Constraints, mechanisms, and strategies for industry-education integration in vocational education: An empirical study

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339158 December 18, 2025 14 / 18 obligations of vocational institutions and enterprises in IEI should be clearly defined to regulate their conduct while safe- guarding their interests. Second, an evaluation and assessment mechanism should be established to enable comprehen- sive, process-based management, supervision, and evaluation of vocational institutions’ efforts in advancing IEI, thereby increasing institutional commitment. Third, the government should introduce incentive policies, such as rewards and tax benefits, by formulating a clear list of measures for enterprise participation to encourage deeper engagement in IEI. 4.2. Vocational institution: Strengthening the foundation of university-enterprise collaboration The results indicate that weak prior collaboration between vocational institutions and enterprises is another major constraint. To facilitate healthy and sustainable development, vocational institutions should focus on establishing and con- solidating early-stage partnerships to deepen and solidify collaboration. vocational institutions can strengthen university- enterprise collaboration through the following approaches: First, they should proactively seek partnerships with industry-leading enterprises, engaging in joint research and development, curriculum design, work-integrated learning (e.g., internships), and other collaborative activities. Second, vocational institutions and enterprises should jointly establish

industry-academia-research innovation platforms to tackle key technological challenges, assisting enterprises in solving real-world technical problems. Third, vocational institutions should customize employee training and continuing education programs based on enterprise needs, enhancing workforce upskilling and supporting high-quality enterprise development. Table 6. Constraining pathways to IEI development in vocational education. No. Constraining pathway 1 The completeness of policies→The clarity of school-enterprise responsibilities and rights→IEI 2 The completeness of policies→The level of attention given by universities→The degree of teacher involvement→IEI 3 The completeness of policies→The level of attention given by universities→The fluidity of school-enterprise cooperation channels→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 4 The completeness of policies→The level of attention given by universities→The adequacy of hardware and software facilities→The align- ment of talent cultivation quality→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 5 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The degree of teacher involvement→IEI 6 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The effectiveness of school-enterprise communication→The degree of teacher involvement→IEI 7 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 8 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The fluidity of school-enterprise cooperation channels→The willingness of enter-

prises to cooperate→IEI 9 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The alignment of talent cultivation quality→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 10 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The effectiveness of school-enterprise communication→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 11 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The effectiveness of school-enterprise communication→The alignment of talent cultivation quality→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 12 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The effectiveness of school-enterprise communication→The differences in talent cultivation philosophies→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 13 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The effectiveness of school-enterprise communication→The fluidity of school-enterprise cooperation channels→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 14 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The effectiveness of school-enterprise communication→The achievement of school-enterprise mutual interests→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 15 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The effectiveness of school-enterprise communication→The differences in talent cultivation philosophies→The alignment of talent cultivation quality→The willingness of enterprises to cooperate→IEI 16 The closeness of prior university-enterprise collaboration→The effectiveness of school-enterprise communication→The clarity of school-

enterprise responsibilities and rights→IEI https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339158.t006

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339158 December 18, 2025 15 / 18 4.3. Enterprise: Proactively assuming educational responsibilities The findings also suggest that weak enterprise willingness to collaborate is a direct constraint, primarily due to unmet expectations regarding benefits. Thus, enterprises should move beyond a purely profit-driven mindset, recognize the long-term value of IEI, and actively contribute to educational development by fostering a corporate culture conducive to deeper collaboration. First, enterprises should engage in collaborative talent development, such as co-establishing modern industrial colleges with vocational institutions to cultivate high-quality applied talent. To address cost concerns that may hinder enterprise participation, a clear cost-sharing framework could be adopted: enterprises may primarily invest in industry-relevant equipment, on-site training venues, and part-time enterprise instructors, while vocational institutions take charge of curriculum design, full-time faculty allocation, and daily operation management. This division balances resource input and aligns with each party’s core strengths. Additionally, enterprises should leverage policy incentive support—such as applying for government subsidies for industry-education integration projects or tax deductions for educational invest- ments—to offset partial costs, thereby enhancing the economic feasibility of joint modern industrial college establishment.

They should also provide in-service training and continuous education to ensure employees’ skills remain aligned with industry advancements. Second, enterprises should contribute educational resources, such as instructors, equipment, and training bases, to enhance students’ practical skills while improving resource utilization efficiency. Third, enterprises should encourage employees to participate in vocational institution teaching and student mentoring, strengthening corpo- rate social responsibility while enhancing employees’ professional and leadership competencies. 5. Conclusions IEI is a critical strategic measure for advancing vocational education development. However, with the acceleration of industrial upgrading and technological transformation, the mismatch between traditional talent cultivation models and mar- ket demands has become increasingly prominent, necessitating an in-depth clarification of the constraints hindering IEI in vocational education. Therefore, this study takes Shenzhen, China, as an empirical case to systematically explore the constraints, mechanisms, and strategies for IEI in vocational education. The findings reveal 12 constraining factors, cat- egorized into five hierarchical levels, forming 16 constraining pathways. Specifically, imperfect policies and weak prelimi- nary industry-education collaboration are identified as deep-rooted factors. These influence intermediate factors such as institutional commitment and communication effectiveness, ultimately manifesting as surface-level issues, including insuffi-

cient corporate engagement and ambiguous rights-responsibility allocation between stakeholders. Notably, corporate will- ingness to participate is affected by nine distinct pathways, emerging as the core bottleneck impeding IEI implementation. In summary, this study’s primary contribution lies in its empirical identification of a multi-level constraint system for IEI, with corporate participation as the central barrier. A key innovation is the precise revelation of 16 influencing pathways, which systematically uncovers the underlying mechanisms—from policy and foundational collaboration to intermediate linkages and final outcomes—thereby providing a comprehensive theoretical basis for formulating targeted promotion strategies. To effectively promote IEI in vocational education, collaborative efforts from the government, vocational institutions, and enterprises are essential. The government should strengthen institutional safeguards, vocational institutions must consoli- date the foundation for industry collaboration, and enterprises ought to actively fulfill their educational responsibilities. However, this study has limitations. It focuses exclusively on Shenzhen, China, a global manufacturing hub and national educational reform pilot with unique industrial agglomeration, such as high-tech and advanced manufacturing, and policy support, which may restrict the generalizability of findings to regions with different economic structures or institutional environments. Additionally, it neglects sectoral variations in IEI: manufacturing, including electronics and

automotive parts, relies on formalized, equipment-intensive IEI models, such as long-term internships, while construction prioritizes project-based, flexible collaborations, leading to heterogeneous impacts of identified constraints. For exam- ple, policy clarity is more critical for manufacturing, while communication effectiveness is more important for construc- tion. Future research can address these limitations by: 1) expanding to cross-regional or cross-country comparisons, for

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339158 December 18, 2025 16 / 18 instance, comparing Shenzhen with Guangzhou, or China with Germany’s dual-system, to test constraint mechanism generalizability; 2) conducting industry-specific studies, such as optimizing equipment-sharing policies for manufacturing, designing stable contracts for construction, and exploring skill mismatch in service sectors like healthcare; and 3) integrat- ing mixed methods, including quantitative surveys across sectors and qualitative longitudinal enterprise cases, to refine constraint pathways, thereby providing a more context-aware understanding of IEI development. Supporting information S1 Text. Score statistics of potential constraining factors. (DOCX) S2 Text. Demographic information of the interviewees. (DOCX) Author contributions Conceptualization: Bo Yu. Data curation: Chun Xu. Formal analysis: Siyuan Zhang, Peng Mao. Funding acquisition: Jing Shi. Investigation: Bo Yu, Siyuan Zhang, Jing Shi, Gang Wu. Methodology: Bo Yu. Project administration: Ruipu Li. Resources: Ruipu Li, Peng Mao, Chun Xu, Jing Shi, Gang Wu. Software: Siyuan Zhang. Validation: Peng Mao. Visualization: Chun Xu. Writing – original draft: Bo Yu. Writing – review & editing: Ruipu Li, Gang Wu. References 1. Lin H, Nie S, Wu P, Yuan M, Yu M, Tam V. Megaproject responsible innovation: Concept, framework, and governance. Front Eng Manag. 2025;12(3):653–68. 2. Yu C, Jin H. Labor agglomeration, industrial structure upgrading and low-carbon economic development. Financ Res Lett. 2025;74:106703.

3. Dai L, Martins PS. Does vocational education pay off in China? Evidence from city-level education supply shocks. Econ Model. 2024;140:106863. 4. Yasdin Y, Parenrengi S, Hasriani H, Mahande RD. Policies and politics development of vocational education in Indonesia: a historical perspective. Asian Educ Dev Stud. 2023;12, 297–309. 5. Kemper J, Renold U. Evaluating the impact of general versus vocational education on labor market outcomes in Egypt by means of a regression discontinuity design. J Dev Econ. 2024;166:103172. 6. Li H. Evaluation system of vocational education construction in China based on linked TOPSIS analysis. Heliyon. 2024;10(21):e39369. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39369 PMID: 39524852 7. He Z, Chen L, Zhu L. A study of Inter-Technology Information Management (ITIM) system for industry-education integration. Heliyon. 2023;9(9):e19928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19928 PMID: 37809836 8. Gong X. Performance evaluation of industry-education integration in higher education from the perspective of coupling coordination-an empirical study based on Chongqing. PLoS One. 2024;19(9):e0308572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308572 PMID: 39292678

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339158 December 18, 2025 17 / 18 9. Li Y, Hsu W-L, Zhang Y. Evaluation Study on the Ecosystem Governance of Industry–Education Integration Platform in China. Sustainability. 2022;14(20):13208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013208 10. Shou S, Li Y. Exploring the collaborative innovation operational model of government-industry-education synergy: a case study of BYD in China. Asian J Technol Innov. 2024;33(2):389–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2024.2366883 11. Xia J. Research on the impact of the construction of “blockchain industry education integrated enterprise” on alleviating the anxiety of college students. Psychiat Danub. 2022;34:S1080–4. 12. Cohen M, Fernandes G, Godinho P. Inhibiting Factors of R&D Impacts: The Achilles’ Heel of University-Industry Collaborations. Procedia Comput Sci. 2025;256:1805–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.321 13. Liu J. Inducing factors and coping strategies for insufficient enterprise motivation in University-Industry Collaboration (UIC). Acta Psychol (Amst). 2025;256:105034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105034 PMID: 40280021 14. Zhang Y, Zhu Y. Integration and sharing mechanism of vocational education resources from the perspective of industry-education integration. Mob Inf Syst. 2022;2022:6595912. 15. Dolce MC, Parker JL, Bhalla P, Anderson C. A Cooperative Education Model for Promoting Oral Health and Primary Care Integration within a

Health Care for the Homeless Program. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2018;29(2):591–600. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2018.0043 PMID: 29805125 16. Fleckenstein T, Lee SC, Mohun Himmelweit S. Dualisation, education and the knowledge economy: Comparing Germany and South Korea. Soc Policy Adm. 2023;57(2):158–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12896 17. Gessler M. Educational transfer as transformation: A case study about the emergence and implementation of dual apprenticeship structures in a German automotive transplant in the United States. Vocat Learn. 2017;10(1):71–99. 18. Thompson S. A vocational stream for social care workers: A case study. Aust J Adult Learn. 2020;60(1):22–43. 19. Cheng C, Cheng S, Feng C. The Triple Helix Model for Industry-Education City Integration in China: A Development Approach. Sage Open. 2024;14(2):392–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241250111 20. Shin DE, Chang J. A Case Study of Training Packages Policy in Australia: Practical implications for NCS-based vocational education in Korea. J Corp Educ Talent Res. 2019;21(2):1–27. https://doi.org/10.46260/kslp.21.2.1 21. Hong L. Challenges in application of German higher vocational education mechanism in Chinese school-enterprises. Rev Psicol Deporte. 2020;29(4):115–25. 22. Li F, Li J. Analysis on the role of industry participation in promoting industry-education integration models in vocational education: A case study of water conservancy vocational colleges. Vocat Tech Educ Forum. 2016;35:45–8. in Chinese.

23. Liefner I, Si Y, Schäfer K. A latecomer firm’s R&D collaboration with advanced country universities and research institutes: The case of Huawei in Germany. Technovation. 2019;86–87:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.03.002 24. Hemmert M, Bstieler L, Okamuro H. Bridging the cultural divide: Trust formation in university–industry research collaborations in the US, Japan, and South Korea. Technovation. 2014;34(10):605–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.04.006 25. Motoyama Y. Long-term collaboration between university and industry: A case study of nanotechnology development in Japan. Technol Soc. 2014;36:39–51. 26. Chen Z, Zhang W, Li L, He M, Wang J. Evaluation of urban industry-education integration based on improved fuzzy linguistic approach. Math Probl Eng. 2021. https://doi.org/6610367 27. Qi Y, Feng W. The effectiveness evaluation of industry education integration model for applied universities under back propagation neural network. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):5597. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-90030-2 PMID: 39955365 28. Lu J. New paradigm of rural revitalization talent cultivation based on the perspective of industry-education integration. Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2020;126:430–430. 29. Laine K, Leino K, Pulkkinen P. Open innovation between higher education and industry. J Knowl Econ. 2015;3:589–610. 30. Whittle J, Hutchinson J. Mismatches between industry practice and teaching of model-driven software development. Mod Softw Eng. 2011. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29645-1_6

31. Ren J, Wu Q, Han Z, Gong K, Wang D. Research on the education of industry-education integration for geological majors. Educ Sci Theory Pract. 2019;18(5):1315–22. 32. Pan H, Zhang X. Study on measuring the development level of industry-education integration in provincial education. Mod Educ Manag. 2024;12:77–87. 33. Thune T. Success factors in higher education-industry collaboration: A case study of collaboration in the engineering field. Tert Educ Manag. 2011;17(1):31–50. 34. Zheng W, Zheng X, Zhu X. Promoting integration of industry and vocational education: Exploring stakeholder intentions of hydrogen energy indus- try. International J Hydrogen Energy. 2024;52:454–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.06.072

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339158 December 18, 2025 18 / 18 35. Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Opinions of the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council on deepening reforms and innovation and expanding openness through the comprehensive reform pilot in Shenzhen. 2024. Available from: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/202506/content_7027178.htm 36. Chen X, Xue S, Yang T, Yang Q. Research on influencing factors of line loss rate of regional distribution network based on apriori-interpretative structural model. Energy Reports. 2022;8:53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.048 37. Santana WB, Pereira LM, Freires FGM, Maues LMF. Analysis of the barriers to the adoption of green buildings labels in Brazil by the validated interpretative structural modeling (VISM) technique. J Clean Prod. 2023;414:137642. 38. Yu B, Wang J, Li R, Wang Q, Wu H, Xu X, et al. Unveiling the NIMBY effect in construction and demolition waste landfilling: Factors, paths, and solutions. J Environ Manage. 2024;366:121925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121925 PMID: 39029167 39. Liu Y, Houwing EJ, Hertogh M, Bakker H. Project-based learning principles: Insights from the development of large infrastructure. Front Eng Manag. 2024;11(3):501–15. 40. Liu H, Zhou Y, Tan Y, Xiong L, Mao P. A novel dynamic model for evaluating metro microenvironmental health vulnerability based on deep learning. Comput Ind Eng. 2025;205:111162.

41. Wang Y, Yu Y, Xu T, Wang Z, Fang Y. Interpretative structural modeling method: An analysis of influencing factors analysis on the adverse expe- riences of cardiac surgery patients in the intensive care units. Heliyon. 2024;10(17):e36511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36511 PMID: 39281500 42. Kang Y, Liu R, Yang B. Bridging the ivory tower and industry: How do university science parks promote university-industry collaboration? Res Pol- icy. 2025;54(6):105241. 43. Li X, Tan J. Exploring the role of university-run enterprises in technology transfer from Chinese universities. Manage Organ Rev. 2020;16:907–43. 44. Cai Y. Towards a new model of EU-China innovation cooperation: Bridging missing links between international university collaboration and interna- tional industry collaboration. Technovation. 2023;119:102553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102553 45. Woerter M. Technology proximity between firms and universities and technology transfer. J Technol Transf. 2011;37(6):828–66. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10961-011-9207-x 46. Evans N, Miklosik A, Du JT. University-industry collaboration as a driver of digital transformation: Types, benefits and enablers. Heliyon. 2023;9(10):e21017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21017 PMID: 37867890 47. Bstieler L, Hemmert M, Barczak G. The changing bases of mutual trust formation in inter-organizational relationships: A dyadic study of university- industry research collaborations. J Bus Res. 2017;74:47–54.

48. Chai S, Shih W. Bridging science and technology through academic–industry partnerships. Res Policy. 2016;45(1):148–58. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.007 49. Nsanzumuhire SU, Groot W. Context perspective on university-industry collaboration processes: A systematic review of literature. J Clean Prod. 2020;258:120861. 50. Zaharia N. University-Industry Knowledge Transfer: Channels of Sport Research Interaction. Int J Biometrics. 2017;12(9):1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ ijbm.v12n9p1 51. Sumrit D, Jongprasittiphol O. Exploring barriers in supply chain disaster management using fuzzy total interpretative structure modeling approach: Insight from Thai automotive industry. Asia Pacific Management Review. 2024;29(1):84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2023.06.001 52. Wang H, Li J, Mao P. Identifying factors influencing energy saving cognition-behavior gaps in shared residential spaces using interpretable machine learning: A dormitory case study. J Build Eng. 2025;100:111809. 53. Zaidi SAH, Shahbaz M, Hou F, Abbas Q. Sustainability challenges in public health sector procurement: An application of interpretative structural modelling. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 2021;77:101028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2021.101028 54. Li G, Wu X, Han J-C, Li B, Huang Y, Wang Y. Flood risk assessment by using an interpretative structural modeling based Bayesian net- work approach (ISM-BN): An urban-level analysis of Shenzhen, China. J Environ Manage. 2023;329:117040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen- vman.2022.117040 PMID: 36535147