重庆高教研究

籍贯是影响学术人才流动的关键要素，囿于方法和证据，相关研究长期缺位，难以为区域人才政策提供有效指导。基于中国33 080名大学的教师简历数据，系统探究籍贯对学术人才流动的影响机制及其区域差异。研究发现：(1)各地区人才在学业与职业阶段均呈现显著的回流籍贯地偏好，但区域差异显著。随着学历的提升，东部籍贯人才流向境外趋势明显，中西部与东北籍贯人才向东部聚集，职业阶段呈现“东部回流高位稳定，中西部加速回流，东北单向流失”的特征。(2)聚类分析揭示了学术人才在学业与工作阶段籍贯地留存率的4种模式：全周期高黏型、梯度回流型、缓降缓升型、持续外流型，印证了区域教育资源与经济发展水平的差异化牵引效应。(3)时间演化显示，东部籍贯人才各阶段回流比例下降，流动路径日益多样化；中西部籍贯人才呈现“离乡求学—返乡就业”模式，回流籍贯地工作的趋势愈发明显；东北地区陷入人才流失加剧的困境。(4)本科阶段区位选择具有显著的路径锁定效应，本科外出就读削弱籍贯地的影响，使后续流动更多受本科区位黏性驱动。研究部分突破“孔雀东南飞”的单向流动认知，揭示中西部人才回流的动态补偿机制，突出东北地区人才持续外流的危机，为优化区域人才政策提供实证依据。建议东部地区注重海外人才回流、中西部地区强化高等教育早期联结、边缘省份实施差异化引才策略、东北地区推动高等教育资源重组与产业协同，以缓解结构性人才失衡。

The place of origin is a critical determinant of academic talent mobility; however, due to methodological and evidentiary limitations, relevant research has long been absent, making it difficult to provide effective guidance for regional talent policies. Drawing on curriculum vitae data from 33,080 faculty members at China's universities, this study systematically examined the mechanisms through which place of origin shapes academic talent flows and their regional variations. The findings are as follows. First, at both the educational and occupational stages, talents from all regions exhibit a pronounced preference for returning to their place of origin, though with significant regional disparities. As educational attainment increases, individuals from eastern provinces are more likely to move abroad, while those from central, western, and northeastern provinces tend to concentrate in the east. At the occupational stage, the pattern is characterized by stable high-level return in the east, accelerated return in the central and western regions, and one-way outflow in the northeast. Second, cluster analysis identifies four distinct patterns of retention in one's place of origin during both study and employment: high-retention throughout the full career cycle, gradient return, slow decline-slow rise, and continuous outflow. These patterns confirm the differentiated pull effects of disparities in regional educational resources and economic development. Third, temporal analysis reveals that the return rate of eastern-origin talents at all stages has declined, with mobility paths becoming increasingly diverse. Central and western-origin talents tend to follow a study away from home-return for employment trajectory, with an intensifying trend of returning to work in their home region. In contrast, the northeast faces a worsening situation of sustained talent loss. Fourth, the location choice at the undergraduate stage exerts a significant path-locking effect: studying outside the place of origin weakens its subsequent influence, making later mobility more strongly driven by the stickiness of the undergraduate location. This study partially challenges the prevailing notion of “Peacocks flying southeast”—a metaphor for one-way talent flow to the east—by uncovering the dynamic compensatory mechanisms of talent return in the central and western regions, while highlighting the persistent outflow crisis in the northeast. The findings provide empirical evidence for optimizing regional talent policies. Accordingly, it is recommended that the eastern region focus on attracting overseas returnees, the central and western regions strengthen early-stage linkages in higher education, marginal provinces adopt differentiated talent recruitment strategies, and the northeast promote the restructuring of higher education resources and industrial coordination to alleviate structural talent imbalances.