Spatial change and configurational research on state key laboratories

State key laboratories are the core carriers of China’s strategic scientific and technological forces, and their restructuring has profoundly reshaped the spatial layout of basic research platforms. Significant changes have occurred in the spatial distribution of state key laboratories before and after the restructuring, and the spatial variation in antecedent conditions is an important factor influencing this pattern evolution. Clarifying the spatial evolution characteristics and driving factors of state key laboratories before and after the restructuring is of great practical significance for optimizing the overall layout of strategic scientific and technological forces and enhancing the support capacity of basic research.

This study employs social network analysis, exploratory spatial analysis, configurational analysis (fsQCA), and necessary condition analysis (NCA). Social network analysis accurately depicts the strength of interconnections among state key laboratories using the weighted degree index. Exploratory spatial analysis intuitively illustrates the spatial correlation characteristics of state key laboratories and their various dimensions through the spatial visualization of quantitative data. NCA adopts the ceiling line approach to quantify the effect sizes and significance levels of antecedent variables as necessary conditions for the outcome variable, effectively compensating for the limitations associated with human judgment in configurational analysis. Configurational analysis relies on Boolean logic to examine the interactive (configurational) effects among multiple antecedent factors from the perspectives of consistency and coverage, thereby identifying the combinations of factors required to support the development of high-level state key laboratories.

(1) In terms of spatial distribution, state key laboratories exhibited a gradient pattern characterized by “strong in the east and weak in the west, with core agglomeration” both before and after the restructuring. The restructuring effectively optimized the overall layout and distribution scale by expanding the coverage of independent subjects in the central and western regions, increasing disciplinary diversity in underdeveloped regions, transforming the collaborative innovation network of jointy established subjects from a sparse structure characterized by “single-core dominance” into an integrated network featuring “core leadership and multipolar linkages, ” and significantly enhancing both spatial balance and collaborative innovation capacity. (2) In terms of necessary conditions, the necessary conditions and bottleneck structure underlying laboratory innovation underwent significant transformation, with the driving mechanism shifting from a factor input-driven model to a dual-driven model of institutional empowerment and knowledge innovation. In 2015, financial resources constituted the primary necessary condition, supported by traditional production factors. By 2025, the institutional environment had become the core necessary condition, the importance of knowledge creation capacity had increased substantially, and the synergy of the innovation system had been strengthened. (3) In terms of sufficient conditions, six configurational pathways driving the development of high-level state key laboratories were identified: the basic factor complementary type, the resource-led environment–capability synergy type, the environment-led resource-capability synergy type, the capability-led, resource–environment-driven type, the resource-led environment-driven type, and the comprehensive-driven type. Significant complementarity among antecedent factors was observed across all configurational pathways.

The high-quality development of state key laboratories can be promoted from four perspectives. First, at the spatial layout level, regional innovation resources should be optimized by balancing equitable distribution with core leadership. Second, at the dynamic mechanism level, innovation should be advanced through the dual drivers of institutional empowerment and knowledge innovation. Third, at the pathway design level, differentiated development strategies should be formulated based on the core principles of configurational optimization and regional adaptation. Fourth, at the collaborative development level, coordinated interprovincial development should be promoted through comprehensive support from an integrated system of development factors for state key laboratories.