European Journal of Education Policy and Practice - Volume 1, Issue 1, 2025

This paper examines the role of China’s university–industry integration (UII) policies and practices in transforming the country’s educational landscape, with a particular focus on their function as a dynamic interface between knowledge production and policy. The paper draws on an analysis of policy documents, case studies and relevant literature, as well as on the exploration of conceptual innovations emerging from the Chinese context. It argues that UII has not only evolved into a key mechanism for aligning education with the demands of a rapidly changing economy, but it also effectively illustrates the special Chinese model of knowledge-policy/practice nexus (KPPN). It highlights the distinctive features of China’s UII policy environment, including its experimental nature, adaptability to local contexts, and integration with broader strategies of sustainable development and innovation. Analysing the dynamics of creating and using knowledge, as well as the relationship between various knowledge producers and users, it pays special attention to the role of embedded epistemic communities and instrumental epistemologies in shaping UII practices and discourses. The study contributes to the understanding of how educational systems can become more flexible, contextualised, and sustainable by engaging in deeper forms of collaboration with industry and government actors. It also contributes to understanding the nature of knowledge production and utilisation in a specific education policy area.

This article critically examines how two originally distinct concepts – openness, rooted in transparency and democratic access, and innovation, tied to economic valorisation and competitiveness –have been aligned through policy reforms, evaluative regimes, and digital infrastructures. Drawing on neo-institutionalist theory and comparative empirical cases from Europe, China, Latin America, and Africa, it interrogates the institutional and epistemic consequences of this convergence. The analysis demonstrates how open science and innovation have been reframed as instruments of performative governance, narrowing epistemic diversity and reshaping legitimacy in the name of accountability and impact. While alternative practices and platforms offer civic and pluralist counter-models, the managerial paradigm remains structurally dominant. The article explores the entanglement of openness and innovation with broader transformations in knowledge capitalism and calls for reflexivity in knowledge governance.