growth of research productivity and achieve sustainable growth effect brought by
technical changes.
Secondly, SEC indexes of both 985Us and non-985Us are in the samefluctuant
trend, but 985Us gain more profoundly cumulative improvements in thesefluctu-
ations, contrarily, non-985Us hardly gains any improvement in thesefluctuations.
This explains why there are relatively large gaps between 985Us and non-985Us in
their HSS research TFP index. The SEC indexes of both groups reach their peak
values in 2008 and 2010, and reach their valley points in 2007 and 2009, which
reveals that their SEC indexes are improved profoundly in 2007–2008 and 2009–
2010, and are damaged badly in 2008–2009. In fact, TFP index of 985Us is
increased by 11.1 and 33.7% separately in 2007–2008 and 2009–2010, while is
decreased by 23.6% in 2008–2009. To non-985Us, their TFP index is increased by
20 and 17.1% in 2007–2008 and 2009–2010, and decreased by 25% in 2008–2009.
Thirdly, the cumulative TEC indexes of both groups are in the samefluctuant
trend, going down apparently from a cumulative perspective. By decomposing TEC
into PTEC and SEC, we canfind that, SEC indexes of both groups are cumulatively
improved to some extent, but PTEC indexes of both groups are cumulatively
decreased due to their downtrend after 2008. This reflects that the decline of PTEC
index is the primary cause to the decline of TEC index. Moreover, before 2008,
PTEC indexes of both 985Us and non-985Us are increased to some extent, but after
2008, PTEC index of 985Us is decreased by 19.9 and 34.1% in 2009 and 2010
sequentially, relative to base year, and that of non-985Us is decreased by 18.9 and
26.6% in 2009 and 2010 respectively. The underlying reason might be that, the
post-2008 phase was just the time when most universities were making great efforts
to gain technical progress and growth effect through approaches like recruiting
Fig. 5.8 Cumulative change of decomposed index of 985Us and non-985Us (HSS)
232 5 Dynamic Evaluation on Research Productivity...