Author(s)

Liu Yang

Affiliation(s)

Organization and Publicity Department, Guangdong Agriculture Industry Business Polytechnic, Guangzhou 510507, Guangdong, China.

Corresponding Author

Liu Yang

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Organizational life is a core mechanism through which Chinese Communist Party (CCP) organizations educate, manage, and supervise members. In universities, student Party branches are the most youth-proximate grassroots units, yet research has rarely assessed their routine quality using comparable indicators of standardization and effectiveness. Objectives: This study profiles the status and perceived effectiveness of organizational life in university student Party branches, identifies multi-level influencing factors, and develops evidence-informed improvement pathways. Methods: A mixed-methods design was employed. A stratified two-stage survey was conducted across 26 universities, yielding 638 valid questionnaires. Maximum-variation interviews were carried out in 59 on-campus student Party branches and more than 60 off-campus branches. Quantitative and qualitative evidence was integrated through triangulation. Results: Organizational life is generally routinized and positively evaluated, with high reported participation and effectiveness (92.93 percent rated it very or relatively effective). Nonetheless, prominent quality bottlenecks persist, particularly monotonous formats and weak alignment between content provision and students’ study and work realities. The most frequently cited constraints are insufficient innovation in content and formats (43.42 percent) and inadequate systematic planning (42.63 percent). A supply–demand mismatch is evident: theoretical study dominates current provision (89.66 percent), whereas social practice is the most desired format (64.73 percent). Discussion: The findings indicate that improvement requires shifting from compliance-oriented delivery to an institutionalized quality loop linking planning, implementation, evaluation, and rectification. Strengthened coordination, youth-relevant format renewal, and embedded evaluation and incentive safeguards are pivotal to sustained effectiveness. The study offers a measurement-oriented basis for comparative assessment and a multi-level explanatory account of routine quality variation.

KEYWORDS

Student Party branches; Organizational life; Higher education governance; Quality improvement

CITE THIS PAPER

Liu Yang. Organizational life of college student Party branches in China: status, influencing factors, and improvement paths. World Journal of Educational Studies. 2025, 3(9): 32-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/wjes3119.

REFERENCES

[1] Mittelstaedt J C. Intra-Party Rules: Rebuilding the Chinese Communist Party’s Political Ecology. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 2024, 53(3): 507-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681026241247068.

[2] Yan X. Engineering stability: Authoritarian political control over university students in post-Deng China. The China Quarterly, 2014, 218: 493-513. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741014000332.

[3] Liu X, Xiantong Z, Starkey H. Ideological and political education in Chinese Universities: structures and practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1960484.

[4] Guo G. Party Recruitment of College Students in China. Journal of Contemporary China, 2005, 14(43): 371-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560500065504.

[5] Feldman M S, Pentland B T. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Sage Journals, 2003. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2307/3556620.

[6] Ruan J, Cai Y, Stensaker B. University managers or institutional leaders? An exploration of top-level leadership in Chinese universities. Higher Education, 2024, 87(3): 703-719. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10734-023-01031-x.

[7] Jian H, Mols F. Modernizing China’s tertiary education sector: Enhanced autonomy or governance in the shadow of hierarchy? The China Quarterly, 2019, 239: 702-727. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741019000079.

[8] Liu X. Institutional governance of Chinese private universities: the role of the communist party committee. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2020, 42(1): 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1662926.

[9] Angiolillo F. Authoritarian Ruling Parties’ Recruitment Dilemma: Evidence from China. Journal of East Asian Studies, 2023, 23(3): 491-515. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2023.20.

[10] Han L, Li T. Marketing Communist Party membership in China. Public Choice, 2021, 188(1-2): 241-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-020-00827-0.

[11] Han S, Xu X. How far has the state ‘stepped back’: an exploratory study of the changing governance of higher education in China (1978–2018). Higher Education, 2019, 78(5): 931-946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00378-4.

[12] Levy P S, Lemeshow S. Sampling of populations: methods and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2013. https://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=XU9ZmLe5k1IC&oi=fnd&pg=PT14&dq=Sampling+of+populations:+Methods+and+applications&ots=odbWK9XAQm&sig=aNBKNuIvaTbn6oCfKlW9EnVw4wY.

[13] Lohr S L. Sampling: design and analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2021. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/9780429298899/sampling-sharon-lohr.

[14] Enders C K. Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Publications, 2022. https://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=b294EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Applied+missing+data+analysis.&ots=X0K8FBYyiZ&sig=i9ThtCIQOWP6HoIwlIfcYvrHkkY.

[15] Little R J, Rubin D B. Statistical analysis with missing data. John Wiley & Sons, 2019. https://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=BemMDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Statistical+analysis+with+missing+data+(3rd+ed.).&ots=FCEU9XLZVY&sig=Xww6qbJ0gIDbxSKh1eESAMlkCeo.

[16] Meade A W, Craig S B. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological methods, 2012, 17(3): 437. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2012-10015-001.html.

[17] Fetters M D, Curry L A, CRESWELL J W. Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs—Principles and Practices. Health Services Research, 2013, 48(6pt2): 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.

[18] Ray R. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Qualitative Research Journal, 2007, 7(2): 90-92. http://www.rmitpublishing.com.au/qrj.html.

[19] Wiles R, Crow G, Heath S, et al. The Management of Confidentiality and Anonymity in Social Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2008, 11(5): 417-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701622231.

[20] Miller G, Spiegel E. Guidelines for Research Data Integrity (GRDI). Scientific Data, 2025, 12(1): 95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-04312-x.

[21] Ward M K, Meade A W. Dealing with careless responding in survey data: Prevention, identification, and recommended best practices. Annual review of psychology, 2023, 74(1): 577-596. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-040422-045007.

[22] Kalkbrenner M T. Choosing Between Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha, McDonald’s Coefficient Omega, and Coefficient H: Confidence Intervals and the Advantages and Drawbacks of Interpretive Guidelines. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 2024, 57(2): 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2023.2283637.

[23] Braun V, Clarke V. A critical review of the reporting of reflexive thematic analysis in Health Promotion International. Health Promotion International, 2024, 39(3): daae049. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae049.