The New Logic of Disciplinary Team Growth
Academic innovation can be driven by individuals, but disciplinary advancement must rely on teams. Those whose research interests diverge from disciplinary development priorities—preferring instead to pursue "free scholarship" based on personal preferences or journal trends—are not the candidates our school seeks. In other words, the school recruits only two types of scholars: those capable of leading a disciplinary team, and those capable of contributing within an existing disciplinary team. The former refers to team builders, while the latter refers to those who can effectively function within established teams. For the former, the school may create positions tailored to their strengths; for the latter, positions must be strictly defined by institutional needs. In an environment characterized by immense uncertainty and intense competitive pressure, the school lacks the resources for large-scale, long-term patronage of scholars. High-output and cost-effective organizational players will inevitably remain the mainstream in our recruitment strategy.
"Organized research" manifests in two forms: externally organized research and self-organized research. Externally organized research centers on predefined objectives and clear implementation pathways, relying on external forces—often administrative or market-driven—to assemble research teams. Self-organized research emerges when specific goals cannot be predetermined and implementation pathways remain ambiguous, evolving organically through iterative practice to form collaborative teams. When we possess sufficient confidence to foresee the future, with concrete objectives and well-defined pathways, externally organized approaches to disciplinary development prove effective. Conversely, when future outcomes are unpredictable and objectives or pathways remain unclear, self-organized approaches to disciplinary development are more efficacious. Given increasing environmental uncertainty—driven by technological shifts, evolving student recruitment, and employment landscapes—the school will increasingly rely on self-organized disciplinary development in the coming years. Rather than proactively assembling teams through administrative means, we will retroactively recognize disciplinary teams based on their emerging outcomes.
The self-organized disciplinary teams emerging within the school will be judged by several fundamental criteria: Alignment with the school's disciplinary development principles and direction;Accumulated academic achievements (including major ongoing national research projects, several closely related and well-defined general national projects , significant ongoing industry-sponsored projects supported by high-quality academic publications in progress); A disciplinary platform backed by government or leading enterprises to ensure sustainable development; Confidence in their future development. Such teams are validated not by administrative decisions or so-called expert judgments, but by their tangible outputs and the external recognition of these outputs' value. The emphasis on "in-progress" projects is crucial because these teams are dynamic, even agile: they emerge organically based on results and dissolve naturally without them. In a rapidly changing environment, past recognition does not guarantee present or future value. These criteria are straightforward and unambiguous. There are no quotas for self-organized teams. The school will not subject them to project approval reviews or final acceptance evaluations, and faculty members need not compromise with authority. A direct indicator of a team's confidence is its ability to provide research stipends for new members. A confident team will naturally trust in its ability to effectively utilize new talent, secure more projects and funding, and generate greater outcomes.
Beyond development principles and broad direction, the school will not intervene in the innovation initiatives of these teams. While there will be no upfront investment in these self-organized teams, recognition and rewards for their outcomes will be significantly increased. The school already possesses several major national projects and numerous general projects. Consequently, there is no need to provide so-called "start-up funds" for new recruits. The funding from these existing projects is sufficient to enable new members—recruited according to team needs—to generate subsequent research outcomes. Because no upfront resources are allocated for team formation, attempts to forcibly cobble together teams merely to carve up school resources are both unnecessary and futile. An outcome-oriented incentive policy is a crucial driver for team growth: the more effectively a team is formed, the greater its potential to produce better and more numerous results. New recruits, being hired by the team and benefiting from the stipends it provides, naturally assume responsibility for the team's work. There is no room for an "free range approach." Instead, a virtuous cycle of mutual achievement between team and individual readily forms, and the status of the team leader is easily respected. It is important to note: a department chair is not necessarily a disciplinary team leader. Leaders of these self-organized disciplinary teams are not appointed by the school; they emerge naturally during disciplinary development based on individual academic stature, influence, and leadership—they are endogenous. Within such teams, power barriers to innovation are minimized. Sophisticated self-seekers cannot grow into team leaders. Individuals who are incompetent or enter solely through connections become a burden to the team and its leader, thereby reducing the likelihood of such situations occurring.
"The external cause is the condition of change, while the internal cause is its basis; the external cause operates through the internal cause." This assertion from On Contradiction serves as the fundamental philosophical basis for our understanding and recognition of scientific teams. Within the framework of the school’s disciplinary development principles and direction, granting faculty members full autonomy—relying not on upfront administrative authority but on post-hoc recognition of outcomes—is the core logic guiding our approach to fostering the self-organized growth of teams. Power must not presume to dictate innovation. Only under this logic can disciplinary teams evolve to become intrinsically driven, oriented toward ideals and value creation—rather than extrinsically driven, focused on power or performance metrics.
