This study investigates the education model and implementation mechanisms of the integration of specialization and innovation, abbreviated as ISI, in high level research universities, addressing institution level demands for cultivating high level, versatile talents under innovation driven development agendas. In the knowledge economy, universities are expected to develop graduates with strong disciplinary foundations alongside innovation capability and entrepreneurial literacy. In practice, however, structural barriers continue to constrain collaboration among universities, industry and government within higher education innovation ecosystems. Disciplinary education and innovation and entrepreneurship education are also frequently arranged in parallel rather than integrated through coherent institutional design, curriculum architecture and resource allocation. These constraints make it difficult for universities to establish a sustainable and consistent talent development system that can translate reform aspirations into demonstrable improvements in educational quality and innovation outcomes. Although existing studies have offered valuable discussions from the perspectives of entrepreneurship education, university industry engagement and curriculum reform, there remains limited conceptual clarity and mechanism oriented evidence regarding ISI as a systemic education model, particularly its conceptual boundaries, internal logic and organizationalized pathways of implementation in high level research universities. The guiding research question is as follows: under the development goals and governance conditions of high level research universities, what mechanisms and structural constraints shape the effective implementation of ISI, and how do these factors operate through the alignment of curricula, faculty capacity and practice platforms to influence talent cultivation quality and the development of innovation and entrepreneurship competencies. The study aims to clarify the conceptual essence of ISI by emphasizing that ISI is not a simple combination of courses or an accumulation of extracurricular activities, but a systemic coupling and mutual reinforcement among disciplinary learning, innovation training and entrepreneurial practice. It further seeks to identify the major bottlenecks that impede ISI implementation across curriculum design, faculty development and practice platform construction, and to propose actionable and transferable pathways for institutional improvement that support research universities in upgrading talent cultivation and strengthening innovation ecosystems. The study is grounded in triple helix theory and collaboration theory, which together inform an analytical framework connecting the external collaborative ecosystem to the internal educational system. The external dimension highlights resource flows, boundary spanning and institutional arrangements among universities, industry and government, explaining why the co construction of practice platforms and the sustained provision of project based learning opportunities are often shaped by responsibility allocation, governance structure and incentive compatibility. The internal dimension foregrounds cross school and cross departmental coordination, resource integration and assessment and incentive regimes, explaining how weak curriculum alignment, underdeveloped learning outcomes oriented assessment loops and the shortage of dual competency faculty jointly constitute institutional bottlenecks. On this basis, ISI implementation is conceptualized as a coordinated improvement across theoretical curricula, faculty supply and development, and practice activities and platform construction, providing a systematic lens for analyzing challenges and development pathways. The empirical setting draws on five high level research universities in China, offering evidence and implications that speak to broader debates on talent cultivation reform in research intensive higher education.

This study adopts a mixed methods design to strengthen both explanatory depth and evidentiary robustness regarding ISI as a systemic education model. Empirical work is situated in five high level research universities in China, which enables comparison across institutional contexts while retaining sensitivity to variation in organizational conditions. The qualitative component relies on semi structured in depth interviews with 37 participants, including students and educational administrators from relevant management departments, in order to capture process level evidence on institutional arrangements and implementation dynamics. Interview materials focus on top level design and responsibility allocation, curriculum alignment and teaching assessment reform, faculty development and incentive support, and the logic and governance of practice platform co construction. Qualitative data are analyzed using thematic analysis, with iterative cycles of coding and theme refinement to build an explanatory account of mechanisms and structural constraints. The resulting themes are then interpreted through the lenses of triple helix theory and collaboration theory to enhance analytical coherence and transferability. The quantitative component draws on 1,226 cross sectional survey responses to examine the overall status of ISI implementation and its key determinants. Survey measures are organized around the three operational dimensions of ISI, namely curriculum integration quality, dual competency faculty support, and practice platform collaboration, and include outcome indicators related to the development of innovation and entrepreneurship capabilities, such as learning engagement in innovation and entrepreneurship activities, perceived competence gains, and innovation and entrepreneurship self efficacy. Quantitative analyses employ descriptive statistics and multiple regression models to identify association patterns and constraint pathways among core variables. Mixed method integration follows an explanatory integration strategy, using quantitative patterns as a structural map and qualitative narratives to explain how institutional mechanisms and contextual conditions produce the observed relationships. Ethical procedures are strictly followed throughout the study, including informed consent, anonymization, and responsible data management.

The findings indicate that ISI implementation in high level research universities is characterized by clear reform aspirations alongside insufficient institutionalization and mechanism based support. Although universities emphasize ISI as a central mission for upgrading talent cultivation and strengthening innovation capacity, implementation remains constrained by several structural bottlenecks. A first challenge is the absence of institutionally distinctive and operational top level designs in some universities, which leads to weak alignment among reform objectives, responsibility allocation and execution mechanisms. A second challenge lies in delayed curriculum and assessment reforms, as disciplinary courses and innovation and entrepreneurship courses often lack structured linkage and a robust learning outcomes oriented assessment loop. A third challenge concerns the shortage of dual competency faculty, while faculty development supports and incentive systems remain inadequate for strengthening cross boundary teaching and practice oriented mentoring capacities. A fourth challenge is the limited capacity to co construct and sustainably operate practice platforms, as university industry government collaboration continues to face barriers in resource integration, governance arrangements and long term incentive alignment. Drawing on triple helix and collaboration perspectives, the study argues that improving ISI quality requires simultaneous progress in the external collaborative ecosystem and the internal collaborative education model. Externally, clearer accountability arrangements and governance optimization are needed to enhance platform co building efficiency and resource accessibility. Internally, universities should strengthen cross departmental resource integration and align assessment and incentives to improve the coherence of curricula, faculty capability and practice opportunities. The study contributes a transferable analytical framework for ISI and offers actionable implications for curriculum reform, faculty development and practice platform governance in high level research universities.

Carlos, J. V., Marco, C., & Carlos, S. (2024). Social entrepreneurship and complex thinking: An exploratory educational innovation proposal for acquiring and scaling competencies. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 14(3), 694–710. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix university–industry–government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 14–19. Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7–8), 692–701. Jones, B., & Iredale, N. (2010). Enterprise education as pedagogy. Education + Training, 52(1), 7–19. Macías, P. N., Tierno, G. L., & Nicolás, D. L. V. (2023). Educational innovation boosting students’ entrepreneurial intentions. SAGE Open, 13(3), 1–14. Mars, M. M., & Metcalfe, A. S. (2009). Entrepreneurship education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(5), 1–83. Mizanur, M. R., Alain, F., & Paul, L. D. (2024). Predicting graduate students’ entrepreneurial intentions through innovative teaching in entrepreneurship education: A SEM–ANN approach. Education + Training, 66(2–3), 273–301. Sinha, M., Shekhar, & Valeri, M. (2024). How does entrepreneurship education promote creativity and innovation? International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 16(1), 1–18. Wilms, S. M. B., Højgaard, L. J., & Mathilde, K. (2020). To share or not to share: A study of educational dilemmas regarding the promotion of creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(2), 211–226.