate method for conducting an exploratory study with a specific and relatively small group, especially one that is difficult to identify and/or locate [24].

One senior administrator at each case university was interviewed. Each was involved in formulating institutional post-doctoral recruitment and incentive policies. The selected social sciences included Sociology, Economics, Political Science, and Psychology and the humanities comprised Arts, Literature, and History with Centers for Post-Doctoral Researchers.

2.2. Data Coding and Analysis

This study documented institutional post-doctoral recruitment and incentive policies; documentary evidence was collected including official publications, annual reports, and archival records related to the internationalization of the post-doctoral system. Data were coded in three stages: Open coding, followed by pattern coding to develop categories, and finally clustering, comparing, contrasting, building logical connections between codes, and generating themes. Additionally, all interview transcripts, observational field notes, and documents were comprehensively analyzed in response to the research questions. This study applies the semi-structured interviews with different participants. During the interviews, we paid significant attention to the challenges, problems, and suggestions on promoting the sustainable development of the current post-doctoral education system in China’s higher education institutions. For the interview protocol and phases, we selected keywords identifying their post-doctoral education reform and policies including “post-doctoral funding information, resources and allocations”, “post-doctoral academic publications and research work”, “post-doctoral professional career development”, and “post-doctoral management and policies”. All these keywords are considered as the key phases for researchers to analyze the transcripts. For the coding and confidentiality, all of the participants’ information such as their name, sex, job, and marital status were anonymized by researchers to protect the participants’ ethnic information.

Along with the previous literature review and research questions, we developed coding categories: the post-doctoral system, academic identity, interpersonal communication, funding allocation, and management system; guided by these categories, we assessed the sampled universities’ post-doctoral fellows’ attitudes toward and perceptions of their current academic environment. We then collected and coded the sampled data followed by the coding categories to evaluate which level the transcript was associated with, whether they expressed the perceptions of interviewees, and what ideas they were showing. After this coding round, we analyzed and summarized the coded text.

3. Findings

On the basis of our documentary analysis, and interviews, it was found that in recent years, the sampled Chinese universities had implemented a series of positive institutional policies to recruit post-doctoral fellows. In response to the internationalization of the post-doctoral system, a growing number of Chinese higher education institutions have formulated recruitment policies to promote higher quality post-doctoral researchers. However, there still existed a couple of challenges.

3.1. Role Ambiguity: “Temporary Researcher” without the “Iron Rice Bowl”

Academic identity determines the social, political, and economic status of post-doctoral communities. In China, post-docs are regarded as high-level innovative young talents, and when the post-doctoral system was established, the treatment standard of post-docs was equivalent to that of the university assistant professors. It is important to reasonably confirm the post-doctoral role, especially to give operational identification. The post-doctoral identity in developed countries is essentially that of a mobile contract researcher.

As a result of this fluidity, post-docs must consult with their institution at the end of their contract period to continue their post-doctoral work or to gain formal employment in the university faculty. This quasi-independent researcher role requires post-docs to adhere to their advisors’ guidance to conduct their research. In other words, a post-doc is a category between a doctoral student and an independent researcher. YX, a 29-year-old female interviewee, is a post-doctoral researcher majoring in Education Policy, who graduated from one of the top Chinese universities in Beijing, who argued:

“From my perspective, being in the role of a post-doc means conducting temporary research with the guidance of a co-advisor. The core task of being a post-doc is to follow the requirements and guidance to do various research projects. We also encountered lots of pressures and tensions compared with being doctoral students. The temporary, subjective role of being post-docs seems like “floating personnel”, which causes us to not have the internal identity of being post-docs. Publishing papers such as in SSCI, CSSCI is considered as the key indicator for evaluating whether someone is a good post-doc or not. In addition, the quality and quantity of publications directly influence the likelihood of finding a good job in the coming days”.

In addition, HKY, a 31-year-old male post-doctoral researcher, majoring in Chinese Language and Literature, who graduated from one of the normal Chinese universities in Shanghai, expressed a similar concern:

“I am always confused by my embarrassing role of being a post-doc. Is being a post-doc being a student or being a teacher? I am not a formally recruited faculty member or a graduate student and sometimes, I feel at a loss. When my family asks me, “where are you working”? I cannot give a clear answer to explain my current status of being neither researcher nor student. In addition, working as a post-doc, I have undertaken a lot of challenging work, but it has neither been recognized nor received the benefits they think they deserve. They always fall into a dilemma”.

Moreover, the increasingly competitive academic community presents post-doctoral researchers with serious pressure in their scientific research, employment, and life, which has had a physiological and psychological impact on their daily post-doctoral work. Some interviewees indicated that pursuing post-doctoral research is time consuming with many risks. LX, for example, a 29-year-old male post-doc, majoring in Education Policy, who graduated from a comprehensive foreign university, pointed out that,

“The risk of job market saturation in academia is the big issue worldwide. Some post-doctoral researchers believe that more and more doctors now need to bear the risk of employment brought by time cost. I used to work in the Chinese Academy of Sciences, but now, it’s hard to enter the field of study after I leave. I worry that, with the saturation of the job market, colleges and universities are increasingly demanding in their employment criteria, and many colleges and universities explicitly require applicants who have study abroad experience, not being post-doctoral experience. In addition, the risk of policy change is considered as another issue. I think the current policy changes too fast. At that time, when I chose to do in-service post-doctoral work, the policy propaganda had better treatment, but now it has not been fulfilled. Faculty post-doctoral work is constantly changing such as “to prepare”, which worries us that we haven’t found a fixed job yet. This kind of unsafe career prospect over time increases the current load of post-doctoral work”.

Furthermore, some interviewees highlighted that, at present, the relationship between post-docs and their cooperative tutors in China is mainly a traditional teacher–student or superior–subordinate relationship, which does not benefit academic interactions between post-docs and tutors. The establishment should systematically promote equal relationships between post-docs and tutors and enhance mutual understanding and trust through cooperative guidance. Some PhD graduates must choose a post-doc role to meet their personal academic development goals or compromise passively with HEIs. Several interviewees also pointed out that the primary motivation for seeking post-doctoral status involves being elected to teach in the contracted universities and then finding a better position to improve the existing treatment. However, a post-doctoral researcher is always considered as a “temporary researcher” without the “iron rice bowl”. This is the main reason many scholars hesitate to undertake post-doctoral work; most young scholars choose to undertake post-doctoral work because they do not have job opportunities that might sustain them temporarily. Most Chinese people have the idea of an “iron rice bowl” and their subconscious reveals a sense of insecurity, which can greatly reduce post-doctoral happiness.

3.2. Funding Not Guaranteed: “Survival of the Fittest”

Financial aid plays an important role in shaping the post-doctoral system. In China, the funding for post-doctoral research consists of four categories: daily expenses, scientific research expenses, housing benefits, and tutor or enterprise expenses. Daily expenses refer to recruit with the cost of living index; national research refers to post-doctoral scientific research funded by the China Post-Doctoral Science Foundation of China; housing benefits mainly refer to the provision of post-doctoral welfare housing; and tutor or enterprise expenses refer to the 1988 trial at the university of self-financing enterprise recruiting 1994 recruits post-doctoral and post-doctoral, tutor, university, or national requirements enterprise bears part of the funds.

In China, post-doctoral funding allocation is typically decentralized. For example, a post-doc should be able to apply for various types of funding, but currently, not every post-doc can obtain the basic funding they need as they are not fully funded by their institutions or by their co-advisors.

The decentralized funding policy has obvious disadvantages. In addition to receiving welfare housing, a post-doctoral researcher may face the dilemma of “keeping an empty room” without basic living expenses or receiving daily expenses without scientific research funding.

Aside from the research funding, there are many other economic pressures on post-doctoral researchers. In some universities or scientific research institutes, the post-doctoral salary is relatively low. Most post-doctoral researchers are approximately 30 years old or older and suffer from the pressure to make money to support their families. Such economic pressure often comes not from the fear that the money they earn cannot support their families, but from the social expectations regarding their own income and the psychological pressure associated with comparing their income to that of their peers. For example, XJY, a 33-year-old male post-doc, majoring in History, who graduated from a local comprehensive university, stated:

“I think, the helplessness of not seeing future hope is more painful. As you know, during the post-doctoral period, we suffered from a low salary, and I did not have enough money to afford my family. If you can’t see the future, you will lose interest, motivation, and even feel despair. The limited funding for post-doctoral research makes most of the young researchers fall into a state of confusion and struggle. A few years ago, post-doctoral students could get a position of associate professor directly in a good scientific research institute or university. Now, post-doctoral students have to go to a good scientific research institute or university to work, which is many times more difficult than before. After they go to a good scientific research institute or university, they rarely have the chance to attain associate professor directly. They still need to go from lecturer or assistant researcher, which starts with the title of “endure”.

FJ, a 29-year-old female post-doc, majoring in Chinese Literature, who graduated from one of the humanities and social sciences-oriented universities, also claimed:

“I am currently struggling with research funding. My advisor has not offered me research funding to conduct my study. It is not easy to apply to the national post-doctoral research foundation, which does not guarantee that I will receive the basic salary from my institution, and it couldn’t afford my daily expenses. In addition, I need to rent an apartment, but on my current salary, it is difficult to cover my daily expenses”.

3.3. Quality and Quantity Questioned: “Paper as the Primary Productivity”

Some interviewees argued that a post-doc’s research capacity plays an important role in their selection as an excellent researcher. Post-doctoral centers in China are set up in some research universities or in key research institutions but have their own research value orientation and long-term accumulation of research culture, strong and sustained research funding as well as multi-disciplinary, multi-professional, comprehensive research platforms with the aim to promote the rapid growth of post-doctoral research. Reshaping the policies and mechanisms of centers of post-doctoral research is essential to expand the recruitment of high-level post-doctoral scholars. The establishment of post-doctoral centers should transform from incentive-dominated principles to a quality-based orientation. Encouraging the acquisition of high-quality post-doctoral researchers requires expanding the scale of recruitment and implementing national recruitment standards. Some interviewees argued that strictly implementing an exit mechanism for post-doctoral researchers is urgently needed. ZX, a senior administrator in a humanities and social sciences-oriented university, asserted:

“I think the quality of post-doctoral researcher is key to promoting the development of world-class universities. Many post-docs do not have sufficient publications to find satisfying academic positions. Most world-class universities offer strict requirements for recruiting post-docs. However, some of them do not have clear standards or requirements for their research during the post-doctoral stage. The large-scale recruitment of post-doctoral researchers impeded the cultivation of quality post-docs”.

In addition, a co-advisor who was currently working with two post-docs from a humanities and social sciences-oriented university also emphasized:

“The quality of post-docs is generally not high, and some post-docs couldn’t fulfill their research task. For example, some post-docs in the social sciences haven’t published qualified articles in CSSCI journals or SSCI journals or applied for national- or provincial-level funding support. In addition, some co-advisors complain that some post-docs couldn’t complete the required research workload and there existed an obvious tension between the advisors and post-docs. Generally, many co-advisors are not satisfied, to some extent they are disappointed with the academic competence and skills of the recruited post-docs”.

We found, moreover, that the co-advisors’ satisfaction with their post-docs also reflected a tension with respect to balancing quality and quantity. The occurrence and development of communication between the post-docs and their co-supervisors/advisors was essentially the generation and development process of communication rationality. The rational development of intersubjective communication is an important factor in the enhancement of the post-docs’ scientific innovation abilities in light of making important scientific discoveries. The development of communication rationality between postdocs and co-supervisors mainly aims at the production of advanced knowledge. Original innovation has become the value criterion for the development orientation of communication rationality between subjects and the evaluation standard for the development level of the communication paradigm. Communication paradigm optimization for post-docs and co-supervisors is imbedded in improvements in environmental support systems, and in improvements in the communication concepts and modes. Most interviewees also suggested that promoting the post-doctoral researchers’ scientific innovation abilities, especially original innovation abilities, is considered as an important factor in the construction of the post-doctoral researchers’ academic futures. Undoubtedly, an important avenue through which such scientific innovation abilities can be improved is communication with the co-supervisors/advisors.

3.4. Governance and Management Disorder: “Shifting from Management to Service”

Some interviewees argued that reducing the hierarchies in the Centers for Post-Doctoral Researchers and shifting their focus to “service” would be a way to form a new system of post-doctoral management. It is necessary to create a post-doctoral system of “nation–institution/entrepreneurs–mentors” with respect to the principles of power, responsibility, and benefit. National-level management focuses on nationwide post-doctoral management committees, whose main function is policy formulation for post-doctoral research in China. For example, the approval for the evaluation of centers for post-doctoral researchers and workstations, the release and approval of China’s Science Foundation for Post-Doctoral Research, and the release of information and development data for China’s post-doctoral recruitment. Institutional/enterprise management might include the university or enterprises with post-doctoral stations. Its main function is to release institutional post-doctoral recruitment policies and information, post-doctoral development data statistics, and the exchange of post-doctoral management and services. The supervisors’ management permits post-doctoral supervisors to recruit their post-doctoral researchers, provide post-doctoral subsidized funds, and guide post-doctoral work. In other words, delegating authority to mentors and shaping the post-doctoral system in its discovery of more advanced talents is beneficial for promoting the functional influences of Centers for Post-Doctoral Researchers. A senior administrator from a world-class university explained:

“I think the most important thing is to re-adjust the governance and management of post-docs. Currently, there is not a unified management system for post-docs at the institutional level. Constructing an effective faculty post-doctoral management system should include the post-docs in the management of the faculty. Its purpose is to adapt to the needs of school teaching and scientific research development, strengthen the construction and training of young talents, optimize the faculty structure, broaden the channels of post-doctoral training, and improve the quality of post-doctoral training. For example, we can divide post-docs into two types: one is faculty post-docs, another is ordinary post-docs. Faculty post-docs and the ordinary post-docs are different in training objectives, job requirements, and salary benefits. After ten years of exploration and practice, the policy for the faculty post-doctoral system in Chinese universities and colleges has made great achievements”. [25]

The number of higher education institutions implementing faculty post-doctoral policies has been greatly increased, which has effectively promoted the reform of the teacher appointment system and activated creativity in post-doctoral policy. The policy of the faculty post-doctoral system is also faced with some new challenges such as unclear policy concept, irregular policy formulation, lack of guidance in the policy system, and the lack of monitoring in policy implementation. These problems urgently need to be answered from the theoretical and practical perspectives [26].

The post-doctoral system has the “dual attributes” of training and using talents. Post-doctoral experience is both human capital investment and capital investment. The important responsibilities of the management organization have shifted from management to service, providing the management for the post-docs’ development needs.

4. Discussion

Along with the findings, the alternative discourses and practices are challenging the post-doctoral system, highlighting indigenous governance and management, and the need to comprehensively reshape the structure and post-doctoral system. In the internationalization of their post-doctoral system, and thus when assessing domestic knowledge production, Chinese universities should adopt international standards and norms from global world-class universities [27]. As the interviewees noted, Chinese post-docs are confined to international norms and employ international rules to promote the development of the post-doctoral system. This could result in the creation of an effective post-doctoral system in China, primarily in international terms, without adding a distinctive Chinese strand to the global academic conversation. Regardless, accounts of China “climbing the ladder” reveal a drive in the Chinese academic community to establish and promote an international post-doctoral system in a globalized world. The “ladder-climbing” approach could be conceptualized as an ascending process, starting from the level of introducing Chinese academic backgrounds, and progressing to more critical, sophisticated, and professional engagements for internationalizing the post-doctoral system [28,29,30].

In addition, compared with previous published works regarding the post-doctoral education system in China, this study offers a specific in-depth understanding of the stakeholders’ attitudes toward the current post-doctoral system and management. The previous studies have concentrated more on analyzing the historical educational policies in the development of the post-doctoral system and reform in China’s higher education system without considering individual and personal micro level opinions on how to advance current post-doctoral management intuitionally and nationally. Thus, this is also the unique contribution of this research to explore the emotional reflections on current post-doctoral education reform.

This study has several implications for Chinese universities, which continue to encounter tremendous tensions between international and domestic post-doctoral system management. As an important part of the national talent strategy, the post-doctoral system in China has incomparable advantages [31]. The reform of China’s post-doctoral system should actively adapt to the needs of the market and to the demands of knowledge development. It is important to reasonably define—especially operationally—the post-doctoral position. Decentralized funding could be changed to full funding to construct a new post-doctoral funding system [32]. The Chinese central government should offer sufficient support in shaping the post-doctoral system to attain substantial achievements in policy formulation, personnel training, and funding allocation. All of these education reforms contribute to addressing the previously mentioned difficulties such as post-doctoral funding, recruitment scale development, and management system improvement. Using the post-doctoral system blueprint of education reform, it is necessary to take full advantage of the unique advantages of the post-doctoral system of national talent, from a top-level redesign through the proper positioning of post-doctoral identity to the dispersion of funding for full funding, from a reduction of unqualified postdocs and expansion of recruiting, to a lowered management center of gravity and a reduction of management measures such as reconstructing a new post-doctoral system [33]. One of the methodological limitations in this study was the snowball sampling technique, which could not identify or locate large samples in the humanities and social sciences in the selected universities [34,35]. The sampled interviewees, moreover, did not represent all of China’s humanities and social sciences post-doctoral fellows. Our qualitative findings include only sample-based findings, and they may not be generalizable to all populations and contexts. Quantitative elements should be added to this study to investigate a broader selection of groups [36,37]. Additionally, future research should investigate more macro-level external post-doctoral systems, and the role of post-doctoral systems in China’s HE system could be investigated from a comparative perspective in terms of contextual differences in cultural, political, economic, and geographical factors [38,39].

This study also offers both theoretical and practical implications of analyzing the post-doctoral education management and policy development in China’s current higher education system [40]. For theoretical implications, social emotional theory and social cultural theory could be discussed in this theme for unpacking the individual real post-doctoral life and learning contexts [41,42,43]. For practical implication, this study offers a variety of effective strategies to address the current challenges and problems. Some specific results could inform future study to make a broader study on how to identify the stakeholders ‘personal development when pursing post-doctoral education. In addition, during the pandemic period, the job-readiness plays a pivotal role for post-doctoral researchers to achieve more and more academic performance [44].