This study explores the research performance and strategic positioning of Sino-Foreign Collaborative Universities (SFCUs), with a focus on their ability to balance the global and local dimensions of higher education. These universities, created through partnerships between Chinese and foreign institutions, represent a unique model of international collaboration. They operate with a dual identity, simultaneously pursuing global academic standards while addressing local needs in China. The central research question driving this work is: How do SFCUs navigate their dual institutional identity to develop research capabilities and strategically position themselves in the global and local academic landscapes?

The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research performance of SFCUs, particularly their publication output, disciplinary profiles, research quality, collaboration networks, and funding structures. By comparing SFCUs to established Chinese universities, such as those in the prestigious Project 985 and Project 211 initiatives, the study aims to uncover the distinctive strategies that enable SFCUs to grow as research-active institutions. Furthermore, this research highlights the European and international dimensions of these universities, emphasizing their role as intermediaries in global academic collaboration and knowledge production.

The conceptual framework for this study is grounded in three key theoretical perspectives.

First, the global-local dynamics framework provides insight into how SFCUs integrate global standards into local environments. Drawing on theories of internationalization in higher education (Knight, 2011; Marginson & Rhoades, 2002), the study examines how SFCUs leverage their international partnerships to establish research excellence while addressing domestic priorities, including fostering innovation and reducing brain drain. The dual identity of SFCUs enables them to act as bridges between global academic communities and local societal needs, but it also creates challenges in resource allocation and strategic alignment (Zhan & Marginson, 2024).

Second, the institutional research development perspective sheds light on the transition of SFCUs from teaching-focused to research-active institutions. This perspective draws on the work of Lee and Kuzhabekova (2019), who emphasize the importance of research capacity building, encompassing resources, human capital, and cultural contexts. For SFCUs, these factors are particularly significant, as they often face resource constraints and operate in an environment dominated by traditional Chinese universities benefiting from national excellence initiatives (Wilkins, 2020). Furthermore, SFCUs’ dual academic identity allows them to introduce new research disciplines and foster cross-cultural collaboration, which can contribute to local capacity building and reduce brain drain (Knight, 2011).

The third theoretical lens is homophily theory, which explores patterns of research collaboration. Originally proposed by Lazarsfeld  (1954), this theory describes the tendency of institutions to collaborate with others that are similar to themselves. Recent studies, such as those by Horta et al. (2022), suggest that collaboration is not always based on instrumental goals like prestige or resources; rather, shared knowledge identities and disciplinary orientations also play a role. SFCUs, due to their dual identity, face unique challenges in balancing collaboration with their foreign partner universities, domestic institutions, and other SFCUs. They also exhibit distinct patterns of internationalization, often prioritizing global partnerships while building domestic networks over time (Pohl & Lane, 2018).

The European and international dimension is central to this research. Many SFCUs have European or American partner universities that play a vital role in shaping their research trajectories. For instance, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University collaborates with the University of Liverpool, while Duke Kunshan University works closely with Duke University. These partnerships influence not only the research outputs of SFCUs but also their disciplinary focus and collaboration patterns. By examining these dynamics, this study contributes to the understanding of how European and international institutions foster global academic collaboration and enhance the research capacity of emerging universities.

This study employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating bibliometric analysis with comparative institutional analysis. The research focuses on ten SFCUs in China, examining their research performance over nine years (2014–2023) and comparing them with eight well-established Chinese universities, including four from Project 985 and four from Project 211. These universities were selected based on their geographic proximity to SFCUs in key regions such as the Pearl River Delta and the Yangtze River Delta, as well as their comparable academic standing (Wilkins, 2020). The primary source of data is SciVal, a research analytics tool based on the Scopus database, which provides comprehensive metrics for over 12,000 research institutions worldwide (Elsevier, 2019). SciVal is used to measure publication outputs, disciplinary profiles, research quality, and collaboration patterns. To complement this, Web of Science is used to analyze funding sources, as it offers more complete coverage of research funding data. Additionally, institutional reports and strategic plans of SFCUs are reviewed to contextualize the quantitative findings and understand the universities’ research priorities and strategies. The analysis focuses on five key dimensions of research performance. Research outputs are measured in terms of total publication volume and Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR), which is particularly relevant for SFCUs as it captures their developmental trajectory as relatively young institutions. Disciplinary profiles are examined to understand how SFCUs allocate resources across academic fields. Cosine Similarity is used to quantify the alignment of disciplinary focus between SFCUs and their foreign partner universities, providing insights into the strategic balance between global alignment and local differentiation (Zhan & Marginson, 2024). Research quality is assessed using two widely recognized indicators: the proportion of publications in the top 10% of journals and the share of publications in the top 10% most-cited works (Santos & Horta, 2018). These metrics highlight the ability of SFCUs to produce impactful research. Collaboration patterns are analyzed by categorizing research output into international collaboration, national collaboration, and single-authored works. Institutional collaboration networks are also examined to understand how SFCUs integrate into both global and local academic communities (Pohl & Lane, 2018). Finally, an analysis of funding sources reveals how SFCUs mobilize resources from national, regional, and international agencies, with a focus on their integration into Chinese and global research systems (Wilkins, 2020). Quantitative data is analyzed using statistical methods, including ANOVA tests to compare research metrics across institutional groups. Qualitative insights from institutional reports and strategic plans are incorporated to provide a richer understanding of the findings.

The findings reveal that SFCUs are emerging as dynamic players in the global and local academic landscapes. Despite their relatively short histories and smaller publication volumes compared to Project 985 and 211 universities, SFCUs demonstrate remarkable growth trajectories. For instance, newer institutions like HKUST(GZ) achieve exceptional growth rates, reflecting their potential to rapidly establish themselves as research-active universities. In terms of disciplinary profiles, SFCUs display diverse strategies. Some, like CUHKSZ and HKUST(GZ), focus heavily on STEM fields such as Computer Science and Engineering, while others, such as UIC and XJTLU, adopt a more comprehensive approach that includes the social sciences and humanities. The alignment between SFCUs and their foreign partner universities varies significantly, with some institutions maintaining strong disciplinary alignment and others pursuing more independent research agendas (Zhan & Marginson, 2024). SFCUs also perform well in terms of research quality, with high proportions of their publications appearing in top journals and among the most-cited works. This suggests that these institutions are successfully prioritizing research excellence despite resource constraints (Santos & Horta, 2018). Collaboration patterns reveal a strong international orientation, with most SFCUs maintaining international collaboration rates above 60%. However, a noticeable trend toward increasing domestic collaboration has emerged in recent years, likely driven by global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and shifting geopolitical dynamics. The analysis of funding structures highlights the diverse strategies employed by SFCUs. While the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is the primary funding source, some institutions, like Duke Kunshan University and GTIIT, benefit from substantial private foundation support and funding from their foreign partners. Regional funding also plays a significant role, particularly for institutions like UNNC and HKUST(GZ), which receive strategic support aligned with regional development initiatives (Wilkins, 2020).

Elsevier. (2019). SciVal Libguide: Metrics & Indicators. Elsevier. Horta, H., Feng, S., & Santos, J. M. (2022). Homophily in higher education research: A perspective based on co-authorships. Scientometrics, 1-21. Knight, J. (2011). Education hubs: A fad, a brand, an innovation?. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(3), 221-240. Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom and control in modern society/Van Nostrand. Lee, J. T., & Kuzhabekova, A. (2019). Building local research capacity in higher education: A conceptual model. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 342-357. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher education, 43, 281-309. Pohl, H., & Lane, J. E. (2018). Research contributions of international branch campuses to the scientific wealth of academically developing countries. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1719-1734. Santos, J. M., & Horta, H. (2018). The research agenda setting of higher education researchers. Higher Education, 76, 649-668. Wilkins, S. (2020). Two decades of international branch campus development, 2000–2020: A review. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(1), 311-326. Zhan, T., & Marginson, S. (2024). Institutional dual identity in research capacity building in IBCs: the case of NYU Shanghai. Higher Education, 87(2), 471-490.