324700_Print.indd

Table 2.2

(continued)

Authors

Sample

Method

Inputs

Outputs

Findings

Li andRen(^2009

)

Universities in31 provinces, 2002

–^2006

DEA

Teaching funding; Researchfunding; Teaching and researchstaff

Licensed patents; Incomes oftechnology transfer; Monographs;Journal Articles; Contract incomeof patents; National level awards

More than half of provinces wereDEA-inef

fi

cient. Most provinces

were operating in the area ofIncreasing Return to Scale.Economic conditions had certainpositive association withuniversity research ef

fi

ciency, but

not that strong

Hu et al.(^2011

)

“985 Project

”

universities,4 years

DEA

R&D Staff; Research grants

Monographs; Academic journals;Awards; Incomes of technologytransfer

Most

“985 Project

”

universities

were in status of low ef

fi

ciency

Hu andLiang(^2007

)

25 mergeruniversities, 1999

–^2002

MalmquistIndex

Total research staff; Ratio ofsenior title in total research staff;Research funding per capita;Research projects per capita;Research funding per project

Monographs per capita; Journalarticles per capita (internationaland domestic);Per capita incomesof technology transfer; Awardsper capita; National level awardsper capita

Technical Change was the primesource of increase of overallef

fi

ciency scores. The scale effect

of mergers in universities werenot substantial

Luo(^2009

)

Universities in29 provinces, 2000

–^2004

DEA&MalmquistIndex

FTE R&D staff; Scientists andengineers; S&T expenditures(current year)

Direct research achievements(Monographs, Articles, patents)Awards (National level); Indirectresearch outcomes (income oftechnology transfer in currentyear)

Geographically, the universities inmost provinces wereDEA-inef

fi

cient, with a

decreasing trend from eastern,central, to the western.Historically, allocative ef

fi

ciency

of most provinces were on adecreasing trend

24 2 Evaluation on University Research Efficiency and Productivity...