Toward High-Quality Professional and Vocational Education and Training (PVET) Development: Building Skills-Ecosystem in Chinese Societies

Competence Formation: Curriculum–Pedagogy–Assessment Coherence

The first building block, competence formation, concerns how PVET systems transform inputs such as students, teachers, and facilities into demonstrable occupational competence. Systems theory emphasizes the importance of coherence among curriculum, pedagogy, equipment, and assessment, ensuring that instruction, practice, and evaluation align with established competence standards (Leung et al., 2000; Wu & Ye, 2018). With increasing digitalization, competence formation must extend beyond narrow task training to incorporate technical foundations, problem-solving abilities, and digital literacy (Wu & Ye, 2018; Yau et al., 2018). Policy initiatives to redesign curricula, develop integrated teaching materials, and upgrade training resources represent efforts to enhance this internal coherence (Zou, 2026).

Workplace Integration: Work-Based Learning as a Governed Relationship

The second building block, workplace integration, reframes work-based learning from a simple placement arrangement to a governed relationship in which employers assume shared responsibility for learning quality, task design, supervision, and assessment. This approach aligns with governance perspectives that highlight the increasing reliance on negotiated arrangements among multiple stakeholders, rather than solely on hierarchical directives (Enders & De Boer, 2009; Gornitzka & Maassen, 2000). In Chinese mainland, recent reforms underscore the importance of industry–education integration and the establishment of training bases, reflecting the need to institutionalize workplace learning rather than rely on informal connections (Zou, 2026). Similarly, large-scale national training initiatives that explicitly connect job requirements, training, skills evaluation, and employment services exemplify efforts to strengthen the feedback loop between labor market demand and learning design, rather than viewing employment as a mere downstream outcome (State Council Leading Group for Employment Promotion and Labor Protection, 2025).

Credential Architecture: Portability, Stackability, and Progression

The third building block, credential architecture, concerns the credibility, portability, and cumulative nature of qualifications. Within a skills ecosystem, credentials function as coordination mechanisms that translate learning achievements into signals recognized by organizations and across regions, rather than serving merely as proof of completion. When credential systems are fragmented or lack trust, effective training may not lead to mobility, as learners are unable to convert competence into opportunities (Leung et al., 2000; Zha et al., 2018). Governance literature demonstrates that evaluative infrastructures and reputational hierarchies influence both organizational behavior and individual decision-making (Hazelkorn, 2015; Marginson, 2011; Sauder & Espeland, 2009). In PVET, transparent and credible qualification standards enhance the value of vocational pathways, whereas poorly aligned certification can exacerbate credential inflation without corresponding improvements in capability.

Teacher and Trainer Capacity: The Professional Engine of Renewal

The fourth building block, teacher and trainer capacity, serves as the internal engine for ongoing renewal within the ecosystem. Sustaining alignment with evolving technologies and workplace practices requires not only pedagogical expertise but also mechanisms to maintain occupational relevance and enhance digital teaching skills (Wu & Ye, 2018; Yau et al., 2018). Institutionally, capacity-building is influenced by steering instruments such as funding policies, professional standards, evaluation systems, and incentives that either promote or hinder industry engagement and pedagogical innovation (Ferlie et al., 2008; Power, 1997). Policy initiatives aimed at strengthening teacher capabilities in vocational institutions represent structural efforts to enhance ecosystem adaptability (Zou, 2026).

Governance and Trust: Funding, QA, and Legitimacy Narratives

The fifth building block concerns governance and trust. A skills ecosystem operates effectively when stakeholders share confidence that standards are meaningful, assessments are valid, credentials are recognized, and learners are protected from low-quality provision. Governance encompasses funding arrangements, QA, evaluation, accountability, and transparency. These elements are widely discussed in higher education as features of the evaluative state and audit cultures (Ferlie et al., 2008; Neave, 2012; Power, 1997). In the context of PVET, these mechanisms directly shape trust because PVET involves multiple learning sites, multiple assessors, and significant consequences for learners’ employment and mobility. The recent national policy focus on training quality assessment and oversight represents an effort to build governance capacity for scaling vocational upskilling while maintaining credibility (State Council Leading Group for Employment Promotion and Labor Protection, 2025).

Ecosystem Performance is the Product of Feedback Loops, not Isolated Reforms

These five building blocks interact through feedback loops. Workplace integration enhances the authenticity of competence formation. Strengthened assessment and credential architecture increases employer recognition, which in turn improves parity of esteem. Parity influences enrollment patterns and employer participation. These interconnected dynamics shape outcomes that justify continued investment and governance reform (Clark, 1986; Greenwood et al., 2011). The analytical implication is that PVET should be evaluated not only by enrollment expansion or short-term placement but also by ecosystem-level indicators such as learning quality, progression, wage and career trajectories, and equitable access to high-quality work-based learning (Wu & Ye, 2018; Yau et al., 2018). For this reason, dynamic adjustment policies, including the introduction of new programs, the closure of underperforming ones, curriculum upgrades, and the development of integrated training bases, should be understood as ecosystem-building efforts rather than routine administrative adjustments (Zou, 2026).

Multiactor Governance and “Mixed Steering Portfolios”

In contemporary education systems, coordination is no longer achieved through a single dominant mode such as state control, market mechanisms, or professional self-regulation (Tsang et al., 2024). Instead, these systems are evolving toward mixed steering portfolios that integrate hierarchical regulation, quasi-market incentives, and evaluative infrastructures (Clark, 1986; Enders & De Boer, 2009; Ferlie et al., 2008; Maassen & Olsen, 2007). A central insight from theory–institution–practice scholarship is that coordination increasingly occurs within organizations through internalized accountability, competitive pressures, and professional norms. This insight is particularly relevant to PVET providers, who are required to be responsive, accountable, and innovative simultaneously (Greenwood et al., 2011; Power, 1997).

In Chinese societies, PVET institutions are required to balance multiple, overlapping expectations: advancing public objectives such as access, equity, and regional development; responding to labor market and employer demands; and maintaining occupational or professional standards that validate competence. When these institutional logics are misaligned, PVET institutions may experience a form of mission drift, prioritizing prestige signals such as academicization or credential expansion over genuine capability formation. This occurs because legitimacy and resources are often allocated based on symbolic compliance rather than substantive skill development (Enders & De Boer, 2009; Marginson, 2011; Sauder & Espeland, 2009).

Scaling Pressure: From Pilots to System Capacity

A persistent challenge in PVET reform is bridging the gap between pilot programs and system-wide capability. Governance research indicates that reforms often spread through evaluation regimes, funding incentives, and organizational isomorphism, which can result in superficial convergence if performance indicators incentivize inappropriate behaviors (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Ferlie et al., 2008; Power, 1997). In the PVET context, scaling is particularly challenging because quality relies on tacit pedagogical expertise, workshop and laboratory conditions, and workplace learning arrangements that are locally negotiated and difficult to replicate (Leung et al., 2000; Wu & Ye, 2018; Zha et al., 2018).

Recent policy initiatives in Chinese mainland highlight both the scale of ambition and the corresponding coordination requirements. The State Council's 2025–2027 vocational skills upgrading initiative establishes targets in the tens of millions of training person-times and prioritizes project-based training that integrates job demand, training provision, skills evaluation, and employment services (State Council Leading Group for Employment Promotion and Labor Protection, 2025). Similarly, the Ministry of Education guideline emphasizes dynamic adjustments to majors and disciplines, integrated curricula, updated textbooks, teacher capacity-building, and the development of industry–education training bases, with particular attention to emerging sectors such as artificial intelligence and the low-altitude economy (Zou, 2026). These measures represent comprehensive efforts to build system capacity and will only be effective if ecosystem linkages, such as standards, workplaces, assessment, credentials, teacher development, and QA, are strengthened in tandem.

Legitimacy, Stratification, and the Social Meaning of Vocational Routes

Ecosystem thinking is essential because PVET functions not only as a technical training domain but also as a status-ordered pathway embedded within broader stratification dynamics. Governance and institutional theory indicate that legitimacy is constructed through narratives, classifications, and reputational hierarchies, rather than solely through performance (Greenwood et al., 2011; Marginson, 2011; Morphew & Hartley, 2006). When PVET is perceived as a secondary option, even high-quality programs face challenges attracting diverse talent; employers may underinvest in training partnerships; and credentials may be undervalued in hiring and wage-setting. This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which diminished prestige reduces demand and investment, further depressing outcomes and perpetuating stigma (Leung et al., 2000; Wu & Ye, 2018).

The policy implications are clear: to enable PVET to support industrial upgrading and expand opportunities, ecosystem design must incorporate mechanisms that enhance legitimacy, such as credible credentials, transparent progression routes, and publicly intelligible quality signals, rather than relying exclusively on capacity expansion (State Council Leading Group for Employment Promotion and Labor Protection, 2025; Xinhua, 2025).

“Chinese Societies” as a Research Advantage, not a Complication

The analytical value of the Chinese societies’ framing lies in its capacity to facilitate comparison across contexts that share cultural and historical linkages but differ in governance arrangements, labor-market institutions, and qualification frameworks. Comparative governance scholarship demonstrates that identical steering instruments can yield divergent institutional responses depending on regulatory traditions, market intensity, and professional structures (Clark, 1986; Jongbloed, 2003; Teichler, 2008; Verhoeven et al., 2019). Examining PVET across these settings enables the development of meso-level propositions regarding ecosystem coordination under varying combinations of state, market, and occupational or professional logics.

Build Coherence Across Instruments (Avoid “Steering Contradictions”)

Mixed steering portfolios have become standard practice: governments prioritize accountability and public value, markets incentivize responsiveness and signaling, and occupational or professional communities assert authority over competence and standards (Clark, 1986; Ferlie et al., 2008; Maassen & Olsen, 2007). The primary risk in these environments is not only insufficient steering but also contradictory steering. For instance, performance indicators may reward enrollment expansion or credential volume, while employers and learners prioritize competence, progression, and wage returns. When indicators and funding formulas are misaligned with genuine skill formation, institutions may rationally focus on what is measured rather than what is substantively important, resulting in audit-driven compliance and superficial convergence (Power, 1997; Sauder & Espeland, 2009).

From an ecosystem perspective, the primary design challenge is to align the following elements: Funding (the allocation of financial resources), QA and evaluation (criteria for inspection and reward), Credential standards (definitions of competence), and Pathways (available progression opportunities following completion).

Recent Chinese mainland policy priorities, such as dynamic adjustment of majors, integrated curricula, enhanced teacher capacity, and improved training bases, represent efforts to strengthen these linkages. However, their effectiveness depends on whether local incentives and assessment systems consistently reward genuine capability rather than symbolic compliance (State Council Leading Group for Employment Promotion and Labor Protection, 2025; Zou, 2026).

Treat Workplaces as Coproducers of Skills, with Explicit Governance

Work-based learning represents the central promise of PVET, but it remains the most vulnerable component due to its reliance on employer participation, supervision quality, and the provision of meaningful tasks. In a mature ecosystem, workplace learning is structured as a governed partnership rather than a simple placement, supported by clear standards, shared responsibilities, and mechanisms for quality monitoring (Enders & De Boer, 2009; Gornitzka & Maassen, 2000). In the absence of such governance, workplace learning often becomes inconsistent and inequitable, with some learners gaining substantial experience while others perform routine labor with minimal skill development.

Policies that connect workplace demand to training design, skills evaluation, and employment services are promising because they align demand signals with learning and certification, rather than focusing solely on hiring (State Council Leading Group for Employment Promotion and Labor Protection, 2025). Within this ecosystem, employer engagement should be assessed based on the quality of learning opportunities and the credibility of assessment processes, rather than the quantity of participating partners.

Make Legitimacy a Design Object, not a Hoped-for By-Product

A persistent obstacle to PVET improvement is the legitimacy deficit associated with vocational pathways in highly stratified credential systems. Legitimacy is not solely achieved through improved long-term outcomes but it is also established in the short and medium term through credible signals and narratives, such as qualification frameworks, transparent progression routes, employer recognition, and effective public communication regarding PVET's value (Marginson, 2011; Morphew & Hartley, 2006). Reforms that increase the number of credentials without enhancing their value may intensify skepticism. In contrast, reforms that improve assessment credibility and progression pathways can gradually reposition PVET as a preferred option.

This alignment between the ecosystem approach and institutional theory highlights that organizations function within both technical environments, focused on efficiency and performance, and institutional environments, concerned with legitimacy and meaning. The PVET ecosystems must address both dimensions; otherwise, reforms may achieve technical success but fail politically (Cai, 2024; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Greenwood et al., 2011).

Layer 1 Foundations: Establishing Governable Competence and Quality (Minimum Viability)

What constitutes competence, who is responsible for its verification, and why should employers and learners place trust in it?

The first layer focuses on establishing the minimum viable infrastructure of trust. Ecosystem development falters when competence standards are ambiguous, assessment lacks credibility, and QA fails to differentiate genuine capability formation from mere credential production. In these circumstances, funding and evaluation mechanisms may unintentionally prioritize quantity over quality, creating conditions in which audit cultures foster superficial conformity (Power, 1997).

Competence standards that are usable: Standards must be clear and actionable for teaching, learning, and assessment, rather than serving solely as aspirational statements. Occupational and professional communities are essential in this context, as they provide external credibility and exert pressure for updates as technologies and practices evolve (Greenwood et al., 2011).

Assessment credibility and comparability: Ecosystems require assessment systems that are trusted across institutions and workplaces, incorporating explicit criteria, assessor training, and moderation practices. Without these elements, credentials lose value and learners are unable to translate training into career mobility.

Quality assurance that protects learners without freezing innovation: Evaluation mechanisms should identify low-quality provision and facilitate improvement, while also avoiding the creation of incentives that prioritize easily quantifiable outcomes (Ferlie et al., 2008; Sauder & Espeland, 2009). In environments with mixed steering, this constitutes a design challenge: the focus of inspection often determines the nature of what is produced.

Baseline teacher/trainer capacity: Teacher professionalization is not a “capacity add-on” but it is part of ecosystem viability because teachers and workplace mentors translate standards into practice. Digitalization and new industrial sectors intensify this requirement (Wu & Ye, 2018; Yau et al., 2018).

Implication for scholarship: There is a need for research that examines how standards, assessment, and QA function in practice, particularly the gap between formal policy and enacted practice (Cai, 2024; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Layer 2 System Design and Scaling: Aligning Incentives across School, Workplace, and Credentialing Processes

How do we scale quality, not just scale activity?

The second layer addresses coordination mechanisms such as funding, performance metrics, partnerships, and governance arrangements that align the actions of providers and employers. Many PVET reforms encounter challenges at this stage: while pilot programs may succeed locally, scaling often leads to uneven outcomes due to significant variation in workplace learning quality, employer participation, and institutional incentives.

Governance research demonstrates that modern systems function through mixed steering portfolios, in which coordination is negotiated among multiple actors rather than imposed hierarchically (Clark, 1986; Gornitzka & Maassen, 2000; Maassen & Olsen, 2007). In PVET ecosystems, this implies that workplace integration requires deliberate governance rather than being taken for granted.

Workplace learning as a coproduced public good: Workplace learning should be approached as a deliberately designed relationship, with clearly defined roles, task design standards, mentor preparation, and shared responsibility for learning quality (Enders & De Boer, 2009). A significant risk is “placement without learning,” which can undermine both legitimacy and equity.

Funding and evaluation that reward capability formation: Given that “what gets measured gets managed,” performance regimes should avoid incentivizing superficial proxies such as enrollment counts, number of partners, or credential issuance at the expense of actual competence and progression (Ferlie et al., 2008; Power, 1997). Even when policy targets are large scale, such as in mass upskilling initiatives, evaluation should prioritize learning quality and credible assessment over throughput alone (State Council Leading Group for Employment Promotion and Labor Protection, 2025).

Provider differentiation as a coordination resource: Ecosystems are most effective when institutions occupy complementary positions and roles, rather than converging toward a single prestige model (Marginson, 2011; Teichler, 2008). Differentiation enhances both efficiency and equity, as various provider types can specialize in serving distinct learner groups, industries, and regional missions.

Data infrastructures that connect education and labor outcomes: Effective scaling depends on feedback loops: progression, wages, employment stability, and employer satisfaction must be systematically tracked to inform program adjustments and governance. This approach aligns with the “evaluative state” thesis but necessitates careful indicator design to prevent gaming (Neave, 2012; Sauder & Espeland, 2009).

Implication for scholarship: There is a need for studies that investigate steering coherence, specifically how funding, QA, and credential standards interact, and which combinations yield high-quality workplace learning and credible mobility at scale.

Layer 3 Long-Run Transformation: Legitimacy, Mobility, and Resilience under Technological Change

How does PVET become a first-choice pathway that remains adaptive over time?

The third layer addresses the long-term societal role of PVET as a pathway that supports mobility, industrial upgrading, and resilience amid uncertainty. At this stage, the ecosystem perspective is particularly important, as legitimacy is not ensured by technical improvements alone but depends on how PVET is situated within the broader status hierarchy of education and work.

Institutional theory indicates that organizations must meet both technical demands, such as performance, and institutional demands, such as meaning and legitimacy (Cai, 2024; Greenwood et al., 2011). In stratified credential environments, legitimacy is influenced by narratives, reputational mechanisms, and visible progression routes, rather than solely by internal quality improvements (Marginson, 2011; Morphew & Hartley, 2006).

Progression routes and permeability: The PVET ecosystems require credible pathways for continued education and career advancement, including stackable credentials and articulation arrangements that prevent learners from being confined to dead-end trajectories. In the absence of permeability, PVET remains susceptible to stigma, even if training quality improves.

Public legitimacy and employer recognition as explicit goals: Legitimacy should be established through transparent standards, credible assessment, and consistent recognition practices. If signaling devices such as reputational hierarchies or selective labels become predominant, systems may shift toward prestige competition at the expense of capability (Marginson, 2011; Sauder & Espeland, 2009).

A renewal engine for new industries and new forms of work: The diffusion of artificial intelligence, the rise of platform work, and ongoing industrial restructuring require ecosystems to continuously update curricula, equipment, and teacher occupational expertise (Wu & Ye, 2018; Yau et al., 2018). Policy initiatives that advocate for dynamic adjustment of majors and the strengthening of training bases should be understood as efforts to enhance this renewal capacity (Zou, 2026).

Equity as ecosystem property, not only access policy: Equity is determined by access to high-quality workplace learning, the presence of credible employer networks within institutions, and the capacity of regions to maintain training infrastructure. Consequently, ecosystem design must address distributional issues, rather than focusing solely on participation rates.

Implication for scholarship: There is a need for longitudinal and comparative research to explain how PVET legitimacy evolves and how it interacts with employer participation, learner choice, and wage returns over time.

Universities of Applied Sciences as a Focused Research Agenda

An additional research agenda involves examining Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) as a strategic organizational form within PVET skills ecosystems in Chinese societies (Ho et al., 2026a). The UAS are analytically significant because they occupy the intersection between vocational and academic sectors, thereby highlighting central coordination challenges such as raising skill levels and strengthening progression without inducing academic drift or perpetuating new hierarchies (Ho et al., 2026b). Within the ecosystem framework, UAS function as bridging institutions that connect curricula, work-based learning, applied research and innovation services, and credential pathways across educational and labor markets.

Future research can utilize UAS as empirical sites or conceptual levers to address the following questions:

Institutional role and differentiation: What distinct missions are UAS expected to fulfill in comparison to research universities and vocational colleges, and how stable are these roles under competitive and reputational pressures? (Marginson, 2011; Teichler, 2008)

Steering and incentives: How do funding formulas, QA frameworks, and performance indicators influence UAS behavior? Do these mechanisms reward the development of applied capabilities, or do they incentivize institutions to pursue university-like prestige metrics and symbolic compliance? (Ferlie et al., 2008; Power, 1997; Sauder & Espeland, 2009)

Industry coproduction and work-based learning: Which partnership arrangements consistently produce high-quality workplace learning, authentic projects, and employer-recognized assessments at advanced skill levels, extending beyond superficial memorandum-style collaborations? (Enders & De Boer, 2009)

Applied research and development and regional development: To what extent do UAS contribute to technology diffusion, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, and the development of regional innovation ecosystems? Through which organizational mechanisms, such as staff profiles, laboratories, or joint projects, are these contributions realized?

Mobility and legitimacy effects: Do UAS pathways enhance progression and labor-market outcomes for vocationally oriented learners? How do learners, parents, and employers interpret UAS credentials within the broader educational status hierarchy? (Marginson, 2011; Morphew & Hartley, 2006).

By foregrounding UAS, this special issue can enhance its contribution to both PVET scholarship and governance theory. The UAS represent more than an additional provider type; they serve as a test case for whether mixed steering portfolios can sustain mission-differentiated, labor-market-credible higher vocational pathways while simultaneously expanding opportunity and supporting industrial upgrading (Cai, 2024; Clark, 1986; Greenwood et al., 2011).

Teacher and Trainer Capacity and Institutional Governance

The article “Institutional Analysis of the Recruitment and Management of High-Level Talent in Higher Vocational Colleges in China” examines a foundational ecosystem condition: PVET systems’ capacity to recruit, develop, and retain high-level teaching talent. Employing an institutional-logics perspective, the study demonstrates how dual policy discourses, such as administrative accountability and institutional autonomy, together with meritocratic value assumptions, shape recruitment practices and result in both isomorphic compliance and local flexibility in implementation. Viewed through an ecosystem framework, the article establishes that teacher capacity extends beyond staffing concerns; it constitutes a governance and legitimacy challenge that influences competence formation, program quality, and the credibility of PVET institutions.

Learner Legitimacy, Identity, and Aspiration as Ecosystem Constraints

The article “The Relationship Between Stereotype Threat and Career Development Confidence Among Vocational College Students in China” foregrounds learner-side mechanisms that influence whether PVET serves as an effective mobility pathway. By connecting stereotype threat to career identity, career decision difficulties, and career development confidence, the study demonstrates how social perceptions and cultural hierarchies can undermine confidence and complicate transition planning. From an ecosystem perspective, this research addresses the demand side of PVET, emphasizing that even well-designed curricula and credentials may be ineffective if learners encounter stigma that impedes identity formation, persistence, and successful navigation of pathways.

Evaluative Infrastructures and Teacher Well-Being

The article “The Relationship between Internal Accountability and Teacher Burnout: A Moderated Mediation Model of Emotional Labor and School Type” examines how accountability mechanisms, often implemented to enhance quality, can produce unintended negative effects on teacher well-being through increased emotional labor, with variations observed across different school types. This study reinforces the ecosystem perspective that governance tools are not neutral; audit and accountability regimes alter daily work, professional commitment, and ultimately the system's ability to sustain competence formation. The findings prompt ecosystem-level considerations regarding the design of evaluation and responsibility systems that maintain quality without diminishing the human capacity essential for effective delivery.

Workplace Integration and Employment Outcomes: The Transition Function

“A Study on the Influencing Factors of Employment Quality of Technical School Graduates in China” links processes in PVET to postgraduation outcomes, using indicators such as major–job alignment, starting salary, and job satisfaction. The study highlights the significance of internship experience and the alignment between majors and personal interests, directly addressing ecosystem performance during the transition from education to employment. Within the ecosystem framework, the findings support a shift from merely counting placements to evaluating the quality of job matching and the contextual factors that render workplace learning impactful.

Curriculum Renewal in the Context of Sectoral Transformation in Hong Kong

The article “Critical Review and Lesson Learnt from the School Business Education in Hong Kong” offers a system- and sector-sensitive analysis of curriculum evolution and competency requirements within a rapidly changing economy, addressing challenges related to new technologies and Hong Kong's economic positioning. The article contributes to ecosystem thinking by demonstrating that curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher education must evolve alongside shifting occupational demands and regional economic integration. Additionally, the study emphasizes the importance of historical path dependence, noting that ecosystem construction is shaped by existing institutional legacies and societal expectations.

Technological Disruption and Cross-Society Policy Learning in AI-TVET

“Polishing Jade with Stones from Other Mountains: How Hong Kong Can Learn From Chinese Taiwan's Artificial Intelligence Integration with TVET Development” situates PVET within the context of technological discontinuities brought about by AI and automation, framing policy learning between Hong Kong and Chinese Taiwan. By reviewing AI-related Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) policies across governance, partnerships, and education, the article advances an ecosystem perspective on digital transformation. It argues that effective AI-TVET integration necessitates coordinated changes across standards, provision, industry partnerships, and system steering, rather than relying on supplementary modules or isolated pilot programs.