and dynamic changing trend of efficiency and productivity of research activities in
Chinese university.
The major qualitative approach is literature analysis, that is, by combing through
recent studies on university research productivity, we clarify the core concepts, and
construct theoretical framework, and interpret the different properties of measuring
efficiency and productivity, then choose the appropriate measurementfit for our
research,finally give helpful comments on how to improve research efficiency and
productivity of university research.
The major quantitative approach is non-parametric DEA method. First, we use
descriptive statistics to illustrate the input and output state of university research,
then apply DEA and Malmquist Index to measure research efficiency and reveal the
dynamic changing trend, and compare the status and changes of research efficiency
and productivity. Besides, we will use Tobit model to explore the key factors
impacting on university research efficiency, with panel data of third term“ 211
Project”ranging from 2006 to 2010.
The specific quantitative methods used include:
- Use descriptive Statistics to analyze input and output data of NEAM and HSS
disciplines in 211Us. - Employ DEA (both CRS and VRS)model to evaluate research efficiency
(technical efficiency and scale efficiency) of NEAM and HSS disciplines of
211Us separately. - Employ Malmquist Index to illustrate the dynamic changes of research effi-
ciency of NEAM and HSS disciplines in 211Us during 2006–2010. - Employ Tobit model to explore key factors impacting on NEAM and HSS
research efficiency in 211Us.
References
Aigner, D. J., Lovell, C. A. K., & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic
frontier production functions models.Journal of Econometrics, 6(1), 21–37.
Athanassopoulos, A. D., & Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher
education institutions in the UK by means of data envelopment analysis.Education Economics,
5 (2), 117–134.
Avkiran, N. K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale efficiency of Australian universities
through data envelopment analysis.Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35, 57 – 80.
Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1992). Frontier production functions, technical efficiency and panel
data: With application to paddy farmers in India.Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3, 153 – 169.
Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1995). A model of technical inefficiency effects in stochastic frontier
production for panel data.Empirical Economics, 20, 325 – 332.
Beasley, J. E. (1990). Comparing university departments.OMEGA International Journal of
Management Science, 18, 171 – 183.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making
units.European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
2.6 Research Hypothesis and Methodology 29